04. BA240037 BOA Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
36311 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA240037 – Bratton Property Hearing Date: February 13, 2025 Supervisor District: 2 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: Sonya Maynes, Maynes Construction Property Owner: Sam Bratton III Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed front (south) setback of 20’ where 40’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Article 601.4.1.a Site Location: APN 219-21-007E @ 8202 E. Redberry St., Hawes Rd. and McDowell Rd., in the Mesa area Site Size: 35,000 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Vacant / R1 - 35 Open Violation: N/A Background: 1. January 24, 2005: The subject property was created via unregulated land division of parent parcel APN 219-21-007B as per MCR 2005-0085650. 2. August 1, 2024: The subject property was conveyed to the current property owner as per recorded deed MCR 20240411718. Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 3. On-site: R1-35 / Vacant North: R1-35 / Single-family residence South: Redberry St. then R1-35 / Single-family residence East: R1-35 / Single-family residence West: RS-35 (City of Mesa) / Vacant Page 2 of 10 Variance Request: 4. The applicant proposes to reduce the front yard setback from 40’ to 20’ along the southern lot line. The property owner plans to construct a single-family residence on the property. Staff notes that while a detailed site plan and residential elevations were provided with variance submittal, there are no active building permits for development. The applicant posits that the setback reduction is needed due to limitations on placement, size, and design of the septic system due to soil types present on the property, proximity to existing wells, an unusually high water table, and location of a small wash in the southern portion of the site. Excerpt from proposed site plan Page 3 of 10 Photograph of subject site, taken from south facing north Site Analysis: 5. The subject property is of a typical rectangular shape common of properties in the area and meets zoning district minimum lot area and width requirements. The property does contain a small wash on the southern portion of the property; however, it appears to be mostly contained within the required front yard setback of the property. Additionally, the site plan indicates the wash will be channelized and narrowed, presumably lessening any impact to building placement on site, as the setback variance will bring the proposed residence closer to the wash. Page 4 of 10 Floor Plan with ADUs Highlighted 6. Analysis of the site plan and floor plan submitted by the applicant indicate there are two accessory dwelling units proposed for the site, one attached to the primary residence, and one included in a detached accessory structure. Staff notes that only one ADU will be permitted. The floor plan must be modified for construction permitting. This is note-worthy for a couple reasons. First, the size of the septic tank and leach field may be influenced by the numerous plumbing fixtures included in the current floor plan due to several restrooms, four total kitchens (one in the primary residence, one in each ADU, and one outdoor kitchen), and overall size of the residence. A reduction in fixtures may allow for a smaller septic system negating the need for the reduction in setback. Second, as building permits have yet to be submitted the applicant is urged to explore different home designs, building placements, and site layouts that meet the R1-35 zoning district standards. Page 5 of 10 Aerial photo of subject site Aerial image & surrounding environs Page 6 of 10 Zoning District map Zoning District Standards: 7. 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 R1-35 Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Front Yard Setback (residence to south property line) 40-feet 20-feet Min. Rear Yard Setback (residence to north property line) 40-feet n/a Min. Side Yard Setback (residence to west property line) 20-feet n/a Min. Street Side Setback (residence to western edge of access easement along east property line) 20-feet n/a Maximum Height 30-feet n/a Minimum Lot Area 35,000-sq. ft. 35,000-sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 145-feet 165-feet Lot Coverage 30% n/a 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 Page 7 of 10 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.” 8. 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 property in question, intended for the construction of a residential home, faces several peculiar conditions that necessitate a variance from the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulations and Development Standards. Firstly, a wash enters from the east, travels 20 feet wide along the south side and exits at the southeast side of the property. According to zoning regulations, the septic system must be placed at least 25 feet from the wash. Secondly, there is a well located on the neighboring property to the north, within 5 feet of the property line, which requires the septic system to be situated at least 100 feet away. Thirdly, the soil in this area has a low absorption rate ranging from 6-10, necessitating a larger leach field area. Additionally, the water table in the area is at 10 feet below the surface, eliminating the option to utilize a seepage pit. These conditions present significant challenges for the placement of the septic system. The constraints imposed by the wash and the neighboring well severely limit the available space for the septic system. The larger leach field required due to the soil's absorption rate further complicates the placement within the remaining buildable area. The high-water table precludes the use of a seepage pit, adding to the complexity of meeting regulatory requirements for waste management on the property. The proposed use of the property is to construct a residential home. To achieve this, it is necessary to relocate the buildable area forward to accommodate the septic system and the required leach field while ensuring compliance with health and safety standards. This forward placement