06.BA250027 BOA Report

Maricopa County — Board of Adjustment (2025-06-19)

Extracted text (via pymupdf) 18481 characters

Report to the Board of Adjustment
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case:
BA250027 – Chavez Property
Hearing Date:
June 19, 2025
Supervisor District:
5
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Applicants / Owners:
Manuel & Rosa Chavez
Request:
Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance to permit:
1)
Proposed lot width of 136’ where 145’ is the minimum permitted per
MCZO Article 503.5.2
Site Location:
APN 300-11-039A @ 9600 S. 37th Ave. in the Laveen area
Site Size:
45,085 sq. ft.
Current Use / Zoning:
Vacant / Rural-43
Open Violation:
V202101445
Background:
1.
December 14, 1983: A Joint Tenancy Deed (1983-0500636) was recorded and granted to Larry
and Jackie Trujillo for Parcel 300-11-039.
2.
March 5, 1985: A Joint Tenancy Deed (1985-0095142) was recorded and granted to Larry and
Jackie Trujillo for Parcel 300-11-039B. This deed was the first indication that the parent parcel
was split. Parcels 300-11-039A (the subject parcel) and 300-11-039B were created at this time by
an unregulated land division. At the time, no deed was recorded with a legal description
corresponding with Parcel 300-11-039A (the subject parcel).
3.
April 24, 2000: Two deeds were recorded: a Joint Tenancy Deed (2000-0313476) with a minor
correction to the legal description for Parcel 300-11-039B; and a Warranty Deed (2000-0313477)
granting Parcel 300-11-039A to Michael and Audra Trujillo. The latter was the first known deed to
feature a legal description corresponding with the subject parcel.
4.
October 21, 2020: The current owners, Manuel and Rosa Chavez, were granted a Warranty Deed
(2020-1013351) to the subject parcel.
5.
August 12, 2021: A code violation (V202101445) is opened on the subject parcel for construction
without permits or clearances, altering natural flows. However, dirt stockpiles have appeared on
the site as early as 1991, with grading appearing as early as 1976, per historical aerial
photographs published by Maricopa County.
6.
April 22, 2025: The property owners submitted the subject variance request.

Page 2 of 9
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use:
7.
On-site:
Rural-43 / Vacant
North:
Rural-43 / Single-family residence and ancillary agricultural uses
South:
Rural-43 / Mostly vacant, then a single-family residence
East:
Rural-43 / Mostly vacant, plus an unpermitted storage compound
West:
Rural-43 / Single-family residence and an unpermitted storage yard
Variance Request:
8.
The property owners are requesting a variance to Article 503.5.2 of the Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance (MCZO) to permit a lot width of 136.36’ on Parcel 300-11-039A, where 145’ is the
minimum required in the Rural-43 zoning district. The owners are proposing to build a single-
family residence on the property, although no building permit application has yet been submitted.
Excerpt from Proposed Site Plan

