BA260045 Handout Memo

DATE:  
August 12, 2026 
 
TO: 
 Board of Adjustment    
 
From: 
 Isaac Perez, Planner 
 
SUBJECT: 
 BA260045 – Bereckis Residence    
 
 Agenda Item: #2  
 
 
 
Since the publishing of this report, staff has received a statement of opposition. The statement 
of opposition questions the legality of an easement abandonment that took place, and on the lack 
of a hardship from the physical characteristics of the site.  
 
 
Attachments: 
 
Correspondence (2 pages) 
 
 
 
Attachments (33 pages)

1
Isaac Perez (PND)
From:
Ronald Quarles (PND)
Sent:
Wednesday, August 12, 2026 4:21 PM
To:
Isaac Perez (PND)
Subject:
FW: BOA Hearing 8.13.26 BA260045
Attachments:
20040406665-MJZ Easement Record Owners.pdf; 20031017775 lot split and Survey.pdf; 
20031248899 2003 Survey and Lot Split - revised 20031017774 also included.pdf; 
Demand Letter.pdf; List of Lots.docx; 211-51-010D.pdf; 203-33-012M.pdf; 
203-03-007H.pdf; 211-23-027E.pdf; 211-50-073.pdf; 211-50-006D and E.pdf; 
V202000783 - 4_29_2022 - JUDGMENT 4-25-22.pdf; Judgment and Order 5-19-26.pdf
Isaac FYI     
 
 
 
Ron Quarles 
Senior Planner 
Planning & Development 
301 W. Jefferson St. Suite 170 Phoenix, AZ 85003 
O: 602-506-7162 
[ Maricopa.Gov ] 
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
 Please be aware there are rampant fraud attempts to solicit wire transfer payments based upon email addresses found in public records. 
Maricopa County will never ask for a wire transfer payment. 
 
 
From: Kim Conley <
>  
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 3:06 PM 
To: Ronald Quarles (PND) <ronald.quarles@maricopa.gov> 
Subject: BOA Hearing 8.13.26 BA260045 
 
Hi Mr. Quarles, I plan on attending the hearing tomorrow August 13, 2026 on BA 260045. I int end to speak and appear in person. I am the property owner adjacent to the applicant. I am attaching the documents that I intend to refer ence and wish 
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart 
This Message Is From an External Sender 
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. 
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBanner End 
Hi Mr. Quarles, 
I plan on attending the hearing tomorrow August 13, 2026 on BA 260045. I intend to speak and appear in 
person.  
I am the property owner adjacent to the applicant.  
I am attaching the documents that I intend to reference and wish to present to the board.   
Thank you. 
Kim Conley

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 
Case BA260045 – Bereckis Residence 
Written Statement of Kimberly Conley 
Chairman and Members of the Board: 
My name is Kimberly Conley, and I own the property adjoining the applicant's.  
I respectfully ask the Board to deny the request for variance for the following reasons: 
1. The “partial easement abandonment” on the applicants site plan references an 
outdated lot split and easement recorded in ‘03. The legal description of the 
easement was amended in ‘04. I have a copies for the board. Therefore the  7/26 
recording does not stem from the correct legal description. This variance 
application relies on an easement abandonment which is invalid on its face. 
2. The abandonment is illegal for other reasons as well. The applicant has unilaterally 
recorded it without the consent of the other lot owners holding rights to the 
easement. The applicant may abandon his own rights, but has no authority to 
abandon my rights to it nor the authority to abandon the rights of owners of lots X 
and Y. Therefore, as long as we retain our rights to it, the boundary to the easement 
remains unchanged in spite of the applicants July  ‘26  recording. I have provided the 
board with the history of the easement and corresponding lot split as well as the 20 
day demand letter.  
3. Applicant claims that the lot configuration is “subject to unique physical and legal 
conditions…”. In fact it is common to the area.  I am providing a list and photos of 
similar lot configurations with accessory buildings. 
4. The size, location selected, and configuration of the barn chosen by the applicant is 
what creates the hardship. 
In  2020 a code enforcement violation was issued, and subsequently a judgement issued in 
April 2022. I am providing a copy of those for the board as well.  
Another  case involving the barn was opened in December 2025 with a judgement in March 
2026. I am also providing that. 
I bring this to your attention as it shows that the existing improvements and the related 
permitting issues predated this application by several years and one of the reasons 
provided by the applicant for needing the variance is due the lot combination

The StaƯ has concluded that it was unable to identify a peculiar condition creating an 
unnecessary hardship and that there is suƯicient space to relocate or modify the existing 
structure.    
My point is not that the applicant cannot have large stalls; it is that the size and 
configuration selected should be considered when determining whether the resulting 
constraint is a unique physical condition of the property 
I respectfully ask the Board to deny this application as there are no hardships arising from 
the unique physical characteristics of the property, but rather from the applicants desire to 
retain an unpermitted structure built in clear violation of the existing zoning restrictions.  
Conclusion 
In closing, I recognize that barns and equestrian uses are common in this area, and I have 
no objection to those. I also have horses on my property.  I understand the easement is a 
civil matter, however, my concern today is limited to whether the legal requirements for 
granting a variance have been satisfied.   
Finally, if the board cannot deny the variance outright today, I’d ask that they postpone a 
decision until the civil matter has been adjudicated. 
Thank you for your time and consideration.