is essential due to the natural constraints and the specific requirements for septic system placement. Strict enforcement of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulations without a variance would impose a significant hardship on the property. The combination of the wash, the proximity of the neighboring well, the soil absorption rate, and the high water table create a unique set of challenges that cannot be addressed within the standard setback requirements. These conditions are not self created but inherent to the site, and they significantly reduce the buildable area, making it impossible to comply with the zoning regulations without adjustment. In conclusion, the peculiar conditions of the property, including the wash, the neighboring well, the soil absorption rate, and the high water table, necessitate a variance to allow for reasonable and safe development. Granting the variance will enable the construction of a residential home while maintaining compliance with health and safety standards and upholding the general intent and purpose of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. “ 9. 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. Page 8 of 10 “The Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance creates an unnecessary hardship for this property due to several peculiar conditions that are inherent to the site and not self-created. These conditions include a wash that enters from the east, travels 20 feet wide along the south side, and exits at the southeast side of the property, necessitating that the septic system be placed at least 25 feet away. Additionally, there is a well on the neighboring property to the north, within 5 feet of the property line, requiring the septic system to be situated at least 100 feet away. Furthermore, the soil in this area has a low absorption rate ranging from 6-10, necessitating a larger leach field. The water table is also at 10 feet below the surface, precluding the use of a seepage pit. These conditions significantly limit the usable area of the property, affecting where structures and utilities can be placed. The constraints imposed by the wash and the neighboring well severely restrict the available space for the septic system. The larger leach field required due to the soil's absorption rate and the high water table adds to the complexity of meeting regulatory requirements for waste management. These peculiar conditions were not created by the property owner or any previous owners in the line of title; they are natural and pre-existing. The wash, the location of the well, the soil absorption rate, and the water table are all inherent characteristics of the site. Consequently, the property owner faces a unique set of challenges that significantly reduce the buildable area and make it impossible to comply with the standard setback requirements and other zoning regulations without a variance. Enforcing the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulations without considering these peculiar conditions would impose an unnecessary hardship on the property. The combination of the wash, the proximity of the neighboring well, the soil absorption rate, and the high water table create a situation where the standard regulations cannot be reasonably applied. These natural constraints are not the result of any actions taken by the property owner or previous owners but are inherent to the land itself. In conclusion, the peculiar conditions of the property, including the wash, the neighboring well, the soil absorption rate, and the high water table, necessitate a variance to allow for reasonable and safe development. The variance is essential to make reasonable use of the property and to construct a residential home while ensuring compliance with health and safety standards. The conditions creating the hardship are not self-created but are inherent to the site, justifying the need for the requested variance.” 10. 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 variance would not cause a negative impact on the general intent and purpose of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. The primary aim of the Zoning Ordinance is to ensure orderly development, protect public health and safety, and preserve the quality of life in the community. The variance sought for this property aligns with these objectives for several reasons. Firstly, the variance is necessitated by unique, pre-existing natural conditions, specifically the presence of a wash and a neighboring well, which significantly constrain the buildable area of the property. These conditions are not self-created, and the variance is essential to make reasonable use of the property. The forward placement of the property to accommodate the septic system ensures that this essential feature can be installed in compliance with health and safety standards. By situating the septic system and reserve area in the only viable location, we are adhering to the strict health regulations while also ensuring the system's effective operation, which ultimately safeguards public health. Page 9 of 10 Secondly, granting the variance would allow the property to be developed in a manner consistent with the surrounding area. The proposed adjustments do not involve any radical changes to the property’s layout or use that would be out of character with neighboring properties. By accommodating the septic system, the property would maintain its residential function, contributing to the continuity and stability of the neighborhood. This ensures that the development is in harmony with the existing residential environment, thus supporting the orderly development goal of the Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, the variance would not compromise public health, safety, or welfare. On the contrary, it ensures that the septic system and reserve area are properly located and functioning, which is critical for maintaining sanitary conditions. The forward placement of the property does not encroach on public spaces or rights-of-way, nor does it impact neighboring properties negatively. The wash and well create natural barriers that define the property’s