Page 3 of 9
Site Analysis:
9.
The parcel is located within a lot-split area in the northern foothills of Carver Mountain. The parcel
slopes gently downward toward the north, so it is not considered a hillside lot as defined by MCZO
Section 1201. The property is bounded to the south and east by ingress/egress easements. The
easement along the south lot line corresponds with the southernmost 20’ of Parcels 300-11-039A
and 300-11-039B and was officially recorded per MCR 1986-0610262. The MCR number for the
easement along the east lot line is unknown, although it does not appear to encumber upon the
property.
10.
The subject parcel’s south lot line is considered the front, as it is the shortest with street frontage,
whereas its east lot line is considered the street side. The required 40’ front yard setback is
measured from the easement line, or 60’ from the south lot line. The required 20’ street side
setback is measured from the east lot line, as the easement is entirely opposite the lot line. Staff
notes that the site plan shows the front setback measured from the south lot line instead of the
parallel easement. It also shows the east side setback measuring 30’ instead of 20’ (as though it
were an interior side setback). The proposed residence is shown 40’ from the south lot line and
only 20’ from the parallel easement. Staff offered two options to the owner: to request a variance
of the front yard setback from 40’ to 20’, or to relocate the residence at least 20’ further north
upon application for a building permit. The owner responded that adhering to the existing required
setbacks should be feasible and he will keep his request only for the lot width. A copy of staff’s
correspondence with the owner has been attached to this report.
11.
When the subject parcel was split from its western neighbor circa 1985, it was left with a
substandard lot width of 136.36’. The subject lot is the result of poor lot-splitting practice with an
unregulated land division. The neighboring parcel was subsequently developed with a single-
family residence with an unpermitted storage yard as an accessory use (such unpermitted uses
appear to be common in the southwest quarter of T1S / R2E / 10 – west of 39th Ave., east of 43rd
Ave., south of the Olney Ave. alignment, and north of Carver Mountain). The subject property has
remained vacant since the lot split. However, historical aerial photographs published by Maricopa
County have shown grading onsite as early as 1976, with dirt stockpiles appearing as early as
1991. A code violation was opened in 2021 due to citizen complaint shortly after the current
owners took possession of the property. If the BOA approves this variance request, development
of the site with a single-family residence would likely resolve the violation, as the grading and
drainage work required would likely eliminate the stockpiles and/or be addressed with any
approved and completed permit.
12.
On a minor note, the easement along the south lot line appears on maps as Sunrise Drive, whereas
the easement along the east lot line appears on some maps as 40th Drive and on other maps as
an extension of Sunrise Drive. However, the parcel is currently addressed off 37th Avenue. This
has been confirmed both by the Assessor’s Office and by the Planning & Development
Department’s Addressing Division.

Page 4 of 9
1976 Historical Aerial Image of the Subject Site
1991 Historical Aerial Image of the Subject Site

Page 5 of 9
2025 Aerial Image of Subject Site
2025 Aerial Image of Surrounding Environs

Page 6 of 9
Eagle View of Subject Site Looking North (dated January 13, 2024)
Zoning District Map (Subject Parcel in Red)

Page 7 of 9
Zoning District Standards:
13.
The following table is included to illustrate and contrast the standards for the underlying zoning
district with those proposed by the owner (proposed changes to standards are indicated in bold).
Standard
Rural-43
Zoning
District
Proposed with
Variance
Min. Front Setback (residence to south property line)
40-feet
40-feet
Min. Rear Setback (residence to north property line)
40-feet
40-feet
Min. Street Side Setback (residence to east property line)
20-feet
20-feet
Min. Interior Side Setback (residence to west property line)
30-feet
30-feet
Maximum Height
30-feet
30-feet
Minimum Lot Area
43,560-sq. ft.
45,085-sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width
145-feet
136-feet
Lot Coverage
25%
12.2%
State Statute / County Zoning Ordinance Tests - ARS § 11-816.B.2 and MCZO Article 303.2.2 states the
Board of Adjustment may, “Allow a variance from the terms of the ordinance if, owing to peculiar
conditions, a strict interpretation would work an unnecessary hardship and if in granting the variance the
general intent and purposes of the zoning ordinance will be preserved.”
14.
Statutory Test 1 – Does the applicant’s property contain any peculiar condition – Discuss and
explain the peculiar conditions facing the property and include reference to the Maricopa County
Zoning Ordinance Regulations or Development Standards to be varied.
“We petition a variance to the code where to build a home will need a minimum of 145 Ft wide lot.
Our lot is only 136.36 ft wide. We purchased this lot like this. We were not aware of the 145 ft
minimum size to build a home.”
15.
Statutory Test 2 – Does applying the requirements of the Ordinance to the applicant’s property
create an Unnecessary Hardship – Explain how the peculiar condition identified in #1 causes an
unnecessary hardship to the property when the requirements of the Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance are applied. Explain how the peculiar condition of the property came to be and whether
the condition was created by the applicant or someone in the property’s line of title. Explain the
proposed use of the property with the variance request. Identify and explain all peculiar conditions
on your property in regard to the following areas: slope, narrowness, shallowness, irregular shape,
location, washes, vegetation, and easements, etc. Explain how enforcement of the Zoning
Regulations or Development Standards would impose a hardship on the property.
“If we are not allowed to build this lot is rendered useless and we just paying taxes on the property
for no reason.”
16.
Statutory Test 3 – General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning Ordinance – Discuss the purpose
of the zoning requirement from which the variance is being sought. Then, discuss and explain
how, provided statutory tests #1 and #2 are satisfied, the granting of the requested variance
would preserve the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.

