03. BA240036 BOA Report

Maricopa County — Board of Adjustment (2025-02-13)

View PDF Item 3 Meeting page

Extracted text (via pymupdf) 24300 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment 
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department 
 
 
Case:   
 
 
BA240036 – 10240 W Bell Rd Billboard 
 
Hearing Date:  
 
February 13, 2025 
 
Supervisor District: 
 
4 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Applicant:  
William Allison, Withey Morris Baugh, PLC 
 
Property Owners: 
Country Club Ventures, LLC 
 
Request: 
Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning 
Ordinance to permit: 
 
1) 
Proposed separation distance of 370’ between a proposed billboard and 
an existing billboard, where 1,000’ is the minimum permitted in the C-2 
zoning district within 3 miles of a municipality per MCZO Article 
1403.3.1.A.1.b  
 
Site Location: 
APN 230-04-372B – Approx. 1,500’ West of the NWC of 99th Ave. and Bell 
Rd. in the Sun City area 
 
Site Size: 
 
 
100,885 sq. ft.  
 
Current Use / Zoning: 
Office Building and Billboard / C-2 
 
Open Violation: 
No violation on property 
 
Background: 
 
1. 
October 29, 1973: The subdivision plat for Sun City Unit 39 is approved by the Maricopa County 
Board of Supervisors (BOS). The parent parcel (APN 230-04-372) corresponds with Tract M. 
 
2. 
December 15, 1981: The first known deed is recorded for APN 230-04-372A, the eastern of the 
two child parcels. The parent parcel was likely split around this time. The parcel subject to this 
request is APN 230-04-372B, the western of the two parcels. 
 
3. 
January 6, 2009: A building permit is filed for a double-faced static billboard measuring a height 
of 30’ and a sign area of 12’ x 25’. Records show that the permit was issued on June 18, 2009, 
and an inspection approved on July 22, 2009. However, the permit expired on January 18, 2010. 
Nevertheless, historical aerials show the billboard on the property as early as Fall 2009 and as 
late as Fall 2023. As of Fall 2024, the billboard has been removed. 
 
4. 
September 5, 2013: Planning staff approves an as-built plan of development (LU20130084) for 
the existing office and commercial plaza on the subject property. Another as-built POD 
(LU20130083) is simultaneously approved on the adjacent parcel to the east. 
 
5. 
December 12, 2024: The applicant submits the subject variance request.

Page 2 of 7 
 
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 
 
6. 
On-site: 
C-2 / Office Building and Billboard 
 
North:  
C-2 / Offices 
South:  
Bell Road, then R-3 / Multiple-Family Dwellings 
East: 
 
C-2 / Strip Mall Shops and Offices 
 
West:  
105th Avenue, then R-3 / Multiple-Family Dwellings 
 
Variance Request: 
 
7. 
The applicant, William Allison of Withey Morris Baugh, PLC, is requesting a variance to the 
development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance (MCZO) to permit a new static 
billboard with a separation distance of 350 feet from the nearest existing billboard. In the C-2 
zoning district, a minimum separation distance of 1,000 feet is required when the proposed 
billboard is located fewer than three miles from the boundary of an incorporated municipality. 
The new billboard would be located approximately 1.1 miles from the City of Peoria and 
approximately 1.2 miles from the City of Surprise. Aside from separation distance, it would meet 
all other regulations governing static billboards in the C-2 zoning district. 
 
Excerpt from the proposed site plan

Page 3 of 7 
 
 
Site Analysis: 
 
8. 
The subject parcel is a commercial property located at the northeast corner of 105th Avenue and 
Bell Road. Neither of these rights-of-way is zoned, but the land across each right-of-way features 
R-3 RUPD SC (multi-family residential) zoning. In the 1980s, the subject parcel and its eastern 
neighbor were split from a common parent parcel, which itself corresponded with Tract M of the 
Sun City Unit 39 subdivision. The commercial building on the subject parcel was developed in the 
mid-1970s, before the parent parcel was split. 
 
9. 
In 2009, a static, non-illuminated billboard measuring a height of 30’ and a sign face area of 300 
square feet was developed near the south lot line. Though it was subject to an issued building 
permit for which an inspection was approved, County records show that the permit expired in 
January 2010. Nonetheless, at the time the billboard was built, there were no other existing 
billboards in the vicinity. 
 
