09.BA250031 BOA Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
18100 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case:
BA250031 – Bender Residence
Hearing Date:
June 19, 2025
Supervisor District:
2
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Applicant:
Richard Bender
Property Owner:
The RAB Family Trust
Requests:
Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance to permit:
1)
Proposed west side setback of 0’ where 5’ is the minimum permitted per
MCZO Article 702.4.2.
2)
Proposed south rear yard setback of 8’ where 20’ is the minimum
permitted per MCZO Article 702.4.3
3)
Proposed lot coverage of 70% where 65% is the maximum permitted per
the Z76-53 RUPD.
Site Location:
APN 219-43-607 @ 25446 N. Danny Ln. – Forest Rd. and McDowell
Mountain Rd., in the Rio Verde area
Site Size:
3,269 sq. ft.
Current Use / Zoning:
Attached single-family residence / R-3 RUPD
Background:
1.
June 1, 1979: The Rio Verde Unit Four subdivision plat was recorded that created the subject site
identified as Lot 384 (MCR # 212-08).
2.
1981: The home was built (Building Permit #81-2046).
3.
February 25, 2020: The current owner took possession of the subject property.
4.
April 25, 2025: The applicant applied for this variance request.
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use:
5.
On-site:
R-3 RUPD / Attached residence
North:
Danny Ln. then C-2 CUPD / House of worship
South:
R-3 RUPD / Golf course
East:
R-3 RUPD / Attached residence
West:
R-3 RUPD / Landscape tract (Tract ‘A’) then attached residences
Page 2 of 8
Variance Request:
6.
The applicant is proposing to add a new 280 sq. ft. golf cart garage/storage room on the west
side of a 1,980.65 sq. ft. existing residence. Additionally, the applicant is requesting to add a 60
sq. ft. open trellis patio that will have a less than 50% open roof. Since this is the case the County
determines that these types of open roofed structures contribute to only half their roof area when
calculating lot coverage (DD-2021-01). To accomplish this the applicant is requesting to eliminate
the 5’ wide west side yard of the lot in the R-3 RUPD zoning district. One benefit of this request is
that this part of the lot is adjacent to a 15’ wide landscape tract plus a 5’ side yard on the adjacent
lot, which creates 20’ separation between the two residences if this variance is approved.
Additionally, another request is to memorialize the encroachment of the existing rear patio cover
into the lot’s rear yard from the required 20’ to 8’ that was built before January 1, 2000. With the
proposed home additions on this parcel the total lot coverage increases from 60% to 70%. Since
the maximum lot coverage in this zoning district is 65% the property owner is requesting an
additional variance request to increase the maximum lot coverage to 70%. This increase would
be hardly noticeable from the neighboring properties especially with the adjacent open space
west and south of the subject residence.
Excerpt from proposed site plan
Page 3 of 8
Photographs of subject site provided by the applicant. Proposed location for golf cart/storage.
Site Analysis:
7.
The subject lot is within a fully developed subdivision next to a 15’ wide landscape tract to the
west of the home and a golf course to the south. The residence is located on a 30’ wide private
frontage road of Danny Ln. The topography of the site is relatively flat in area with slight
undulating land. This proposal was approved by the Rio Verde Homeowner’s Association, but the
Association stated that they still need a review by the County. Staff believe that these variance
requests will not negatively affect the surrounding property owners.
Page 4 of 8
Architectural Elevations
Aerial photos of subject site
Page 5 of 8
Page 6 of 8
Zoning District map
Zoning District Standards:
8.
The following table is included to illustrate and contrast the standards for the underlying zoning
district with those proposed by the owner (Note: changes to proposed standards are indicated in
bold).
Standard
R-3 RUPD
Zoning
District
Proposed with
Variance
Min. Front Yard Setback (residence to north property line)
0-feet
0-feet
Min. Rear Yard Setback (residence to south property line)
20-feet
8-feet
Min. Side Yard Setback (residence to west property line)
5-feet
0-feet
Min. Side Yard Setback (residence to east property line)
0-feet
0-feet
Maximum Height
40-feet
10-feet
Minimum Lot Area
1,560-sq. ft.
3,269-sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width
26-feet
38.14-feet
Lot Coverage
65%
70%
Note: Standards indicated in bold do not meet base zoning standards
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.”
9.
Statutory Test -1 Does the applicant’s property contain any peculiar condition– Discuss and
explain what is/are the peculiar conditions facing the property and include reference to the
Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulations or Development Standards to be varied.