Page 8 of 9
“This lot is zoned R-43. We just intend to build one home, this lot is short only 8.64 ft in width. The
dept is fine and also the square footage at 44963 Square ft.”
Findings:
17.
The applicant has the burden of proving to the Board that, in accordance with the standard set
forth in ARS §11-816.B.2 and MCZO Article 303.2.2, the property requires a variance. To grant the
relief, the applicant must prove, and the Board must find and identify, a physical condition of the
applicant’s property that is peculiar and not common to the area or the universe of the zoning
district. Also, any such peculiarity must not have been created either by the applicant or anyone
in the chain of title. If the Board determines that there is no such peculiar physical condition, its
inquiry stops, and the application must be denied.
If the Board identifies a peculiar physical condition of the applicant’s property which is not self-
imposed, then the applicant must prove, and the Board must find and identify, an unnecessary
hardship imposed upon the property due to the strict application of the requirements of the zoning
ordinance which the applicant wishes to have varied such that there is no viable use of the
property without the variance.
If the Board identifies a peculiar physical condition of the property which is not self-imposed, and
that in applying the requirements of the zoning ordinance to the property, because of the peculiar
physical condition, an unnecessary hardship exists, the applicant must prove, and the Board must
find and identify, how the granting of the variance will preserve the general intent and purpose of
the zoning ordinance.
In order to approve the variance, the Board must make findings and articulate them in motion
memorializing the above.
18.
Based upon what the applicant has submitted and the staff analysis in this report, staff offers the
following positive and/or negative observations the Board may consider in its findings:
•
Staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition facing the property. Typical for most Rural-
43 properties, the subject parcel is rectangular in shape, gentle in slope, and not
encumbered by hillside or areas of floodplain.
•
Staff is unable to identify an undue hardship created by the enforcement of the MCZO.
The substandard lot width, though not created by the current owners, was created in the
direct line of title because of poor lot-splitting practice with an unregulated land division.
The substandard lot was avoidable and the need for variance could have been avoided
had more care been taken in the splitting of the parent parcel (or if the parcel had not been
split at all).
•
In correspondence with the Planner, the owner of the subject parcel confirmed that he had
contacted the owner of the sibling parcel regarding the possibility of purchasing the
latter’s easternmost 15’, which is effectively not in use. This would have increased the lot
width of the subject parcel to 151.36’, bringing it into conformance with the Rural-43
development standards and negating the need for variance. The sibling parcel would have
shrunk to a width of 178.88’, continuing to meet Rural-43 standards. However, the owner
of the sibling parcel was unwilling to sell any land.
19.
And further, if the Board finds the applicant has satisfied the statutory test, and has stated its
findings on the record, the grant of this variance will memorialize the following:

Page 9 of 9
a)
Variance approval establishes a 136’ lot width for APN 300-11-039A
Presented by:
Nick Schlimm, Planner
Reviewed by:
Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager
Attachments:
Case Map (1 page)
Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages)
Site Plan (4 pages)
Correspondence with the Applicant / Property Owner (2 pages)

/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
5
Gross Acres: 1 approx.
Generated May 29, 2025 9:34 AM
BA250027
Application Name:
Legal Description
Sunrise Home
Applicant
Case Address
1S 2E 10
MANUEL/ ROSA CHAVEZ
9600 S 37TH AVE
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:300-11-039A
(480) 229-3842
chavezm1969@gmail.com
LAVEEN, AZ 85339
Map scale 1:814
Supervisor District No.
Variance to allow to build a home on a lot that does not meet the with requirement.

GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN
9600 S 37TH AVENUE
LAVEEN, ARIZONA 85339
PROJECT:
DATE ISSUED:
DRAWN BY:
T
S
H
E
E
CHECKED BY:
SHEET DESCRIPTION:
OWNER:
email: thoschleb@hotmail.com
PH: 623-341-3580
CIVIL ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS
TOPCAT
ENGINEERING
2
G1
GRADING & DRAINAGE
PLAN
TJC
CHAVEZ RESIDENCE
3/25/22
TJC
9600 S 37TH AVE LAVEEN 85339
APN: 300-11-039A
CHAVEZ MANUEL/ROSA
9600 S 37TH AVE LAVEEN 85339

A
C2
A
C-2
PROJECT:
DATE ISSUED:
DRAWN BY:
T
S
H
E
E
CHECKED BY:
SHEET DESCRIPTION:
OWNER:
email: thoschleb@hotmail.com
PH: 623-341-3580
CIVIL ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS
TOPCAT
ENGINEERING
2
G3
GRADING & DRAINAGE
PLAN
TJC
CHAVEZ RESIDENCE
03/25/22
TJC
9600 S 37TH AVE LAVEEN 85339
APN: 300-11-039A
CHAVEZ MANUEL/ROSA
9600 S 37TH AVE LAVEEN 85339
NOT TO
SCALE

A
C2
A
C-2
PROJECT:
DATE ISSUED:
DRAWN BY:
T
S
H
E
E
CHECKED BY:
SHEET DESCRIPTION:
OWNER:
email: thoschleb@hotmail.com
PH: 623-341-3580
CIVIL ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS
TOPCAT
ENGINEERING
2
G2
GRADING & DRAINAGE
PLAN
TJC
CHAVEZ RESIDENCE
03/25/22
TJC
9600 S 37TH AVE LAVEEN 85339
APN: 300-11-039A
CHAVEZ MANUEL/ROSA
9600 S 37TH AVE LAVEEN 85339

1
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
From:
Manuel Chavez <chavezm1969@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, June 4, 2025 10:22 PM
To:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Re: BA250027 Variance
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Thank you for reaching out.
I think we can work with those setbacks.
We are just looking for the variance to be able to build with the narrower lot.
We tried buying from our neighbor, even though he has 15 feet on the east side of his property that he
does not use,
He didn't want to sell.

Thank you again.

On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 10:29 AM Nicholas Schlimm (PND) <Nicholas.Schlimm@maricopa.gov> wrote:
Good morning, Manuel,

I wanted to follow up with you regarding your variance request. Your site plan shows that your residence
would be located 40’ from the south (front) lot line. While 40’ is the standard front setback, I should note
that, when there is an ingress/egress easement within the property lines (as there is here), the setback
needs to be measured from the easement line rather than the property line. Since this is a 20’
easement, this would bring the residence to only a 20’ front setback.

We can certainly run your case as a request for two variances: one to reduce the lot width to 136.36’,
and one to reduce the front setback to 20’. This will require an additional $50 Planning fee. If you would
like to request an additional variance, please send me an email confirming, together with an updated
supplemental questionnaire requesting both variances. I can then invoice the additional fee, which
should enable payment from your Permit Center account.

However, it appears from your site plan that there is room on the property for locating the residence 20’
further north. This would put the residence, at its nearest, 40’ from the easement boundary (60’ from the
south lot line), which would meet Rural-43 requirements. In this case, no setback variance would be
necessary, and we could continue running the current variance just for the lot width.

Please let me know whether you would like to include the front setback variance to 20’ or if you believe it
would be feasible to relocate the residence 20’ further north. If you would be able to relocate the
residence, I won’t need an updated site plan (I can just make a note of it in the staff report), but you
would certainly be welcome to send me one – I would just need it no later than Tuesday, June 10th, as we
print our staff reports the next day. I’ll also note that, since there’s an easement opposite your east lot
line, your setback from the east lot line is only 20’ (instead of 30’). I can also make note of this in the
staff report.

As always, please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Nick Schlimm
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
301 W. Jefferson St. #170 Phoenix, AZ 85003
Planner
O: 602-506-0031
MARICOPA.GOV
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube

--
Thank You
Manuel Chavez
480 229 3842