usable space, and the variance respects these natural features, ensuring that the development is both safe and environmentally conscious. Lastly, the variance would uphold the intent of the Zoning Ordinance by enabling the property to be used in a practical and beneficial way while respecting the unique natural constraints present. It strikes a balance between adhering to the general zoning regulations and accommodating the specific needs dictated by the property's peculiar conditions. The variance will allow us to build our forever home in a manner that is respectful of the environment and consistent with community standards, without undermining the overarching goals of the Ordinance. In conclusion, granting the requested variance supports the general intent and purpose of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance by facilitating reasonable and safe development, maintaining the character of the neighborhood, and ensuring compliance with health and safety standards. The natural constraints of the property necessitate the variance, and its approval would not only respect these unique conditions but also enhance the quality of life for our family and contribute positively to the community. We kindly request your support in granting this variance to build our family’s forever home while honoring the spirit and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance.” Findings: 11. 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. Page 10 of 10 In order to approve the variance the Board must make findings and articulate them in motion memorializing the above. 12. 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: • After reviewing the submission, staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition facing the property. While there is a small wash present on the southern side of the property, it does not impact the ability for a residence to be placed within the lot’s principal building envelope, as demonstrated by the fact that the requested variance will allow the primary residence to be placed closer to the wash itself. • The proposed site plan and associated floor plan may not meet zoning requirements even if the variance is granted due to what appears to be multiple ADUs. A modified project is likely to reduce or eliminate the need for a variance. • Staff notes that there are no active building permits on the subject property. If the variance is granted and the current proposed plans do not come to fruition the reduced setback would remain in place in perpetuity. This could lead to a different home design that would reasonably fit within the principle building envelope being approved 20’ from the southern lot line. • Staff cannot identify a peculiar condition facing the property that when presented with the ordinance standard creates an undue physical hardship, not self-created in the line of title, that will prevent reasonable development of the property. 13. 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 20’ (south) setback line for APN 219-21-007E. Presented by: Joseph Mueller, Planner Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (6 pages) Site Plan (1 page) Email to applicant informing of ADU requirements (1 page) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 2 Gross Acres: 1 approx. Generated January 21, 2025 10:30 AM BA240037 Application Name: Legal Description Bratton Residence Applicant Case Address 2N 7E 32 Sonya Maynes 8202 E REDBERRY Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:219-21-007E (623) 302-1526 Sonya@maynesconstruction.com MESA, AZ 85207 Map scale 1:528 Supervisor District No. Front Setback Reduction from 40' to 20' to make room for a septic system. Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Variance Application Packet 12/1/23 VARIANCE / INTERPRETATION APPLICATION ALL FEES ARE DUE AT TIME OF APPLICATION AND ARE NON-REFUNDABLE Is this Design Build? Yes No Is this Residential? Yes No Please select the type of Board of Adjustment application from the checkboxes below. Residential Variance Non-residential Variance Interpretation BA Blanket Variance Is this subject property within an area of 15% or greater hillside slopes? Yes No REQUEST Description of Request: Existing Zoning District and Use of Property: Related Case Number(s): PROPERTY INFORMATION Address (if known): General Location (include nearest city/town): Size in Acres: Square Feet: Legal Description: Section: Township: Range: Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): Subdivision Name (if applicable): APPLICANT INFORMATION Name: Contact: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone #: Fax #: E-mail Address: PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION Name: Contact: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone #: Fax #: E-mail Address: PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT AUTHORIZATION I (property owner) authorize (applicant’s name) to file this application on all matters relating to this request with Maricopa County. By signing this form as the property owner I hereby agree to abide by any and all conditions that may be assigned by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission, or Maricopa County Planning and Development Department staff as applicable, as part of any approval of this request, including conditions, development agreements, and/or any other requirement that may encumber or otherwise affect the use of my property. PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER - Signature required The property owner acknowledges that the approval being sought by this application may cause a reduction in the existing rights to use, divide, sell or possess the private property that is the subject of this application. The property owner further acknowledges that it is the property owner who has requested the action sought by the filing of this application. Therefore, with full knowledge of all rights granted to the property owner pursuant to A.R.S.