LAWRENCE PALLES 
 
                                                                       1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1100  Phoenix, AZ 85004 
                                                                                    📞 (602) 604-2171                      ✉ 
 
  
 
 
 
August 12, 2026 
 
John and Jennifer Bereckis 
c/o Belen Olmedo Guerra, Altay Tascioglu & 
Samuel Hills 
Belen Law Firm PLLC 
1 N. 1st St., Ste. 713 
Phoenix, AZ 85004 
 
Re:  Demand for Removal of Wrongfully Recorded Partial Easement 
Abandonment Pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-420 
 
 
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bereckis: 
 
As you know this law firm represents Kimberly Conley. Please direct all 
correspondence to our attention and do not contact Ms. Conley directly. 
 
On or about July 7, 2026, you recorded a document entitled “Partial Abandonment 
of Ingress / Egress and Public Utility Easement” (the “Abandonment”) which purports to 
extinguish Ms. Conley’s express access and public utility easement rights. This document 
is groundless, contains material misstatements and false claims, and is otherwise invalid in 
violation of A.R.S. § 33-420. 
 
Your properties and the Conleys’ property were subdivided out of a single parcel in 
or about 2004, and are all burdened by a Dedication of Easements (the “Easement 
Dedication”) dated April 15, 2004, which provides, in pertinent part: 
 
THE UNDERSIGNED AS OWNER, DOES HEREBY GRANT AND 
DEDICATE EASEMENTS FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND PUBLIC 
UTILITIES, WELL SITE, WATER LINE AND MAINTENANCE FOR 
SAME AND RIGHTS INCIDENT THERETO AND APPURTENANT 
FACILITIES SET FORTH ON THE SURVEY OF LOT SPLIT 
ATTACHED HEREIN AND REFERENCED AS EXHIBIT "A" 
 
FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE OWNERS, THEIR 
GUESTS, INVITEES, SUCCESSORS, HEIRS AND ASSIGNS OF THE 
PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

John and Jennifer Bereckis 
August 12, 2026 
Page 2 
 
 
 
SEE EXHIBIT "B" A TT ACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART 
HEREOF 
 
THE EASEMENTS HEREIN GRANTED AND DEDICATED SHALL BE 
PERPETUAL AND SHALL BE BINDING UPON GRANTOR, 
SUCCESSORS AND/OR ASSIGNS AND SHALL RUN WITH THE 
LAND. 
 
See Easement Dedication, attached as Exhibit 1 (capitalization in original, emphasis 
added). Since its creation and recording in April 2004, the Easement Dedication has 
remained of record and has never been lawfully vacated, extinguished, abandoned, or 
otherwise terminated by any court order, recorded instrument, or agreement of all affected 
lot owners. The Easement Dedication constitutes a valid and enforceable property interest 
benefiting the dominant estates and burdening the servient estates among Lots A through 
E 
 
Among the rights created by the Easement Dedication is an Ingress/Egress and 
Public Utilities Easement, which includes a cul-de-sac at the terminus of the roadway 
traversing Lots B, C, and D. The Easement is appurtenant to each of Lots A through E and 
is not dependent upon the consent, permission, or unilateral determination of any individual 
lot owner. 
 
Although not specifically stated in either the Abandonment or the Warranty Deed 
Combining Lots (“Warranty Deed”), it appears that you recorded the Abandonment under 
the misguided belief that your merger of the two parcels into a single parcel grant you 
standing or some other right to unilaterally abandon the access and public utility easements 
for all of the parcels subject to the Easement Dedication.  Ms. Conley’s easement rights as 
owner of her parcel cannot be, and have not been, terminated as a result of your merger of 
parcels or purported “abandonment” of the easement by virtue of your ownership of two 
of the parcels subject to the easements. 
 
Easements can be terminated in several ways, including abandonment and merger. 
Easements may be partially extinguished, but an easement “is not terminated until all the 
benefits have been extinguished.” Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 7.1 
(2000) (emphasis added); Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 7.3, cmt. b (2000) 
“However, until all benefits have been extinguished, the servitude burden persists as 
modified.”). “Release by one beneficiary of a servitude cannot affect the interests of the 
other beneficiaries of the servitude; nor does release as to one servient owner grant a 
release to other owners subject to the same or a similar servitude.” Id. (emphasis added).

