Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Prieto topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Maricopa County board approves variance for Prieto lot after split-era survey error
Summary
The Maricopa County Board of Adjustment on a 4–1 vote granted a variance to Sonia Prieto for a single substandard lot created by a prior lot split, allowing parcel APN 50412237 to remain at 43,552 square feet and reduced frontage.
The Maricopa County Board of Adjustment on a 4–1 vote approved a variance for a Prieto property in District 5 that does not meet the Rural-43 minimum lot size and frontage requirements.
The approval grants a variance establishing a lot area of 43,552 square feet and reduced lot frontage for APN 50412237, according to staff recitation. The motion to approve came from Vice Chair Person and was seconded by Chairman Loper; Member Carden cast the lone “no” vote.
Staff planner Nick summarized the case, saying the parcel was created by a lot split that produced five substandard lots and that staff “is unable to identify a peculiar condition facing the property nor staff able to identify an undue hardship created by enforcement of the zoning ordinance.” He told the board the applicant previously owned all five parcels and that the middle parcel was sold after the split.
Applicant Sonia Prieto, who said she once owned all five lots, told the board she had attempted to negotiate with the other owner and to reconfigure her remaining parcels but was unable to reach agreement: “I tried to fixing it … they’re not willing to. And they don’t wanna buy, so I’m stuck here,” Prieto said.
Board discussion noted the parcels were only slightly shy of the Rural-43 minimum—Nick told the board the lots were “just shy” of the 43,560-square-foot requirement—and members debated whether approving one parcel would set a precedent for adjacent substandard lots. Vice Chair Person argued the deviation was minor and favored allowing five lots to remain, citing potential for increased local services in the Tonopah area. Member Carden said he was “not feeling comfortable” approving the single variance given questions about how the split occurred.
The board’s action memorializes the variance for the southernmost parcel only; staff and members reminded the applicant the approval for this parcel did not guarantee approval for the other parcels and encouraged continued work with staff on options such as reorientation or rerecording.
The applicant was advised by board members to continue negotiations with neighboring owners and to work with staff on possible reconfigurations that could make the other parcels conforming.
