05. BA 250001 BOA Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
15805 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA250001 – Prieto Property Hearing Date: March 13, 2025 Supervisor District: 4 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: Sonia Prieto Property Owners: Sonia and Martin Prieto Requests: Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed lot area of 43,552 square feet where 43,560 square feet is the minimum required per MCZO Article 503.5.1 2) Proposed lot width of 132 feet where 145 feet is the minimum required per MCZO Article 503.5.2 Site Location: APN 504-12-237 – Approx. 605’ north of the NEC of 351st Ave. & Buckeye Rd. in the Tonopah area Site Size: 43,552 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Vacant / Rural-43 Open Violation: No violation on property Background: 1. August 26, 1996: A deed (1996-0599146) is recorded for what will become APN 504-12-004A, which will soon be split from its parent parcel, APN 504-12-004. 2. c. 1996 – 1997: APN 504-12-004 is formally split into five child parcels, per Split Control ID 96719. 3. December 29, 2009: The current owners of the subject parcel take possession of its parent parcel, APN 504-12-004A, per Deed 2009-1189898. 4. June 26, 2023: A new deed is recorded for each of what will become the five child parcels of APN 504-12-004A. These include (from south to north) parcels 504-12-237, -238, -239, -240, and -241. 5. September 22, 2023: APN 504-12-004A is formally split into five child parcels. The southernmost of these, APN 504-12-237, is the subject of this variance request. However, all five of the current child parcels created by the unregulated land division are of substandard lot width and area. 6. January 3, 2025: The owner submits the subject variance request. Page 2 of 8 Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 7. On-site: Rural-43 / Vacant North: Rural-43 / Vacant South: Rural-43 / Single-family residence East: Rural-43 / Single-family residence West: Rural-43 / State Trust land Variance Requests: 8. The property owner, Sonia Prieto, is requesting variances to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance (MCZO) to permit a lot area of 43,552 square feet and a lot width of 132’ on Parcel 504-12-237, where 43,560 square feet and 145’, respectively, are the minimums required in the Rural-43 zoning district. Site Plan / Record of Survey (the subject property is “Lot 5” – the southernmost on the survey) Page 3 of 8 Site Analysis: 9. The subject parcel was created following a series of unregulated land divisions. Prior to 1996, the site formed a portion of a much larger parcel corresponding with the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 7, Township 1 North, Range 5 West. This parent parcel, APN 504-12- 004, measured approximately 40 acres with each side measuring approximately a quarter mile. In 1996 or 1997, an unregulated land division was recorded from which five child parcels were established, including APN 504-12-004A, which itself corresponded with the north half of the west half of the west half of its parent parcel’s legal description. 10. Several subsequent lot splits recorded in the following years have resulted in what are now as many as 26 child parcels of the original parent. Included among these 26 are five parcels which were split from APN 504-12-004A in 2023. Each of these five parcels measures approximately one acre in area and approximately 132’ in width, as documented in the record of survey attached to this report. When taking the precise measurements documented in the record of survey, each of the five parcels is slightly substandard in area, measuring slightly under one acre, but only by a matter of eight to 14 square feet. With a surveyed area of 43,552 square feet, or 0.9998 acres, the subject parcel is the closest of the five to one acre (43,560 square feet). The most significant consequence of this lot split, however, is that each of the five parcels now measures a surveyed width of 132.03’, nearly 13’ shy of the minimum required in the Rural-43 zoning district. Aerial Image of Original Parent Parcel and Subsequent Child Parcels Page 4 of 8 11. As a result of the unregulated land division, each of the five child parcels of APN 504-12-004A is nonconforming to the Rural-43 lot width and lot area regulations. The ideal remedy would be to combine the parcels again, resulting in a width of 660.15’ along the west lot line (the only lot line with street frontage). If desired, the property could then be split into a maximum of four parcels measuring no less than 145’ in width. If the four parcels were to be approximately equal in width and area, each would measure a width of 165.04’ and an area of approximately 1.25 acres, meeting the Rural-43 zoning district’s minimum width and area requirements. 12. Complicating this remedy, however, is that the middle of the five child parcels has since been sold to a new owner (ownership of the remaining four, including the subject site, remains the same as of the writing of this report). Combining the northernmost two parcels and the southernmost two parcels would negate the need for variance on the land subject to this request, but one parcel would remain nonconforming. Besides obtaining variances, the only alternative would be for the new owner of the middle parcel to purchase additional land corresponding with a total width of at least 145’ along 351st Avenue; subsequent lot split/combinations could result in two, three, or four parcels within the survey area all conforming to the Rural-43 width and area regulations. Aerial Image of the Subject Site Page 5 of 8 13. The subject parcel itself does not appear to possess any conditions which may be considered peculiar. 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. There is a nearby wash that bisects some of the lot split parcels to the north, but it does not encumber the subject parcel. The west lot line forms the centerline of the easement for 351st Avenue. Although this easement measures a half-width of 20’, it is also aligned along a mid-section line, so preservation of 40’ on either side of the centerline is required 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 front setback measuring 80’ from the west lot line. 14. Site aerials show a shade structure (possibly a mare motel) straddling the lot line shared between the subject parcel and its northern neighbor. This structure predates the land division and appears to have been built as an accessory structure to the manufactured home that is now on the middle parcel. If the parcels are all to remain as currently recorded, this structure will need to be removed or otherwise relocated and properly permitted so that it remains within the confines of a single parcel and meets setback requirements. 15. Staff notes that, if the requested variances are granted for the subject parcel, the four parcels to the north will remain nonconforming. If those parcels are to remain as currently recorded, it will be incumbent upon their respective owners to request variances for each. One variance application would be required for each parcel, with each application requesting two variances: one for lot area and one for lot width. Again, an alternative remedy would be to combine the parcels so that each measures a width of no less than 145’ and an area of no less than 43,560 square feet. Zoning District Map Page 6 of 8 Zoning District Standards: 16. 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 Yard Setback 40-feet 40-feet Min. Rear Yard Setback 40-feet 40-feet Min. Side Yard Setback 30-feet 30-feet Min. Street Side Yard Setback 20-feet 20-feet Maximum Height 30-feet 30-feet Minimum Lot Area 43,560-sq. ft. 43,552-sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 145-feet 132-feet Lot Coverage 25% N/A 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.” 17. 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. “This lot is 43,552 sq.ft. shy of an acre (43,560). We need a variance on the lot width so we can build a new home on this lot. If we do not get a variance we can’t build a new home. This lot was subdivided by original lot APN 504-12-004A. We told the Surveyor we wanted 5 acre lots. It was done by Survey Arizona Allen Sadberry. He gave us map and it said 1 acre on each lot 504-12-237, 504-12-238, 504-12-239, 504-12-240, 504-12-241 so we did the deeds. We went to planning and zoning to let them know we would like to build a home and they said we couldn’t the lots where not one acre (43,560). They said we can do a lot split again and cutting a bit on lot 504-12-239 to get 2 one acre lots to the south and north. By this time we had already sold 504-12-239 with the manufactured home so that was not no longer an option. If we would of looked at the sq.ft. of each acre since the beginning before doing the deeds but the surveyor didn’t tell us they were not a full acre we could of take care of it right there and then and would of note sold lot 504-12-239.” 18. 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. Page 7 of 8 “The surveyor divided the lot and shows 1 acre and its only 43,552 sq.ft. not 43,560. Because of the Surveyor mistake it created all this mess. We already spent lots of money on all this. We have also have a well guy that is suppose to do a well for the lots.” 19. 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 we get a variance accepted on this property it won’t affect the surrounding area. We have seen lots with a lot less than acre with a new built home.” Findings: 20. 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. 21. 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 area and lot width were created in the direct line of title because of poor lot-splitting practice with unregulated land divisions. The substandard lots were avoidable. 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). One option available to the owner would be to combine the subject parcel with the adjacent parcel to the north. Page 8 of 8 • The granting of the requested variance, the need for which could have been avoided, would fail to preserve the general intent and purpose of the MCZO. 22. 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 43,552-square-foot lot area for APN 504-12-237. b) Variance approval establishes a 132-foot lot width for APN 504-12-237 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) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 4 Gross Acres: 1 approx. Generated March 5, 2025 8:27 AM BA250001 Application Name: Legal Description Prieto Property Applicant Case Address 1N 5W 7 SONIA PRIETO 993 S 351ST AVE Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:504-12-237 (623) 205-6738 soniaprietosp@yahoo.com TONOPAH, AZ 85354 Map scale 1:813 Supervisor District No. VACANT LAND. Variance request to build SFR on 43,550 ft2 in RU-43 zone. 05/25/23