§1§12-1132 through 1138, the property owner does hereby waive any and all claims for diminution in value of the property with regard to any action taken by Maricopa County as result of the filing of this application. Property Owner Signature: Date: INSPECTIONS By submitting this application, I am inviting County staff to conduct all site inspections they deem necessary. VERIFICATION OF APPLICATION INFORMATION - Signature required I certify that the statements in this application and support material are true. Any approvals or permits granted by Maricopa County in reliance upon the truthfulness of these statements may be revoked or rescinded. Owner or Authorized Agent Signature: Date: ARS § 1605 TIMEFRAME EXTENSION I authorize a 50% timeframe extension for the review of my application as adopted by the Board of Supervisors per ARS § 1605 and as amended. Property Owner Signature: _________________________________________________________ Date: ______________________________ I Reduce front setback from 40' to 20' 8202 E Redberry Street Hawes/Mcdowell in Mesa, Arizona 1 35,000 32 2N 7E 219-21-007-E Sonya Maynes 8202 E Redberry Mesa Arizona 85207 (623) 302-1526 sonya@maynesconstruction.com Sam C Bratton III 8202 E Redberry Mesa Arizona 85207 (480) 205-8867 Sam C Bratton III Sonya Maynes 12/17/2024 R-35 Vacant Land 12/17/2024 Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Variance Application Packet 12/1/23 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. 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. See attached. See Attached Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Variance Application Packet 12/1/23 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 See Attached. 1) The property in question, intended for the construction of a residential home, faces several peculiar conditions that necessitate a variance from the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulations and Development Standards. Firstly, a wash enters from the east, travels 20 feet wide along the south side, and exits at the southeast side of the property. According to zoning regulations, the septic system must be placed at least 25 feet from the wash. Secondly, there is a well located on the neighboring property to the north, within 5 feet of the property line, which requires the septic system to be situated at least 100 feet away. Thirdly, the soil in this area has a low absorption rate ranging from 6-10, necessitating a larger leach field area. Additionally, the water table in the area is at 10 feet below the surface, eliminating the option to utilize a seepage pit. These conditions present significant challenges for the placement of the septic system. The constraints imposed by the wash and the neighboring well severely limit the available space for the septic system. The larger leach field required due to the soil's absorption rate further complicates the placement within the remaining buildable area. The high water table precludes the use of a seepage pit, adding to the complexity of meeting regulatory requirements for waste management on the property. The proposed use of the property is to construct a residential home. To achieve this, it is necessary to relocate the buildable area forward to accommodate the septic system and the required leach field while ensuring compliance with health and safety standards. This forward placement is essential due to the natural constraints and the specific requirements for septic system placement. Strict enforcement of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulations without a variance would impose a significant hardship on the property. The combination of the wash, the proximity of the neighboring well, the soil absorption rate, and the high water table create a unique set of challenges that cannot be addressed within the standard setback requirements. These conditions are not self- created but inherent to the site, and they significantly reduce the buildable area, making it impossible to comply with the zoning regulations without adjustment. In conclusion, the peculiar conditions of the property, including the wash, the neighboring well, the soil absorption rate, and the high water table, necessitate a variance to allow for reasonable and safe development. Granting the variance will enable the construction of a residential home while maintaining compliance with health and safety standards and upholding the general intent and purpose of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. 2) The Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance creates an unnecessary hardship for this property due to several peculiar conditions that are inherent to the site and not self-created. These conditions include a wash that enters from the east, travels 20 feet wide along the south side, and exits at the southeast side of the property, necessitating that the septic system be placed at least 25 feet away. Additionally, there is a well on the neighboring property to the north, within 5 feet of the property line, requiring the septic system to be situated at least 100 feet away. Furthermore, the soil in this area has a low absorption rate ranging from 6-10, necessitating a larger leach field. The water table is also at 10 feet below the surface, precluding the use of a seepage pit. These conditions significantly limit the usable area of the property, affecting where structures and utilities can be placed. The constraints imposed by the wash and the neighboring well severely restrict the available space for the septic system. The larger leach field required due to the soil's absorption rate and the high water table adds to the complexity of meeting regulatory requirements for waste management. These peculiar conditions were not created by the property owner or any previous owners in the line of title; they are natural and pre-existing. The wash, the location of the well, the soil absorption rate, and the water table are all inherent characteristics of the site. Consequently, the property owner faces a unique set of challenges that significantly reduce the buildable area and make it impossible to comply with the standard setback requirements and other zoning regulations without a variance. Enforcing the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulations without considering these peculiar conditions would impose an unnecessary hardship on the property. The combination of the wash, the proximity of the neighboring well, the soil absorption rate, and the high water table create a situation where the standard regulations cannot be reasonably applied. These natural constraints are not the result of any actions taken by the property owner or previous owners but are inherent to the land itself. In conclusion, the peculiar conditions of the property, including the wash, the neighboring well, the soil absorption rate, and the high water table, necessitate a variance to allow for reasonable and safe development. The variance is essential to make reasonable use of the property and to construct a residential home while ensuring compliance with health and safety standards. The conditions creating the hardship are not self-created but are inherent to the site, justifying the need for the requested variance. 