04. BA250005 BOA Staff Report

Report to the Board of Adjustment
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case: 
BA250005 – Hewett Property
Hearing Date:
April 17, 2025 (continued from March 13, 2025)
Supervisor District:
2
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Applicant / Property Owner:
Jeffrey Hewett
Request:
Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning 
Ordinance to permit:
1)
Proposed front (south) setback of 0’ where 40’ is the minimum required 
from the right-of-way preservation line (ultimate street line) per MCZO 
Article 503.4.1 
Site Location:
APN 219-42-108D – 17526 E. Montgomery Rd. in the Rio Verde area
Site Size:
99,697 sq. ft. 
Current Use / Zoning:
Single-family residential / Rural-43
Open Violation:
No violation on property
Background:
1.
November 20, 2006: APN 219-42-108C is split from its parent parcel, APN 219-42-108. The child 
parcel measures 49,850 square feet (approximately 1.14 acres) in area and 151.10’ in width.
2.
April 10, 2008: Final inspections are approved for a single-family residence on APN 219-42-108C, 
per building permit B200612794.
3.
May 21, 2024: APN 219-42-108C is combined with APN 219-42-107, the vacant parcel adjacent 
to the east. The combined parcel becomes APN 219-42-108D and is the subject of this request.
4.
February 21, 2024: The current owner takes possession of the subject parcel, per Deed 
20240087461.
5.
January 21, 2025: The owner submits the subject variance request.
6.
March 18, 2025: MCDOT receives a Right-of-Way Reservation Action Request Form from the 
property owner. This is a request to reduce the required half-width right-of-way preservation along 
Montgomery Road (a mid-section line road running concurrent with the south lot line).
7.
March 27, 2025: MCDOT reduces the required half-width right-of-way preservation along 
Montgomery Road from 40’ to 25’.

Page 2 of 9
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use:
8.
On-site:
Rural-43 / Single-family residence
North:
Rural-43 / Single-family residence
South:
Rural-43 / Vacant
East:
Rural-43 / Tonto National Forest
West:
Rural-43 / Single-family residence
Variance Request:
9.
The property owner, Jeffrey Hewett, is requesting a variance to the development standard of the 
Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance (MCZO) to permit a front (south) yard setback of 0’ on parcel 
219-42-108D in the Rural-43 zoning district, where 40’ is the minimum required. The property has 
been developed with a single-family residence. The owner is proposing to construct an array of 
solar panels for personal / onsite power generation.
Excerpt from the Site Plan

Page 3 of 9
Excerpt from the Site Plan (with Contour Lines)
Site Analysis:
10.
The subject parcel was created following a combination of two adjacent parcels of approximately 
equal area and width. The westernmost parcel was APN 219-42-108C, on which a single-family 
residence was developed in 2008. The easternmost parcel was APN 219-42-107, which had 
remained vacant at the time of the lot combination. The combined parcel notably has street 
frontage along three of its four lot lines, with Montgomery Road to the south, Rancho Tierra Drive 
to the north, and 176th Street to the east. The north and south lot lines are the shorter two, so 
these are both considered front lot lines, rendering the property a through lot. The east lot line 
forms the street side, rendering the property a corner lot as well.