10. 
In 2016, the Planning and Development Department approved a Plan of Development (POD) for 
another static, non-illuminated billboard at the northwest corner of Boswell Blvd. and Bell Rd., just 
450 feet (approx.) east of the 2009 billboard on the subject parcel. At the time, MCZO Article 
1403.3.1.2 regulated that an off-site sign in the C-2 zoning district shall “…maintain a distance 
separation from any other off-site sign of 1,000 feet of any offsite sign on the same street when 
either existing or proposed sign is located fewer than three (3) miles from the boundary of any 
incorporated city or town.” Such was the scenario facing the two billboards, both of which were 
along Bell Road and located within two miles of Peoria and Surprise. Although, the regulations 
governing billboards in Maricopa County were overhauled in 2021 (mostly to address digital 
billboards, illuminated billboards, and billboards located along freeways), the distancing 
requirements for billboards were changed to a minimum 1,000’ radial separation regardless of 
street orientation.  This ordinance amendment rendered both the 2009 and 2016 billboards legally 
nonconforming (LNC). 
 
11. 
With the 2009 billboard having been removed as of Fall 2024, the 2016 billboard is now 
conforming to the regulations established in MCZO Section 1403. However, the proposal for a 
“replacement” billboard on the subject parcel – to be located toward its southeast corner – would 
place it even closer to the 2016 billboard than the 2009 billboard had been, with the separation 
distance now reduced to approx. 370 feet. Unless this variance is granted, the replacement 
billboard will not be allowed. 
 
12. 
The proposed billboard would be built to the same height and sign face area as the one it would 
replace, meeting the corresponding MCZO regulations. Furthermore, it would be located over 100’ 
from the nearest residential zoning (R-3 RUPD SC). The only development standard requiring 
variance is that regulating the minimum separation distance from another billboard. However, 
there is no apparent peculiar condition, nor an unnecessary hardship created from such condition, 
that hinders reasonable development on the property (indeed, the property is already developed 
with an office and commercial plaza). Separation distance notwithstanding, development of a 
billboard in the area would be completely feasible from a physical perspective. Although the 
subject parcel is entirely within 1,000’ of the 2016 billboard, ample C-2 zoning exists along Bell 
Road going east. Bell Road’s intersection with 99th Avenue, another major arterial, is located just 
over 1,000’ from the 2016 billboard. Land on all four corners of this intersection is zoned C-2, and 
the C-2 zoning district extends even further east along either side of Bell. There are currently no 
billboards in this area, so a new one could be placed here and conform to all the regulations 
established in MCZO Section 1403. For these reasons put together, obtaining a variance for the 
benefit of a billboard on the subject site would fail to preserve the general intent and purpose of 
the MCZO.

Page 4 of 7 
 
 
Aerial Image & Surrounding Environs 
 
 
 
Zoning District Map

Page 5 of 7 
 
 
Zoning District Standards: 
 
13. 
The following table is included to illustrate and contrast the standards for static billboards in the 
C-2 zoning district with those proposed by the owner (proposed changes are indicated in bold). 
 
 
Standard 
 
C-2   
Zoning 
District 
Proposed with 
Variance 
Min. Separation Distance from Existing Billboard 
1,000-feet 
350-feet 
Min. Setback from a Residential Zoning District or 
Residential Use in a Rural Zoning District 
100-feet 
>100-feet 
Min. Setback from a Park, School, or Roadside Rest Area 
500-feet 
>500-feet 
Sound Emissions or Audibility 
None 
None 
Min. Distance from a Scenic Corridor Zoning District 
660-feet 
>660-feet 
Within a Maricopa County Scenic Corridor 
No 
No 
Max. Height 
30-feet 
30-feet 
Max. Sign Face Area 
300-sq. ft. 
300-sq. ft. 
Max. Distance between Sign Faces at Apex 
54” 
<54” 
Max. Angle between Sign Faces 
45% 
<45% 
 
State Statute / County Zoning Ordinance Tests - ARS § 11-816.B.2 and MCZO Article 303.2.2 state that 
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.   
 
