02.BA260045 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
18396 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case:
BA260045 – Bereckis Residence
Hearing Date:
August 13, 2026
Supervisor District:
3
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Applicant:
Morgan Busby, Busby Permits
Property Owner:
John W. Bereckis
Requests:
Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance to permit:
1)
Proposed front setback of 30’ where 40’ is the minimum permitted per
MCZO Article 502
2)
Proposed rear setback for a detached accessory structure of 1’ where 3’
is the minimum permitted per MCZO Article 806.2.1
Site Location:
APN 211-51-020Q @ 36505 N. 15th Ln. in the Phoenix area
Site Size:
87,120 sq. ft.
Current Use / Zoning:
Single-family residence / Rural-43
Open Violations:
V202000783, V2502037
Background:
1.
July 25, 2017: The current property owner takes possession - one parcel warranty deed MCR 2017-
0543661. (prior to lot combination)
2.
November 7, 2017: The current property owner takes possession of the second parcel via
warranty deed MCR 2017-0828418. The two parcels are subsequently consolidated into a single
lot.
3.
Circa 2020: The horse stalls first appear via aerial photos.
4.
May 21, 2020: A violation, V202000783, is opened against the property for construction without
permits for a wall and horse stalls.
5.
December 29, 2025: A second violation, V2502037, is opened against the property for construction
without permits for a wall and barn.
6.
May 12, 2026: A hearing finds the owner responsible for the violation.
7.
May 13, 2026: An application for a residential variance for a detached accessory structure is
submitted.
Page 2 of 11
8.
June 19, 2026: A lot combination creates the parcel in its existing form per MCR 2026-0370165.
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use:
9.
On-site:
Rural-43 / Single-family residence and accessory structure
North:
Rural-43 / Single-family residence
South:
Rural-43 / Single-family residence
East:
Rural-43/ Single-family residences
West:
N. 15th Ln. then Rural-43 / Single-family residence
Variance Requests:
10.
The applicant proposes to resolve an outstanding violation for an unpermitted 124’ x 18’, or 2,232
sq. ft. horse stall. This detached accessory structure is located 1’ from the east property line (rear)
and 30 feet from the west property line (front). The subject site is 87,120 sq. ft. with a 5% lot
coverage.
Excerpt from proposed site plan
Page 3 of 11
Building Envelope
Page 4 of 11
Elevation detail of existing horse stalls.
Page 5 of 11
Photographs of subject site
Page 6 of 11
Site Analysis:
11.
The site is located in the Desert Hills area of Maricopa County. It is predominantly rural and
features acre-sized lots occupied by single-family residences that are served by private or shared
wells, and septic systems. Although the area is predominately rural-residential, there are few
county-maintained rights-of-way as properties are accessed via private easements. Like many
rural areas throughout Maricopa County, however, this area has been severely impacted by
unregulated minor lot splits.
12.
The subject site itself does not contain any peculiar conditions such as floodplains, floodways,
hillside slopes, or other characteristics of topographic interests. However, it does bear a hallmark
common to five-lot-splits via unregulated land division which feature a cul-de-sac culminating in
a diamond shaped northern lot. These cul-de-sacs create confusion where zoning frontages often
conflict regarding structure location and placement. To resolve the confusion and provide natural
alignment, a portion of the cul-de-sac was abandoned with the intent of restoring the sites
setbacks, however resulting in more confusion and complexity.
13.
Horse stalls are a common accessory structure throughout rural areas of Maricopa County. It
does not appear out of place for the area and aligns with the existing single-family residence that
occupies the parcel. A plan review via a construction permit would have addressed the issue of
setback encroachments.
14.
No variance is necessary with modification to the horse stalls so that they meet the minimum 40’
front setback and 3’ rear setback for a detached accessory structure.
Page 7 of 11
Aerial photo of subject site.
Aerial image & surrounding environs
Page 8 of 11
Eagle view of subject site looking northeast into subject parcel (aerial image dated 03/01/2025).
Zoning District map
Page 9 of 11
Zoning District Standards:
15.
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
Rural-43
Zoning
District
Proposed with
Variance
Min. Front Yard Setback (west property line)
40-feet
30-feet
Min. Rear Yard Setback (east property line)
40-feet
1-foot
Min. Side Yard Setback (north and south property lines)
30-feet
n/a
Maximum Height
30-feet
n/a
Minimum Lot Area
43,560-sq. ft.
n/a
Minimum Lot Width
145-feet
n/a
Lot Coverage
25%
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
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.”
16.
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 is subject to unique physical and legal conditions resulting from a recent lot
combination and partial easement abandonment. Following these recorded changes, the resulting
parcel configuration is unusually narrow, measuring approximately 165 feet in width. The parcel’s
limited width, combined with its irregular configuration and the location of the remaining
easements, substantially restricts the area available for the reasonable placement of structure “
17.
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.
“The unnecessary hardship is created by the combined effect of the property’s unusually narrow
width, irregular configuration, remaining easements, and the yard designations applied under the
Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. At approximately 165 feet in width, the parcel has a
substantially constrained building envelope when the required front and rear setbacks are applied.
Strict enforcement of these setbacks would require the existing barn to be substantially reduced or
partially removed, limiting its functionality and preventing the owner from making reasonable
residential and equestrian use of the property.”
Page 10 of 11
18.