John and Jennifer Bereckis 
August 12, 2026 
Page 3 
 
 
 
 
An owner of an easement may abandon it by relinquishing his or her rights to the 
easement. Scalia v. Green, 229 Ariz. 100, 102, ¶ 9 (App. 2011). “If the beneficiary of the 
easement abandons it, the easement disappears, and the landowner resumes his full and 
unencumbered interest in the land.” Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Tr. v. United States, 572 
U.S. 93, 104–05, 134 S. Ct. 1257 (2014) (emphasis added). Abandonment of an easement 
requires the intent to abandon coupled with an act or a failure to act that carries out the 
intent to abandon. IB Prop. Holdings, LLC v. Rancho Del Mar Apartments Ltd. P'ship, 228 
Ariz. 61, 68, ¶ 23 (App. 2011), citing City of Tucson v. Koerber, 82 Ariz. 347, 356, 313 
P.2d 411, 418 (1957). And waiver is the “voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a 
known right” or conduct warranting an inference that such a right has been relinquished. 
Id.  Abandonment and waiver both “require the concurrence of act and intent.” Id. Only 
the owner of the easement right can abandon it.  Ms. Conley has not abandoned the 
easement, and you cannot unilaterally terminate her rights. 
“Under the doctrine of merger, when a single owner ‘acquires present possessory 
fee simple title to both the servient and dominant tenements [of an easement], the 
easement merges into the fee ... and is terminated.’” Glenbrook Homeowners Ass'n v. 
Tahoe Reg'l Plan. Agency, 425 F.3d 611, 618 (9th Cir. 2005), quoting Breliant v. Preferred 
Equities Corp., 109 Nev. 842, 858 P.2d 1258, 1261 (1993) (emphasis added). “So long as 
there are any outstanding interests in the property or estate benefited or burdened by the 
servitude, merger does not take place.”  Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 
7.5, cmt d (2000) (emphasis added); see also Heritage Communities of N. Carolina, Inc. v. 
Powers, Inc., 49 N.C. App. 656, 658, 272 S.E.2d 399, 401 (1980) (“For the doctrine to 
operate there must be no intermediate estates of other parties in the property that would 
interfere with the owner's unlimited right and power to make any and every possible use of 
the land”). Your merger of parcels does not impact Ms. Conley’s easement right for ingress 
and egress.   
The Abandonment is baseless and falsely represents that her easement rights have 
been terminated.  As explained above, you have no standing or authority to extinguish Ms. 
Conley’s access and public utilities rights. 
 
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 33-420(C), Ms. Conley demands that you immediately remove 
the Abandonment within 20 days from the date of this letter or Ms. Conley will exercise 
her rights in accordance with A.R.S. § 33-420. Among other things, Ms. Conley will move 
to secure their statutory and/or actual damages (including treble damages) as well as

John and Jennifer Bereckis 
August 12, 2026 
Page 4 
 
 
 
recover her costs and attorneys’ fees incurred because of the wrongful recording. It is a 
class 1 misdemeanor to record a document knowing or having reason to know that the 
document is forged, groundless, contains a material misstatement or false claim.   Ariz. 
Rev. Stat. Ann. § 33-420 (E). Ms. Conley will assert all available legal rights if you fail to 
remove the Abandonment within 20 days. 
 
 
Sincerely, 
 
 
 
Lawrence Palles  
 
LP/jsl 
 
Enclosure

John and Jennifer Bereckis 
August 12, 2026 
Page 5

BA260045  
Bereckis Residence 
Similar Lot Configurations 
 
211-23-027E — 507 W Rising Star Way, Phoenix, AZ 85086; same builder and similar five-lot 
configuration; barn on the equivalent of Lot C.  
211-50-006E similar 5 lot configuration with a 2,112 sqf barn and second 10x12 building 
211-50-006D - similar 5 lot configuration with a 1,728 sqf barn 
211-50-010D similar 5 lot configuration with a 1,728 sqf barn and a 900’ RV garage 
211-50-073  
203-33-007H — no shed row, but has a casita.  
203-33-012M — no barn, but has a casita.

211-51-010D
Maricopa County GIO, Maricopa County Assessor's Office
Override 1
August 12, 2026
0
0.03
0.06
0.01
mi
0
0.05
0.1
0.03
km
1:2,257
2026 - Maricopa County Assessor's Office

203-33-012M
Maricopa County GIO, Maricopa County Assessor's Office
August 12, 2026
0
0.03
0.06
0.01
mi
0
0.05
0.1
0.03
km
1:2,257
2026 - Maricopa County Assessor's Office

203-03-007H
Maricopa County GIO, Maricopa County Assessor's Office
August 12, 2026
0
0.03
0.06
0.01
mi
0
0.05
0.1
0.03
km
1:2,257
2026 - Maricopa County Assessor's Office

211-23-027E
Maricopa County GIO, Maricopa County Assessor's Office
August 12, 2026
0
0.03
0.06
0.01
mi
0
0.05
0.1
0.03
km
1:2,257
2026 - Maricopa County Assessor's Office

211-51-073
Maricopa County GIO, Maricopa County Assessor's Office
August 12, 2026
0
0.03
0.06
0.01
mi
0
0.05
0.1
0.03
km
1:2,257
2026 - Maricopa County Assessor's Office

Map
Maricopa County GIO, Maricopa County Assessor's Office
Override 1
August 12, 2026
0
0.01
0.03
0.01
mi
0
0.03
0.05
0.01
km
1:1,128
2026 - Maricopa County Assessor's Office