“The lot in question is very narrow site, with limited area for expansion between setbacks.’ ‘The
residence extends from the front to rear setbacks of the site.’ ‘The home has an attached duplex
Page 7 of 8
to the south, the only possible area for an addition is to the northeast over the existing 5’ side
setback and forward to the front property line which is approximate 4’-6” feet from the front of
the home.”
10.
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 that 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.
“We have very limited area to store items on the property.’ ‘Currently we have a carport, which we
intend on enclosing with the addition.”
11.
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.
“The addition would not impose on the community neighborhood look but improve it.’ ‘We have
met/submitted to the Rio Verde HOA and have gained a positive response.’ ‘This is due to the fact
that only 3/14 duplexes remain without an enclosed garage.’ ‘ We are at a prominent location in the
community and the addition is favored.’ ‘In addition, to the north of the subject property lays a 15'.’
‘As for applications, we have submitted to the Rio Verde HOA Committee Hearing in February 27th,
2025.’ ‘ There full approve was conditional on your review, Maricopa Zoning/Variance, which we
hope to have in April.’ ‘We then will submit to the Building Department for review and hope to have
a Building Permit by June. As for construction, the estimate is July to end of August.”
Findings:
12.
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
Page 8 of 8
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.
13.
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:
a)
The lot is small with only the western part of the lot inside the required side yard or the
southern portion of the lot inside the required rear yard as the only viable options for
expansion of the home’s footprint.
b)
The lot is located next to a 15’ wide landscape tract that’s next to another lot with a 5’ side
yard, even with the elimination of the west side yard there is still 20’ between the two
homes with 15’ of undevelopable land. Additionally, the proposed golf cart garage and
attached lattice patio cover will not take up the entire 315 sq. ft. side yard. Thus,
eliminating the lot’s side yard would create a minimal impact to this neighborhood of
attached dwelling units.
c)
The lot is located adjacent to a golf course to the south and the existing attached patio of
the home has been there since the home was built in the early 1980s , so reducing the rear
yard to 8’ would not be noticeable nor negatively impact the surrounding area.
d)
The increase of lot/yard coverage would be hardly noticeable to the neighborhood since
there is an undevelopable landscape tract, open golf course, and a wide landscaped street
adjacent to this lot.
e)
According to the applicant, the community’s HOA is in favor of the proposed home
expansion since the carport will be enclosed and the expansion will abide by the
community’s architectural guidelines.
14.
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:
a)
Variance approval establishes a 0’ west setback line adjacent to the landscape tract for
APN 219-43-607.
b)
Variance approval establishes an 8’ south setback line adjacent to the golf course for APN
219-43-607 to memorialize an existing attached rear patio.
c)
Variance approval establishes a 70% maximum lot coverage for APN 219-43-607.
Presented by:
Martin Martell, Planner
Reviewed by:
Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager
Attachments:
Case Map (1 page)
Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages)
Site Plan (1 page)
Rio Verde Unit Four Subdivision Plat (2 pages)
/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
2
Gross Acres: 0 approx.
Generated May 29, 2025 9:04 AM
BA250031
Application Name:
Legal Description
Bender Property
Applicant
Case Address
4N 7E 6
Richard Bender
25446 N DANNY LN
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:219-43-607
(303) 514-4541
rick.bda@outlook.com
RIO VERDE, AZ 85263
Map scale 1:216
Supervisor District No.
Request a variance to reduce the required 5' north side yard to 0' in the R-3 RUPD zoning district for a
new attached garage addition next to a subdivision landscape tract.
Requst a variance to construct a golf cart garage storage building over the 5' sideback on the north
Residential
R3-RPUD
N/A
25446 N. Danny Lane, Rio Verde, AZ 85263
Town of Rio Verde, 8 miles north of Fountian Hills
0.08
3,275
219-43-607
Lot 384 Rio Verde Bood 2
4 North
6 East
Rio Verde
Richard Bender
Rick Bender
6739 Canyonpoint Road
Castle Pines
CO
80108
(303) 514-4541
rick.bda@outlook.com
Rick Bender C/O The RAB Family Trust
Rick Bender
25446 N. Danny Lane
Rio Verde
AZ
85263
(303) 514-4541
rick.bda@outlook.com
Richard A Bender
Richard
April 25, 2025
April 25, 2025
SAVE
PRINT
RESET
Digitally signed by Richard A.
