05.BA260060 BOA Staff Report

Report to the Board of Adjustment 
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department 
 
 
Case:   
 
 
BA260060 – King Residence 
 
Hearing Date:  
 
August 13, 2026 
 
Supervisor District: 
 
3 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Applicant:  
Polan Cabrera, Southwest Building Solutions LLC  
 
Property Owner: 
King Living Trust 
 
Requests: 
Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning 
Ordinance to permit: 
 
1) 
Proposed front setback of 12’ where 40’ is the minimum permitted per 
MCZO Article 502  
 
2) 
Proposed street side setback of 5’ where 20’ is the minimum permitted 
per MCZO Article 502 
 
Site Location: 
APN 211-49-007H @ 930 E. Shawna Ct. in the New River area 
 
Site Size: 
 
 
48,722 sq. ft.  
 
Current Use / Zoning: 
Single-family residence / Rural-43 
 
Open Violation: 
N/A 
 
Background: 
 
1. 
January 10, 1958: Per MCR 1958-0114776, the Bascom Hills subdivision is recorded. The subject 
parcel is assigned lot number 7 and is part of a larger parent parcel.   
 
2. 
Circa 2003: A new legal description first appears for the parcel adjacent to the west of the subject 
parcel demonstrating that a lot split occurred and creating the subject site as an independent 
parcel.  
 
3. 
May 13, 2024: The current property owner takes possession of the subject parcel per MCR 2024-
0253022.  
 
4. 
May 13, 2026: An application for a detached accessory building is received. Plan review comments 
refer the applicant to apply for a residential variance for deviations to the setback requirements.  
 
5. 
June 18, 2026: An application for a residential variance is received.

Page 2 of 10 
 
 
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 
 
6. 
On-site: 
Rural-43 / Single-family residence 
 
North:  
Tanya Rd. then Rural-43 / Single-family residence 
South:  
Shawna Ct. Rural-43 / Single-family residence 
East: 
 
10th St. then Rural-43/ Single-family residence 
 
West:  
Rural-43 / Single-family residence  
 
 
Variance Requests: 
 
7. 
The applicant proposes to develop a 35’ x 25’, or 980 sq. ft. detached accessory structure within 
the Rural-43 zoning district in the New River area. The subject parcel is 48,782 sq. ft. and features 
a single-family residence, swimming pool, and other detached accessory structures. It has a 
current lot coverage of 9%. Additionally, the proposed detached accessory structure will have a 
height of 16.5’ and will not include utilities such as electricity or plumbing. The structure is 
proposed 5’ from east side property line, adjacent to 10th St., and is proposed 12’ from the end of 
the Tanya Rd., a 20’ private access easement located north of the property. The total lot coverage 
would be 10.9%. Because the lot features access easements along the north and south ends of 
the property, it is considered a through lot and requires that front yard setbacks are maintained 
on both sides of the property.  
 
Excerpt from proposed site plan

Page 3 of 10 
 
 
Elevation 
 
 
 
Photographs of subject site

Page 4 of 10

Page 5 of 10 
 
Site Analysis: 
 
8. 
The subject site is located within the Bascom Hills Subdivision in the New River area of Maricopa 
County. Originally platted in 1958, it is an older subdivision that predates modern subdivision 
development standards and remained largely vacant in its first few decades of existence. Since 
the 2000’s, the subdivision has experienced significant growth in the form of rural-residential 
single family development derived from unregulated minor lot splits. Today, this subdivision is a 
relic of its original form. It features an abundance of new parcels derived from unregulated minor 
lot splits whose access points were designed and located using a piecemeal approach to achieve 
singular purposes rather than communal ends. Consequently, the subject site now sits at the east 
end of a 4-parcel block.  
 
9. 
The subject site itself does not contain any features of topographical interest or defect. It is 
relatively uniform in elevation, and its lot shape is typical of acre-sized lots within the Rural-43 
zoning district throughout Maricopa County. West of the subject site, however, is a FEMA 
designated floodway. This floodway appears to have forced development west of the subject site 
northwards out of alignment with the subject site.  
 
10. 
As originally platted, the subject site comprised the northeast edge of a larger parent parcel 
adjacent to a 40’ county-maintained 10th St. right-of-way. This right-of-way is classified by the 
Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) as a local road and is designed for 
short trip lengths to residential properties. It is the least intense road classification for county 
maintained rights-of-way. Access to the two eastward homes and the two westward homes are  
affected by the existing floodway alignment. Shawna Rd. is utilized as access for the two 
eastward homes, and Shawn Ct. is utilized for the two westward homes.  
 
Aerial photo of subject site

Page 6 of 10 
 
Aerial image & surrounding environs 
 
 
 
Original Plat and Parent Parcel

Page 7 of 10 
 
Eagle view of subject site looking northeast into subject parcel (aerial image dated 03/31/2025)  
 
 
 
Zoning District map

Page 8 of 10 
 
 
Zoning District Standards: 
 
11. 
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 (south property line)  
40-feet 
n/a 
Min. Front Yard Setback (north property line) 
40-feet 
12-feet 
Min. Side Yard Setback (west property line) 
20-feet 
n/a 
Min. Street Side Yard Setback (east property line) 
20-feet 
5-feet 
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.”  
 