“A 30 foot high, 288 square foot, non-illuminated billboard stood at 10240 West Bell Road (the 
“Property”) from 2009 until 2024.  In 2017, a billboard was built to the east at 10120 West Bell Road, 
the northwest corner of Bell Road and Bosell Boulevard, pursuant to a Plan of Development 
established with Z2016066.  When the Board of Supervisors amended the County’s billboard 
standards, including the separation standards in Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Article 
1403.3.1.A.1.b, the billboards became nonconforming as they do not meet the required radial 
separation distance of 1,000 feet between billboards when located within three miles of the 
boundary of an incorporated city or town.  The billboards are less than two miles from the corporate 
limits of Surprise to the west and of Peoria to the northwest. 
 
“Lamar Advertising and the Property owner contracted to rebuild the nonconforming billboard.  Per 
direction of County Planning & Development staff, the Property owner removed the billboard in 
July/August 2024 to allow consideration of the rebuilt sign.  The height, size, and non-illumination 
of the new sign will match the prior billboard. 
 
“The rebuilt billboard is proposed to be located east and north of the former billboard site on the 
same parcel.  Industry safety standards have changed since erection of the original billboard to 
require greater separation from overhead power lines, e.g. those running along the north side of 
Bell Road.  The new standard is 20 feet of separation; the prior billboard on the Property was 12 
feet north of the Bell Road powerlines.

Page 6 of 7 
 
“To satisfy the safety standards and avoid placing the new sign in parking stalls/drive aisle, the new 
billboard location will be immediately east of the driveway from Bell Road to the Property.  This 
relocation/rebuilding will reduce the separation between the two billboards from approximately 450 
feet to approximately 370 feet. 
 
“The proposed billboard requires variances to one (1) County standard as follows: 
 
1. 
Request to amend the required distance between two billboards from 1,000 feet to 370 feet.  
Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Article 1403.3.1.A.1.b. 
 
“Enforcement of the applicable sections of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to the proposed 
rebuilding of the nonconforming billboard would impose a significant hardship on the Property by 
denying the ability to retain safely a billboard that had been on the site for 15 years.” 
 
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. 
 
“As discussed above, strict application of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance will deny the 
ability to retain safely a billboard that stood on the Property for 15 years.  The proposed relocation 
is necessary to satisfy current safety standards that are needed to maintain a separation of the 
sign from overhead power lines.  But for these standards, the billboard would have remained in the 
location it had been since 2009. 
 
“No person or entity in the chain of title created the change in safety standards that necessitate the 
relocation of the billboard.” 
 
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. 
 
“Granting the requested variances would not cause a negative impact on the general intent of the 
Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance as follows: 
 
Two billboards have stood along the north side of Bell Road west of Boswell Boulevard since 2017.  
Allowing a slight reduction in spacing between the two nonconforming signs to achieve a safer 
environment for personnel working on the subject billboard does not add a billboard to the area and 
does not add a billboard to the Property.  Rather, approval of the spacing variance simply maintains 
the status quo in a manner that will avoid dangerous conditions created by proximity to overhead 
power lines.  The proposed rebuilding in no way undercuts the County’s desire to limit billboards 
along its roadways.  The nonconforming billboard was removed less than 12 months ago solely to 
facilitate this application and review of permits for the rebuilt sign.  This request does not 
contravene the intent of the Zoning Ordinance provisions in §1305 regarding nonconforming uses.”

Page 7 of 7 
 
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 a 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: 
 
• 
There is no apparent peculiar condition facing the property that, when presented with the 
requirements of the MCZO, creates a physical hardship preventing reasonable 
development on the property. In fact, the property was developed with a commercial use 
(the general intent of the C-2 zoning district) in the 1970s. 
 
• 
Development of a billboard in the area is feasible. A billboard placed north or south of Bell 
Road and east of 99th Avenue could be located in the C-2 zoning district (which permits 
billboards) and still be located at least 1,000’ from any existing billboards. 
 
• 
For the reasons stated, obtaining a variance for the benefit of a billboard on the subject 
site would fail to preserve the general intent and purpose of the MCZO. 
 
19. 
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 minimum separation distance of 350’ from an existing 
billboard to the east for a proposed billboard on APN 230-04-372B. 
 
 
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 and Elevations (2 pages)

/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
4
Gross Acres: 2 approx.
Generated January 21, 2025 10:36 AM
BA240036
Application Name:
Legal Description
10240 W Bell Rd Billboard
Applicant
Case Address
4N 1E 32
Bill Allison
10232 W BELL RD
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:230-04-372B
(602) 738-6941
bill@wmbattorneys.com
SUN CITY, AZ 85351
Map scale 1:877
Supervisor District No.
Variance to allow a new billboard to replace a non-conforming billboard on the same property.  Spacing
variance to billboard at NWC Boswell Blvd and Bell Rd.

