Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Adjustment approves variance for Prieto parcel 4-1 after debate over lot-split error
Summary
The Maricopa County Board of Adjustment approved a variance for the Prieto property (APN 50412237) to allow a 43,552-square-foot lot area and 32-foot width, overriding rural-43 district minimums, after discussion about a prior lot-split error; vote was 4-1.
The Maricopa County Board of Adjustment voted 4-1 to approve a variance for the Prieto property, APN 50412237, establishing a 43,552-square-foot lot and a 32-foot lot width where the Rural-43 district requires 43,560 square feet and 145 feet respectively.
The decision came after staff summarized the parcel history and alternatives. Planning staff said the subject lot and four adjacent parcels were created by a lot split that left each slightly short of the one-acre minimum. Staff said the shortfalls were avoidable and recommended the applicant negotiate a rerecording of parcels or combine owned lots to meet standards, but the neighbouring owner would not negotiate. Staff advised the applicant of options; the applicant chose to pursue a variance for the southernmost parcel only.
The board’s discussion focused on whether the shortfall reflected an inadvertent surveying error and on precedent. Chairman Loper said the 8-square-foot shortfall was minor and noted lot-width differences present a larger concern for conformity. Member Carden expressed reluctance to approve given the appearance that the nonconformity stemmed from the owner’s earlier lot divisions and concern about setting a precedent for similar situations. Vice Chair Person said approving the variance could allow the area to develop and achieve greater density and services.
Applicant Sonia Prieto told the board she previously owned all five parcels and that efforts to negotiate with the middle-lot owner failed. Prieto said she preferred to keep her parcels separate rather than combine them at this time.
Motion and vote: Vice Chair Person moved to approve the variance “subject to the language outlined in the staff report.” The motion passed 4-1 with Member Carden voting no and Members Clapp, Ward, Vice Chair Person and Chairman Loper voting yes.
The chair advised the applicant that approval applied only to the parcel before the board and that other parcels would not be treated as automatic approvals in future hearings; staff encouraged continuing to explore options to make remaining lots conforming.