12. 
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 two unique site conditions that limit the available buildable area for a 
proposed accessory structure. First, under MCZO Section 806.2, accessory buildings on corner lots 
may not occupy the street side yard 20’ setback from the street side property line. Second, because 
the property has frontage along Shawna Court and an ingress/egress easement along the north 
property line, it is classified as a through lot under MCZO Chapter 2, requiring a 40-foot front-yard 
setback along the north property line. The proposed use is a detached accessory structure serving 
the existing residential property. The property's corner-lot location and through-lot classification 
significantly reduce the area available for construction. The ingress/egress easement along the 
north property line further restricts the practical placement of structures on the site. These 
conditions are unique to the property's location and configuration rather than the result of 
development choices by the owner. Strict enforcement of the 20-foot street-side setback and 40-
foot north front-yard setback would unnecessarily limit the placement of the accessory structure 
and reduce the reasonable use of the property. The requested variances would allow the structure 
to be located 5’ from the east property line and 32’ 8” inches from the north property line while 
maintaining compatibility with the surrounding area.” 
 
13. 
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

Page 9 of 10 
 
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 property's unique corner-lot and through-lot 
characteristics. The combination of the 20-foot street-side setback required by MCZO Section 
806.2 and the 40-foot front-yard setback required by the through-lot classification under MCZO 
Chapter 2 substantially reduces the buildable area available for an accessory structure. In addition, 
the ingress/egress easement along the north property line further limits the usable portion of the 
site. These conditions are inherent to the property and were not created by the current owner or any 
action within the line of title. The lot's location, configuration, and easement arrangement existed 
prior to the variance request. Without relief from these setback requirements, the property owner's 
ability to reasonably construct and utilize an accessory structure would be unnecessarily restricted 
compared to similarly zoned properties that are not subject to the same conditions.” 
 
14. 
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 variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare or contrary to the 
intent of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed accessory structure will remain 
subordinate to the primary residence and consistent with the residential character of the 
surrounding area. The reduced setbacks will not adversely affect access, visibility, drainage, public 
safety, or neighboring properties. The variances are limited to the minimum relief necessary to 
accommodate the property's unique corner-lot and through-lot conditions. Approval of the request 
will allow reasonable use of the property while preserving the overall goals and intent of the zoning 
regulations.” 
 
Findings:  
 
15. 
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.   
 
16. 
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: 
 
• 
Regarding the variance request for a 12’ (north) front setback line, staff identifies the 
floodway outside of the subject site as necessitating the presence of Tanya Rd. This 
presence renders the subject site as through lot. However, an alternative remedy outside 
of a variance exists in the form of recording a 1’ vehicular non-access easement (VNAE) 
at the end of the public 8’ public utilities easement. This would negate the effects created 
by presence of Tanya Rd. by restoring the north end of property as a rear yard which allows 
encroachment within the required setback with a minimum of a 3’ setback for the 
detached structure.  
 
• 
Regarding the variance request for a 5’ (east) street-side setback line, staff is unable to 
identify a peculiar condition that has created an unnecessary hardship. The subject site 
was not originally platted as a corner lot but became one by virtue of numerous 
unregulated minor lot splits. The current property owner, therefore, is responsible in the 
line-of-title.  
 
• 
The proposed location for the detached accessory structure would align with driveway 
access along Shawna Ct. It is also feasible due to the presence of natural vegetation that 
prevents relocation of the structure to the subject site’s interior. Natural vegetation, 
however, is generally not considered a peculiar condition which causes an unnecessary 
hardship.  
 
• 
10th St. is a county-maintained local road that generates minimal traffic and provides 
access to only a small cluster of homes located northeast of the subject site. Additionally, 
there is also a 6’ high CMU wall and open space that provides a barrier between the subject 
site and traffic along this right-of-way. It is unlikely that locating the detached accessory 
structure would create a safety hazard given the right-of-way’s inherent low traffic volume 
and velocity.   
 
17. 
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 minimum 12’ (north) setback line for APN 211-49-007H.  
 
b) 
Variance approval establishes a minimum 5’ (east) setback line for APN 211-49-007H.  
 
Presented by: 
Isaac Perez, Planner 
Reviewed by: 
Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager  
 
Attachments: 
Case Map (1 page) 
 
Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (4 pages) 
 
Site Plan (1 pages)

/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
3
Gross Acres: 1 approx.
Generated July 29, 2026 8:49 AM
BA260060
Application Name:
Legal Description
King Garage
Applicant
Case Address
6N-3E-28
Polan   Cabrera
930 E SHAWNA CT PHOENIX, AZ 85086
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:211-49-007H
(623) 505-3179
PHOENIX, AZ 85086
Map scale 1:797
Supervisor District No.
Detached accessory structure (No Utilities) within the 20 foot street-side setback.