Page 4 of 9
11.
Montgomery Road is aligned along a mid-section line, whereas 176th Street is aligned along a 
section line. For Montgomery Road, the required 40’ of right-of-way appears to have been 
dedicated south from the mid-section line, but not north from the mid-section line. Likewise, for 
176th Street, the required 55’ west of the section line appears to have been dedicated as well. 
MCDOT does not maintain either of these roadways.
12.
Only the north side of the mid-section line alignment has not been formally dedicated as of April 
2025. This means that the current south lot line corresponds with the mid-section line itself, from 
which the MCZO requires preservation of 40’ unless otherwise waived or reduced by MCDOT. As 
such, the required 40’ front yard setback must be measured in addition to the 40’ of preservation 
for a de facto setback measuring 80’ from the south lot line. Indeed, it appears the existing 
residence was developed in adherence to this setback – both the site plan and site aerials show 
the southernmost extent of the residence along the de facto setback line.
13.
As noted in the chronology, MCDOT reduced the required preservation for the north side of 
Montgomery Road from 40’ to 25’. This action establishes a de facto setback of 65’ from the 
south lot line (or 40’ from the ultimate street line) for the subject parcel. In addition to the south 
setback, Rural-43 regulations require a 20’ street side setback from the east lot line, a 30’ interior 
side setback from the west lot line, and a 40’ front yard setback from the north lot line. The north 
lot line corresponds with the edge of the 20’ ingress/egress easement for Rancho Tierra Drive, 
which is entirely within the confines of the adjacent parcel to the north.
14.
The property does feature some moderate but significant and variable sloping. However, this 
sloping is not sufficient to render the property a hillside lot as defined in MCZO Section 1201, nor 
was it sufficient to prevent development of the property in 2008. Indeed, slopes like these are 
prevalent throughout the Rio Verde Foothills area, which generally slopes gently downward 
toward the Verde River to the east (hence the name, Rio Verde). Most significant, however, is the 
presence of a major wash within most of the north half of the property. The site plan notes that 
this is a FEMA AE 100-Year Flood Zone, which is confirmed by the Maricopa County Flood Control 
District’s Floodplain and Elevation Certificate Viewer. Whereas a FEMA Effective Floodway would 
prohibit development of enclosed and habitable structures within its confines, structures are 
generally allowed within a 100-Year Flood Zone subject to additional engineering requirements. 
Nevertheless, site aerials show the wash to be significant. Although this did not prevent 
development of the residence, it was sufficient to require that a retaining wall be placed between 
the wash and the residence. For this reason, any development within the north half of the property 
is impractical.  Staff also notes that the southeastern quadrant of the parcel features what appear 
to be the headwaters of a natural arroyo (see the site plan excerpt with contour lines on the 
previous page).
15.
Another factor to consider is that the property is heavily vegetated with native desert scrub and 
saguaro cacti. The heaviest scrub are located along the periphery of the wash, although lesser 
(albeit still significant) scrub proliferate across the property. Incidentally, the area of lowest 
vegetation density within the property appears to correspond with the south setback and right-of-
way preservation areas. This supports the owner’s assessment of these areas as being the most 
feasible on the property for erecting a solar array or any new development.
16.
It is reasonable to assess the natural conditions of the property as creating challenges for further 
development, specifically (in this case) development of a solar panel array. However, it is 
questionable as to whether this can be duly considered an unnecessary hardship. The existing 
residence demonstrates that development of the property was feasible in the first place, thereby 
fulfilling the general intent and purpose of the Rural-43 zoning district and, by extension, the 
MCZO. Granting a variance to enable ancillary development would arguably fail to preserve the 
general intent and purpose of the MCZO.

Page 5 of 9
Aerial Image of the Subject Site
Map of the 100-Year Flood Zone

Page 6 of 9
Zoning District Map
Zoning District Standards:
17.
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
After MCDOT 
Action
Proposed with 
Variance
Min. Front Yard Setback – North
40-feet
40-feet
40-feet
Min. Front Yard Setback – South
80-feet
(40’ road setback + 
40’ yard setback)
65-feet
(25’ road setback + 
40’ yard setback)
25-feet
(25’ road setback + 
0’ yard setback)
Min. Side Yard Setback – West
30-feet
30-feet
30-feet
Min. Street Side Yard Setback – East
20-feet
20-feet
20-feet
Maximum Height 
30-feet
30-feet
30-feet
Minimum Lot Area
43,560-sq. ft.
99,697-sq. ft.
99,697-sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width
145-feet
302-feet
302-feet
Lot Coverage
25%
6.2%
6.2%

Page 7 of 9
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.” 
18.
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.  
“Our variance request is to reduce the south yard setback from 40’ to 0’ as measured from the 
MCDOT Right of Way preservation line.
“If we are granted the variance, we will benefit from a solar power installation in our south yard that 
is sufficient to provide all needed electrical power for our home and property.  With the current 40' 
setback requirement, we are not able to do this because installation in north, west and east yards 
is infeasible.  This is because of 1) the prominent wash in our north yard that would require the 
solar installation to be on the other side of the wash which becomes prohibitively expensive; 2) 
desert vegetation – including saguaro – in our north and east yards; 3) lack of space given set-back 
requirements and the placement of our driveway and our septic system and drain field in our west 
yard; and limited terrain suitable on the eastern lot and no suitable terrain due to elevation and 
shading on the west side of the home.”
“The reduction to 0’ is requested to provide the ability to install 3 solar panel rows while maintaining 
clearance from the home. The inability to install solar to meet our power needs is the hardship 
created by the enforcement of Article 503.4 (in combination with the definition of a front yard).”
19.
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.
“There are three features of our lot and three features of our house and utilities that make the south 
yard the only feasible spot for the desired solar installation.
“With respect to the lot: 1) There is a large wash running through the north side of the property. To 
avoid this wash, the solar installation would need to be at the very rear of the property (north yard). 
2) There are several saguaro and other native desert plants in our north and east yards. This 
vegetation would be disrupted by a solar installation in those areas. 3) The rough terrain of the east 
yard leaves limited options for level, unshaded ground solar panel installation and the west yard is 
unsuitable because of septic drain field location, terrain and shading limiting available sunlight.
“With respect to the house: 1) Our roof is not suitable for a roof-mounted solar installation, leading 
to the ground mounted option. 2) The electrical utility connection is on the house’s west side. This 
means that an installation on the far north side of the lot (on the other side of the wash) or on the 
east side of the lot is prohibitively expensive because of transmission distance to the utility 
connection. 3) The placement of our septic system and drain field and our driveway in the west yard 
leaves insufficient space for a solar installation.

Page 8 of 9
“Designating the east lot line as the front lot line would allow the south yard to be used for the solar 
installation. An installation in the south yard has important benefits: 1) the proximity to the electrical 
utility connection reduces the transmission distance, significantly reducing the cost of the 
installation, 2) the south yard has no saguaro and generally much less desert vegetation; it is largely 
gravel and desert brush, and 3) provides the least view obstruction for our neighbors.
“These conditions of the property – the wash in the north yard and the desert vegetation in the north 
and east yards – are natural features of the property and have not been created or altered by 
ourselves or previous property owners. The setback requirements that rule out west yard 
installation are created by zoning ordinances.”
20.
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.
“If the variance is granted, the resulting characteristics of the lot will remain consistent with the 
general intent and purpose of the zoning requirements, specifically conservation, sustainability and 
conflict goals. The lot, as a through lot with effectively 2 ‘front’ yards, will retain a 40’ setback on 
the North lot boundary. The requested setback change will conserve open land and provide for a 
sustainable energy improvement to the home in an economically feasible manner. Additionally, 
because of terrain features and existing homes locations within the neighborhood, locating the 
solar installation in the south yard will least impact neighboring views to the east.”
Findings: 
21.
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.  
22.
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:

Page 9 of 9
•
The natural conditions of the property create challenges for further development of the 
property. These conditions include variable terrain, which generally slopes gently 
downward toward the Verde River; the 100-year flood zone, which impacts the north half 
of the property, as well as natural drainage in the southeastern quadrant of the site; and 
the proliferation of native desert scrub and saguaro cacti. The required 25’ of right-of-way 
preservation along the south lot line also impacts development. 
•
The existing residence demonstrates that development of a primary use on the property 
was feasible, thereby fulfilling the general intent and purpose of the Rural-43 zoning 
district and, by extension, the MCZO.
23.
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 25’ south setback for APN 219-42-108D. This includes 
25’ of future right-of-way preservation and a 0’ front yard setback from the ultimate street 
line.
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 (1 page)
MCDOT Recommendation of Future Right-of-Way (2 pages)