3) Granting the requested variance would not cause a negative impact on the general intent and purpose of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. The primary aim of the Zoning Ordinance is to ensure orderly development, protect public health and safety, and preserve the quality of life in the community. The variance sought for this property aligns with these objectives for several reasons. Firstly, the variance is necessitated by unique, pre-existing natural conditions, specifically the presence of a wash and a neighboring well, which significantly constrain the buildable area of the property. These conditions are not self-created, and the variance is essential to make reasonable use of the property. The forward placement of the property to accommodate the septic system ensures that this essential feature can be installed in compliance with health and safety standards. By situating the septic system and reserve area in the only viable location, we are adhering to the strict health regulations while also ensuring the system's effective operation, which ultimately safeguards public health. Secondly, granting the variance would allow the property to be developed in a manner consistent with the surrounding area. The proposed adjustments do not involve any radical changes to the property’s layout or use that would be out of character with neighboring properties. By accommodating the septic system, the property would maintain its residential function, contributing to the continuity and stability of the neighborhood. This ensures that the development is in harmony with the existing residential environment, thus supporting the orderly development goal of the Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, the variance would not compromise public health, safety, or welfare. On the contrary, it ensures that the septic system and reserve area are properly located and functioning, which is critical for maintaining sanitary conditions. The forward placement of the property does not encroach on public spaces or rights-of-way, nor does it impact neighboring properties negatively. The wash and well create natural barriers that define the property’s usable space, and the variance respects these natural features, ensuring that the development is both safe and environmentally conscious. Lastly, the variance would uphold the intent of the Zoning Ordinance by enabling the property to be used in a practical and beneficial way while respecting the unique natural constraints present. It strikes a balance between adhering to the general zoning regulations and accommodating the specific needs dictated by the property's peculiar conditions. The variance will allow us to build our forever home in a manner that is respectful of the environment and consistent with community standards, without undermining the overarching goals of the Ordinance. In conclusion, granting the requested variance supports the general intent and purpose of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance by facilitating reasonable and safe development, maintaining the character of the neighborhood, and ensuring compliance with health and safety standards. The natural constraints of the property necessitate the variance, and its approval would not only respect these unique conditions but also enhance the quality of life for our family and contribute positively to the community. We kindly request your support in granting this variance to build our family’s forever home while honoring the spirit and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. 1 Joseph Mueller (PND) From: Joseph Mueller (PND) Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2025 12:53 PM To: Sonya Maynes Subject: BA240037 - Bratton Property Good aŌernoon Sonya, I have reviewed the case submiƩal, and it appears to be set for the February 13, 2025 Board of Adjustment agenda. I do sƟll need to receive final sign off from our engineering and environmental teams however they typically do not have comments on variance cases. I will inform you as soon as sign-off is received or if the other review teams need addiƟonal informaƟon. The staff signoff deadline is January 21st. I will send a Ɵmeline checklist closer to that date. County staff will place two noƟficaƟon signs on the property by January 31st. If you are able, could you please provide a couple more pictures of the wash on the southern porƟon of the property? It would be beneficial to have them for the staff report. AddiƟonally, I wanted to make you aware that the floor planes as presented have two accessory dwelling units shown (the aƩached separate living quarters on the eastern porƟon of the main residence and the detached living quarters incorporated into the RV garage). R1-35 allows for one primary residence and one ADU (this includes aƩached or detached ADUs). While this will not impact the variance process for the reduced setback the floor design will not receive zoning clearance as is. A variance cannot be granted to allow for mulƟple ADUs. Please let me know if you have any quesƟons. Kind regards, Joseph Mueller PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 301 W Jefferson St Phoenix, AZ 85003 Planner O: 602-506-7629 MARICOPA.GOV Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube