01. BA250005 Continuance Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
6285 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA250005 – Hewett Property Hearing Date: March 13, 2025 Supervisor District: 2 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: Jeffrey Hewett Property Owners: Jeffrey Hewett Request: Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed front (south) setback of 20’ where 40’ is the minimum required per MCZO Article 503.4.1.a 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 Applicant Request: On March 3, 2025, the applicant requested a continuance of this case to the April 17, 2025 Board of Adjustment hearing to allow time for MCDOT to review a Right-of-Way Reservation Action Request Form for the subject property. Attachments: Continuance Request (2 pages) 1 Nicholas Schlimm (PND) From: Jeffrey Hewett <jhewett@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 12:30 PM To: Nicholas Schlimm (PND) Subject: Re: BA250005 Update 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. Nicholas - Thank you for the update. There's a lot to unpack there - While disappointing we appreciate the helpful guidance. While we work this through we would like, as you suggest, to defer to the April meeting for the variance request. Thank you for your help, we appreciate it. Jeff Hewett jhewett@sbcglobal.net 713.206.6268 From: Nicholas Schlimm (PND) <Nicholas.Schlimm@maricopa.gov> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 3:00 PM To: jhewett@sbcglobal.net <jhewett@sbcglobal.net> Subject: BA250005 Update Good afternoon, Jeffrey, This is Nick with Maricopa County Planning & Development. I wanted to follow up with you regarding your variance request (BA250005). We can certainly review and present variance requests for reduced setbacks. However, we can’t vary the regulations governing which is considered the front yard vs. the street side yard. By virtue of the north/south lot lines being >15’ shorter than the east/west lot lines (as you note in your questionnaire), the north and south must be considered the fronts. On that note, the north and south are both considered the fronts because both sides are bounded by access easements. This makes the property a through lot. Likewise, with the easement opposite the east lot line, this side is considered the street side, which requires a 20’ setback (as opposed to a 30’ setback as required along the west / interior side). Though the Board of Adjustment can’t vary which is considered the front vs. the street side, it can vary a setback itself. You’re welcome to request a reduced setback from the south front (currently 40’). All I’d need from you is a revised supplemental questionnaire requesting a specific reduction. 2 However, before you send this to me, I do want to call your attention to something. Your south lot line is congruent with a mid-section line. The MCZO (per Article 1105.1.4) requires that 40’ be preserved for future right-of-way on either side of a mid-section line. The south 40’ has already been dedicated, but the north 40’ (corresponding with the southernmost 40’ of your property) has not been, so it must remain preserved. This cannot be waived or reduced with a variance, but it can be waived or reduced by MCDOT. Before I tell you how, I’ll also caution you that a building setback must be measured in addition to any required preservation setback. When your residence was built, it was done so to adhere to both the 40’ preservation setback and the 40’ front building setback (a de facto total of 80’). This is why the residence is effectively set back just over 80’ from the south lot line. Even if you request to reduce your south front setback to 0’, you’ll still need to adhere to the 40’ preservation setback unless MCDOT waives or reduces it. And that’s certainly possible. There are several nearby parcels to the west on which MCDOT has reduced the preservation setback along the same mid-section line (Montgomery Road) from 40’ down to 25’. Of course, I can’t guarantee they’ll approve the same reduction, but you’re certainly welcome to send them a request. If this is something you want to pursue, this is the form you’ll need to send them: https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/94549/Right-of-Way-Waiver-Application. MCDOT would respond to you with a determination. I’m not sure what their turnaround time is, but I don’t believe it would be too long. If you do request a reduction/waiver from MCDOT, I recommend continuing your variance request to the April BOA agenda (in which case, all you’d need to do is send me an email requesting to continue BA250005 to the April 17th BOA hearing). We print our BOA staff reports this coming Wednesday (March 5th) for the March 13th BOA hearing, and it’s unlikely MCDOT would issue a determination beforehand. Preferably, we should know MCDOT’s determination on the required preservation before we present a front setback variance request to the BOA. This way, when we present to the BOA, we will know exactly what the de facto setback (preservation + building setback) would be from the south lot line before the BOA makes a vote. Please let me know how you’d like to proceed – since we print the staff reports on Wednesday, I’ll need to know by Tuesday at the latest. For ease of reference, I’ve attached a redlined version of your site plan to this email. The north and west setbacks are shown correctly, but I’ve redlined the building envelope as well as the preservation setback line to illustrate how they currently exist. If you have any questions, please let me know. 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