/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
2
Gross Acres: 2 approx.
Generated April 7, 2025 1:37 PM
BA250005
Application Name:
Legal Description
17526 Lot re-orientation
Applicant
Case Address
5N 6E 23
Jeffrey Hewett
17526 E MONTGOMERY RD
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:219-42-108D
(713) 206-6268
jhewett@sbcglobal.net
RIO VERDE, AZ 85263
Map scale 1:821
Supervisor District No.
Front lot line redesignation from Montgomery Rd to 176th Street.  No address change requested.


	
	

		
	
 !"#$!%&!'()*
+,./*.
012314567889351:3;4
+15<6:=>?=@AB



07DE7FGHIJ++KHLHFM7KNJHIMEOFF7EDH
7DIPQQRSQTUVA
WXY[\]^_\`a_b
cdefYgef]h]ii\j]k]^l]gmY`^\feXYeY^fd\`eXY\^_lg]gmYjXYgn
\jlgoe\pYmcil]^
m\g_lel\gdn
]de^lmelgeY^p^Ye]el\gj\ci_j\^q]gcggYmYdd]^hX]^_dXlpn
l`lgo^]gelgodcmXk]^l]gmYeXY
oYgY^]ilgeYge]g_pc^p\dYd\`eXYr\glgo\^_lg]gmYjliisYp^YdY^kY_t
 #u(v!w (v%xu(!y$(!z($xw u!(wv!!{|(w!}$xx~(v!wu vw$
(!wx(€ ~!}‚v!(wƒ} u(!{|„…ux†(v(v{|‡…(!vˆ%xu(!$xxv
 $
xx~y!$$…(!(w‰ Šv!~(v
%xu(!(uuxw u!(
wv!!~ xx~!
}(v
$uuy!}((‹ux(y$(uuy
!} u($(xuw(!y($…}(!(v
(†wˆ%xu(!$yw†$!}ƒ} u(!{|„…ux†(v(v{|y uv!†x
($(v$!x$xx~
Our variance request is to reduce the south yard setback from 40’ to 0’ as measured from the MCDOT Right of Way preservation line.  
If we are granted the variance, we will benefit from a solar power installation in our south yard that is sufficient to provide all needed electrical power for our home and 
property.  With the current 40' setback requirement, we are not able to do this because installation in north, west and east yards is infeasible.  This is because of 
1) the prominent wash in our north yard that would require the solar installation to be on the other side of the wash which becomes prohibitively expensive; 2) desert
 
vegetation – including saguaro – in our north and east yards; 3) lack of space given set-back requirements and the placement of our driveway and our septic 
system and drain field in our west yard; and limited terrain suitable on the eastern lot and no suitable terrain due to elevation and shading on the west side of the home.
The reduction to 0' is requested to provide the ability to install 3 solar panel rows while maintaining clearance from the home. The inability to install solar to meet our 
power needs is the hardship created by the enforcement of Article 503.4 (in combination with the definition of a front yard). 
There are three features of our lot and three features of our house and utilities that make the south yard the only feasible spot for the desired solar installation. 
With respect to the lot: 1) There is a large wash running through the north side of the property. To avoid this wash, the solar installation would need to be at the very 
rear of the property (north yard). 2) There are several saguaro and other native desert plants in our north and east yards. This vegetation would be disrupted by a solar 
unsuitable because of septic drain field location, terrain and shading limiting available sunlight.
With respect to the house: 1) Our roof is not suitable for a roof-mounted solar installation, leading to the ground mounted option. 2) The electrical utility connection is 
on the house’s west side. This means that an installation on the far north side of the lot (on the other side of the wash) or on the east side of the lot is prohibitively 
expensive because of transmission distance to the utility connection.  3) The placement of our septic system and drain field and our driveway in the west yard leaves 
insufficient space for a solar installation.
Designating the east lot line as the front lot line would allow the south yard to be used for the solar installation. An installation in the south yard has  important benefits: 
1) the proximity to the electrical utility connection reduces the transmission distance, significantly reducing the cost of the installation,  2) the south yard has no 
saguaro and generally much less desert vegetation; it is largely gravel and desert brush, and 3) provides the least view obstruction for our neighbors.
These conditions of the property – the wash in the north yard and the desert vegetation in the north and east yards - are natural features of the property and have not 
been created or altered by ourselves or previous property owners.  The setback requirements that rule out west yard installation are created by zoning ordinances.
installation in those areas. 3) The rough terrain of the east yard leaves limited options for level, unshaded ground solar panel installation and the west yard is   
/ #