Bender
DN: cn=Richard A. Bender, c=US,
o=DORA,
email=rick.bender@live.com
Date: 2025.04.25 15:05:30 -06'00'
Richard A.
Bender
Digitally signed by Richard A.
Bender
DN: cn=Richard A. Bender, c=US,
o=DORA,
email=rick.bender@live.com
Date: 2025.04.25 15:06:03 -06'00'
Richard A.
Bender
RECEIVED 25. APR 25
BA250031 - 1. SUB
501 North 44th St, Suite 200 Phoenix AZ 85008 (602) 506-1472
Variance Supplemental Questionnaire
Internet: www.maricopa.gov/planning
8/14/2015
Planning & Development
Department
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
VARIANCE SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE
ARS §11-816.B.2
The Board of Adjustment may allow a variance from the terms of the ordinance
when, owing to peculiar conditions, a strict interpretation would work an
unnecessary hardship, if in granting such variance the general intent and purposes of
the zoning ordinance will be preserved.
Single answer responses will not be accepted as the application will be deemed
incomplete. Provide full written justification on how the variance application
meets the statutory legal test. The following are not justification for a variance:
self-created hardship, financial hardship or aesthetic considerations.
1. Explain and discuss the peculiar condition(s) on the property and include reference to the
Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulation(s) or Development Standard(s) to be
varied. Explain the proposed use of the property with the variance request. Explain how
enforcement of the Zoning Regulation(s) or Development Standard(s) would impose a
hardship on the property owner.
Peculiar conditions include slope, narrowness, shallowness, irregular shape, location,
washes, vegetation, easements, and unusual topographic features of the property.
2. Explain the unnecessary hardship that the peculiar condition(s) on the site create with
respect to the existing Regulation(s) and Standard(s) of the Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance.
The lot in question is very narrow site, with limited area for expansion between setbacks. The
residence extends from the front to rear setbacks of the site. The home has an attached duplex to
the south, the only possible area for an addition is to the northeast over the existing 5’ side
setback and forward to the front property line which is approximate 4’-6” feet from the front of
the home.
We have very limited area to store items on the property. Currently we have a carport, which we
intend on enclosing with the addition.
SAVE
PRINT
RESET
RECEIVED 25. APR 25
BA250031 - 1. SUB
501 North 44th St, Suite 200 Phoenix AZ 85008 (602) 506-1472
Variance Supplemental Questionnaire
Internet: www.maricopa.gov/planning
8/14/2015
3. Explain and discuss how this variance would not cause a negative impact on the
general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
Purpose of the MCZO – “Promote the public health, peace, safety, comfort,
convenience and general welfare of the citizens of Maricopa County..”
4. Evidence of the ability and intention of the applicant to proceed with construction work
within 120 days after variance decision by the Board of Adjustment. Provide evidence of
the ability and intention to proceed with construction work within 120 days (4 months)
after Board of Adjustment decision. Discuss if there are building permit(s) or as-built
permit(s) currently filed with the Planning and Development Deaprtment and the
current review status. Specify the permit number(s). If no permits have been filed, please
provide a timeline for building permit(s) submittal and projected timeframe for
construction.
*Additional sheets may be attached.
** DO NOT USE THIS FORM IF YOU ARE SUBMITTING AN APPEAL/INTERPRETATION
The addition would no imposes on the community neighborhood look but improve
it. We have met/submitted to the Rio Verde HOA and have gained a positive
response. This is due to the fact that only 3/14 duplexes remain without an
enclosed garage. We are at a prominent location in the community and the
addition is favored. In addition, to the north of the subject property lays a 15'
t
hi h
ll
ti
b t
th
th
t
As for applications, we have submitted to the Rio Verde HOA Committee Hearing
in February 27th, 2025. There full approve was conditional on your review,
Maricopa Zoning/Variance, which we hope to have in April. We then will submit to
the Building Department for review, and hope to have a Building Permit by June.
As for construction, the estimate is July to end of August.
SAVE
PRINT
RESET
A1
Rio Verde, AZ 85263
Bender Residence Carport Encloser
25446 N. Danny Lane
SCALE 1/4"=1'-0"
Site Plan
1
SCALE - NTS
VICINITY MAP
2
RECEIVED 25. APR 25
BA250031 - 1. SUB
REQUESTED REAR
SETBACK LINE
REQUESTED ZERO SETBACK LINE
8' AT PATIO
LOT COVERAGE 65% 70%