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 negatively affect the general intent or purpose of the
Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed variance is limited to the setback relief
necessary to accommodate the existing barn and does not change the residential and private
equestrian use of the property. The requested variance is also consistent with the character of the
surrounding rural area, where barns, stables, fencing, and other equestrian improvements are
common. The relief requested is based on the property’s unusually narrow width, irregular
configuration, remaining easements, and resulting limited building envelope. It is not a request to
intensify the use of the property or introduce an incompatible activity.”
Findings:
19.
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.
20.
Based upon what the applicant has submitted and the staff analysis in this report, staff offers the
following observations the Board may consider in its findings:
•
Staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition of the property that creates an unnecessary
hardship. There is sufficient space to relocate the existing structure within the setback
requirements of the Rural-43 zoning district.
•
Because the structure is existing, granting this variance would allow the applicant and
property owner to pursue as-built permits and resolve the outstanding violations.
However, remedies such as relocation or removal of this structure would eliminate the
setback encroachments.
Page 11 of 11
•
As a zoning matter, the rear yard setback deviation from 3’ to 1’ for a detached accessory
structure may not seem significant. However, it would allow for an eave overhang at a
zero lot line adjacent to the single-family residential lot to the east. It would also
significantly expand the building envelope by reducing the required rear yard setback to
1’.
•
The stables can be modified to meet the minimum required 40’ front setback and 3’ rear
setback for a detached accessory structure, thus negating need for a variance.
21.
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 30’ (west) setback line for APN 211-51-020Q.
b)
Variance approval establishes a 1’ (east) setback line for APN 211-51-020Q.
Presented by:
Isaac Perez, Planner
Reviewed by:
Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager
Attachments:
Case Map (1 page)
Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages)
Site Plan (1 pages)
/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
3
Gross Acres: 2 approx.
Generated July 30, 2026 8:44 AM
BA260045
Application Name:
Legal Description
Bereckis Variance
Applicant
Case Address
6N-3E-31,6N-3E-31
Morgan Busby
36505 N 15TH LN PHOENIX, AZ 85086
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:211-51-020L
(425) 377-4589
PHOENIX, AZ 85086
Map scale 1:989
Supervisor District No.
Reduction of accessory setback from interior lot line (east) from 3' to 1'
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.
The property is subject to unique physical and legal conditions resulting from a recent lot
combination and partial easement abandonment. Following these recorded changes, the
resulting parcel configuration is unusually narrow, measuring approximately 165 feet in
width. The parcel’s limited width, combined with its irregular configuration and the location
of the remaining easements, substantially restricts the area available for the reasonable
placement of structure
The unnecessary hardship is created by the combined effect of the property’s unusually
narrow width, irregular configuration, remaining easements, and the yard designations
applied under the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. At approximately 165 feet in width,
the parcel has a substantially constrained building envelope when the required front and
rear setbacks are applied. Strict enforcement of these setbacks would require the existing
barn to be substantially reduced or partially removed, limiting its functionality and
preventing the owner from making reasonable residential and equestrian use of the
property.
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
Granting the requested variance would not negatively affect the general intent or purpose
of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed variance is limited to the
setback relief necessary to accommodate the existing barn and does not change the
residential and private equestrian use of the property.The requested variance is also
consistent with the character of the surrounding rural area, where barns, stables, fencing,
and other equestrian improvements are common. The relief requested is based on the
property’s unusually narrow width, irregular configuration, remaining easements, and
resulting limited building envelope. It is not a request to intensify the use of the property
or introduce an incompatible activity.
SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY:
MORGAN BUSBY
425-377-4589
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
P / L
124'
18'
1'-6"
20'
30'-10"
44'-3 11 16"
59'-5 3 8"
40'
258'-5 5 8"
20' I/E & PUE
PER MCR #20031490533
& MCR #20260403195
165'
233'
177.58'
100'
330.38'
398'
EXISTING SFR
EXISTING SHED ROW
CURRENTLY ENCROACHING ON
FRONT & REAR SETBACK
Partial Easement Abandoned
Per MCR#202600403195
EXISTING CMU WALL
P-1
REVISION TABLE
NUMBER DATE
REVISED BY
DESCRIPTION
SHEET:
SCALE:1'' = 20'
DATE:
7/22/2026
JOHN & JENNIFER
BERECKIS
SITE PLAN
1'' = 20'
PROJECT INFO:
ADDRESS:
36516 N. 15th Lane
Phoenix, AZ 850086
APN: 211-51-020Q
ZONING:RU-43
OWNERS: JOHN / JENNIFER BERECKIS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR THE
EXISTING SHED ROW TO ENCROACH ON
FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS. SEE BELOW FOR
SPECIFIC REQUESTS
AREA:
LOT AREA (SQ FT): 87,120
EXIST. HOME (SQ FT): 2,489
EXST. SHADE STRUCTURES (SQ FT): 2,232
LOT COVERAGE TOTAL (SQ FT): 4,701
LOT COVERAGE PERCENT: 5%
REQUIRED SETBACKS (PRIMARY DWELLING):
FRONT (FT): 40'
REAR (FT): 40'
SIDES (FT): 20'
REQUIRED SETBACKS (ACCSRY. STRUCTURE)
FRONT (FT): 40'
REAR (FT): 3'
SIDES (FT): 3'
REQUESTED SETBACKS (ACCSRY. STRUCTURE)
FRONT (FT): 25'
REAR (FT): 1'
SIDES (FT): 3'
GENERAL NOTES:
Contractor to field verify all setbacks,
measurements & locations
North