w


u



(
v



!

u
!




Œ

w
%

z
x


u
$
(
(


!


x
v




$
!
w


 



u
 
$
!(






u
w

!

w




v


!




!
(


!



~
u

$


(

v


!
$

!x
#

u
$


(


(
v

!
!w
w

 
x

(

€
(


 
v


~
%

x

u

(

!
!

}
$

(
‚



v
$
!



(
x


w
w
  

 

u
w
!(



w
(




v
‡
!

!
w

(

 




$



x
(



x
x


w

 
~
u!

(
!



	
	

		
	
 !"#$!%&!'()*
+,./*.
012314567889351:3;4
+15<6:=>?=@AB



 #D(E!F (E%GD(!$H$I(!I$J EK(!(FH DEF( (I(!K!LG(F
$I(D!(EG G$M!INE!(F
O&EE!!(D$L(PQ((F$E
RRSTUTVWXYVZ[X\T]^[\_TW7]YXW`^[VV[Ua7U[UVY]+]YV7V[TU
  
  
If the variance is granted, the resulting characteristics of the lot will remain consistent with the general intent and purpose of the zoning requirements, specifically 
conservation, sustainability and conflict goals. The lot, as a through lot with effectively 2 "front" yards, will retain a 40' setback on the North lot boundary.  The 
requested setback change will conserve open land and provide for a sustainable energy improvement to the home in an economically feasible manner. 
Additionally, because of terrain features and existing homes locations within the neighborhood, locating the solar installation in the south yard will least impact 
neighboring views to the east.

THESE DRAWINGS SHALL  
NOT BE REPRODUCE OR  
OTHER STRUCTURES BUILT  
FROM THESE DRAWINGS  
WITHOUT CONSENT FROM  
GRAND DESIGNS
RESIDENTIAL DRAFTING
EMAIL: GRANDDESIGNS.PLANS@GMAIL.COM
PHONE: (480) 745-5288
329.92'
302.19'
329.92'
302.19'
N
5 10 15 20 25
50
SOLAR
TU BE
SOLAR TU BE94'-6"
89'-4"
15'
31'
8'
13'-4"
EXISTING  
SEPTIC
N
VICINITY MAP
11'
39'
82'
158'-5 1/16"
55'
30'
168'-8 1/4"
SEPTIC TANK
10' FROM STRUCTUREMIN.
E W
SITE PLAN  
SCALE 1" =20'
LOT COVERAGE
LOT AREA: 99,697 S.F.  
EXISTING LIVABLE: 3,665 S.F.  
NEW LIVABLE: 462 S.F.
TOTAL LIVABLE: 4,127 S.F.  
EXISTING PORCH 1: 67 S.F.  
EXISTING ENTRY TOWER: 98 S.F.  
EXISTING GARAGE: 946 S.F.  
EXISTING PATIO 1: 218 S.F.
EXISTING PATIO 2: 183 S.F.
NEW PORCH 2: 107 S.F.
NEW PATIO 3: 457 S.F.
TOTAL NON-LIVABLE: 2,076 S.F.  
TOTAL: 6,203 S.F.
6.2 % COVERAGE
EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES-
LOW PRESSURE SODIUM
(150 WATTS INCANDESCENT LIGHT)
COMPLY W/ (MCZO SECTION 1112 AND ARTICLE 1112.4)
-THE GRADE AWAYFROM
FOUNDATION WALLS SHALL  
FALL 6" WITHIN THE FIRST10'
PARCEL NUMBER: 219-42-108D  
OWNER NAME: HEWETT JEFFREY R
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 17526 E MONTGOMERY RD
RIO VERDE, AZ 85263  
JURISDICTION: MARICOPA COUNTY
LOT SIZE (SQ FT): 99,697
ZONING: RU-43
EXISTING  
GRAVEL  
DRIVEWAY
EXISTING  
PAVERS  
DRIVEWAY
RESIDENCE
EXISTING RESIDENCE
NEW PATIO 3
NEW PORCH 2
F.F.E. = TO MATCH
EXISTINGRESIDENCE
F.F.E. = TO MATCH
EXISTINGRESIDENCE
400AMP
SERVICEPANEL
40'
SBL
Existing 
RU-43 40' 
SBL from 
MCDOT 
ROW
SBL
R.O.W.
20’ ingress/egress 
easement along 
north lot line
.
55'
R.O.W.
E RANCHO TIERRA DR
E MONTGOMERY RD
N 176TH ST
NEW LIVABLEFRAMED
UNDER EXISTING PATIO
S1
SHEET:
SCALE:
HEWETT REMODEL
17526 E MONTGOMERY
RD  RIO VERDE, AZ 85263
SITE PLAN
DATE:
1"=20'
11/7/2024
REVISIONS
#
DATE
1
00-00-00
2
3
Existing ROW south of  
the centerline is 40', which  
matches the required  
amount of preservation for  
a mid-section alignment.
20'-0"
SBL
25'-0"
ROW Preservation per MCDOT 
Recommendation dated 3/27/2025.
Variance request to 
reduce south line 
setback to 0’, as 
measured from the 
25’ MCDOT ROW 
preservation line.

Engineering Division 
2901 W. Durango Street 
Phoenix, Arizona 85009 
P: 602.506.4889 
F: 602.506.5969 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
March 27, 2025 
 
Jeffrey R. Hewett 
17526 East Montgomery Road 
Rio Verde, Arizona 85263 
 
Delivered via email: jhewett@sbcglobal.net 
 
Re:   Recommendation of Future MCDOT Right-of-Way – APN 219-42-108D 
 
Dear Applicant: 
 
Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) has reviewed the request to waive the 
requirement that the setback line on the referenced property be measured from the future half street right-
of-way as required by Section 1105 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. The subject property is 
located along a Mid-Section Line alignment (Montgomery Road), requiring the setback line be measured 
from a 40-foot future half street right-of-way.  
 
This alignment currently provides access to adjacent and surrounding lots. In addition, there are previously 
approved waivers on the alignment.  Therefore, it is recommended that the requirement for future half 
street right-of-way of Montgomery Road be 25-feet. 
 
This recommendation pertains only to future right-of-way needs for a public roadway on the identified 
alignment and does not consider legal access requirements, easements, drainage, utilities, etc. which still 
apply to the subject property. 
 
If you have any questions on this decision, I can be contacted at (602) 506-6172 or 
Denise.Lacey@maricopa.gov. 
 
Sincerely, 
 
 
 
 
Denise Lacey 
Planning Branch Manager 
MCDOT Planning Branch 
 
Cc: 
Toral Patel, Planning and Development 
Nicole Nelson, Planning and Development 
Larry Morden, Planning and Development  
Doug Jones, Planning and Development 
Joshua Sutter, Office of Enterprise Technology - GIS

Engineering Division 
2901 W. Durango Street 
Phoenix, Arizona 85009 
P: 602.506.4889 
F: 602.506.5969 
Jeffrey R. Hewett 
APN 219-42-108D 
 
 
Page 2 
Chris Turner, Office of Enterprise Technology – GIS 
Elizabeth Valenzuela, MCDOT Permits