Planning & Development Department 
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 
P: 602.506.3301 
Non-Residential Variance Application Packet 
6/17/24 
 
NON-RESIDENTIAL 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. 
 
1. Please discuss and explain what is/are the peculiar condition(s) facing 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. 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 Regulation(s) or Development Standard(s) would impose 
a hardship on the property. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A 30 foot high, 288 square foot, non-illuminated billboard stood at 10240 West Bell Road (the “Property”) from 
2009 until 2024.  In 2017, a billboard was built to the east at 10120 West Bell Road, the northwest corner of 
Bell Road and Bosell Boulevard, pursuant to a Plan of Development established with Z2016066.  When the 
Board of Supervisors amended the County’s billboard standards, including the separation standards in 
Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Article 1403.3.1.A.1.b, the billboards became nonconforming as they do 
not meet the required radial separation distance of 1,000 feet between billboards when located within three 
miles of the boundary of an incorporated city or town.  The billboards are less than two miles from the 
corporate limits of Surprise to the west and of Peoria to the northwest. 
Lamar Advertising and the Property owner contracted to rebuild the nonconforming billboard.  Per direction of 
County Planning & Development staff, the Property owner removed the billboard in July/August 2024 to allow 
consideration of the rebuilt sign.  The height, size, and non-illumination of the new sign will match the prior 
billboard. 
The rebuilt billboard is proposed to be located east and north of the former billboard site on the same parcel.  
Industry safety standards have changed since erection of the original billboard to require greater separation 
from overhead power lines, e.g. those running along the north side of Bell Road.  The new standard is 20 feet 
of separation; the prior billboard on the Property was 12 feet north of the Bell Road powerlines. 
To satisfy the safety standards and avoid placing the new sign in parking stalls/drive aisle, the new billboard 
location will be immediately east of the driveway from Bell Road to the Property.  This relocation/rebuilding will 
reduce the separation between the two billboards from approximately 450 feet to approximately 370 feet. 
The proposed billboard requires variances to one (1) County standard as follows: 
1. Request to amend the required distance between two billboards from 1,000 feet to 370 feet.  Maricopa 
County Zoning Ordinance Article 1403.3.1.A.1.b. 
Enforcement of the applicable sections of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to the proposed 
rebuilding of the nonconforming billboard would impose a significant hardship on the Property by 
denying the ability to retain safely a billboard that had been on the site for 15 years.

Planning & Development Department 
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 
P: 602.506.3301 
Non-Residential Variance Application Packet 
6/17/24 
 
 
2. Please explain the unnecessary hardship the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance creates because of a peculiar 
condition/the peculiar conditions on site. Please discuss and explain that the peculiar condition of the property is 
not self-created in the line of title. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. Please discuss and explain how the granting of the requested variance would not cause a negative impact on the 
general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
*Additional sheets may be attached. 
 
** DO NOT USE THIS FORM IF YOU ARE SUBMITTING AN INTERPRETATION 
Granting the requested variances would not cause a negative impact on the general intent of the 
Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance as follows: 
 
Two billboards have stood along the north side of Bell Road west of Boswell Boulevard since 
2017.  Allowing a slight reduction in spacing between the two nonconforming signs to achieve 
a safer environment for personnel working on the subject billboard does not add a billboard to 
the area and does not add a billboard to the Property.  Rather, approval of the spacing 
variance simply maintains the status quo in a manner that will avoid dangerous conditions 
created by proximity to overhead power lines.  The proposed rebuilding in no way undercuts 
the County’s desire to limit billboards along its roadways.  The nonconforming billboard was 
removed less than 12 months ago solely to facilitate this application and review of permits for 
the rebuilt sign.  This request does not contravene the intent of the Zoning Ordinance 
provisions in §1305 regarding nonconforming uses. 
As discussed above, strict application of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance will deny the 
ability to retain safely a billboard that stood on the Property for 15 years.  The proposed relocation 
is necessary to satisfy current safety standards that are needed to maintain a separation of the 
sign from overhead power lines.  But for these standards, the billboard would have remained in 
the location it had been since 2009. 
 
No person or entity in the chain of title created the change in safety standards that necessitate the 
relocation of the billboard.