Planning & Development Department
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003
P: 602.506.3301
Residential Variance Application Packet 
/24 
RESIDENTIAL VARIANCE 
PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION
APPLICATION FORM
ALL FEES ARE DUE AT TIME OF APPLICATION AND ARE NON-REFUNDABLE
RESIDENTIAL VARIANCE 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):
Is this subject property within an area of 15% or greater hillside slopes? Yes 
No  
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:
  ______________________________
To reduce the corner lot street side setback from 20' to 5'
RU-43 / Single Family Residence 
N/A
930 E Shawna Ct Phoenix, AZ 85086
Phoenix
1.11
48,722.00
28
6N
3E
211-49-007H 
BASCOM HILLS 
Southwest Building Solutions
David Montoya
16150 N Arrowhead Fountains Center Dr #260
Peoria
AZ 
85382
(623) 980-0547
Bruce King
Same
930 E Shawna Ct
Phoenix
AZ
85086
(541) 510-1252
Bruce King
David Montoya
6/17/26
06 / 17 / 2026
06 / 17 / 2026
Doc ID: 68e1abdb466039dcf4bb078cb90c2e1936424810
Received 07/01/2026

Application Form
Application_Form.pdf
68e1abdb466039dcf4bb078cb90c2e1936424810
MM / DD / YYYY
Signed
06 / 17 / 2026
21:55:51 UTC
Sent for signature to Bruce King (
)
from 
IP: 70.166.113.132
06 / 17 / 2026
22:43:17 UTC
Viewed by Bruce King (
)
IP: 174.205.228.109
06 / 17 / 2026
22:43:46 UTC
Signed by Bruce King (
)
IP: 174.205.228.109
The document has been completed.
06 / 17 / 2026
22:43:46 UTC

Planning & Development Department
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003
P: 602.506.3301
Variance Application Packet 
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 two unique site conditions that limit the available buildable area for a proposed accessory  
structure. First, under MCZO Section 806.2, accessory buildings on corner lots may not occupy the street side yard 20’  
setback from the street side property line. Second, because the property has frontage along Shawna Court and an  
ingress/egress easement along the north property line, it is classified as a through lot under MCZO Chapter 2, requiring a  
40-foot front-yard setback along the north property line.  
The proposed use is a detached accessory structure serving the existing residential property. The property's corner-lot  
location and through-lot classification significantly reduce the area available for construction. The ingress/egress easement  
along the north property line further restricts the practical placement of structures on the site. These conditions are unique  
to the property's location and configuration rather than the result of development choices by the owner. Strict enforcement  
of the 20-foot street-side setback and 40-foot north front-yard setback would unnecessarily limit the placement of the  
accessory structure and reduce the reasonable use of the property. The requested variances would allow the structure  
to be located 5’ from the east property line and 32’ 8” inches from the north property line while maintaining compatibility  
with the surrounding area. 
The unnecessary hardship is created by the property's unique corner-lot and through-lot characteristics. The combination  
of the 20-foot street-side setback required by MCZO Section 806.2 and the 40-foot front-yard setback required by the  
through-lot classification under MCZO Chapter 2 substantially reduces the buildable area available for an accessory  
structure. In addition, the ingress/egress easement along the north property line further limits the usable portion of the site. 
These conditions are inherent to the property and were not created by the current owner or any action within the line of  
title. The lot's location, configuration, and easement arrangement existed prior to the variance request. Without relief from  
these setback requirements, the property owner's ability to reasonably construct and utilize an accessory structure would  
be unnecessarily restricted compared to similarly zoned properties that are not subject to the same conditions. 
Received 06/18/2026

Planning & Development Department
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003
P: 602.506.3301
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
Variance Application Packet 
Granting the requested variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare or contrary to the intent of the Maricopa County Zoning 
Ordinance. The proposed accessory structure will remain subordinate to the primary residence and consistent with the residential 
character of the surrounding area. The reduced setbacks will not adversely affect access, visibility, drainage, public safety, or 
neighboring properties.The variances are limited to the minimum relief necessary to accommodate the property's unique corner-lot and 
through-lot conditions. Approval of the request will allow reasonable use of the property while preserving the overall goals and intent of 
the zoning regulations.

154.49'
154.48
319.81'
319.82'
EXST
GATE
20' ROADWAY
ESMT
8' PUE
20' ROADWAY
ESMT
8' PUE
EXST 6'
CMU WALL
EXST 6'
CMU WALL
EXST 6'
CMU WALL
EXST 6'
CMU WALL
E TANYA RD
E SHAWNA CT
40'
N 10TH ST
ADJACENT PARCEL
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
ADJACENT PARCEL
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
ADJACENT PARCEL
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
SCALE: 1" = 50'
0'
50'
100'
EXISTING
LIVABLE
1
2
3
16'
76'-1"
66'
177'-9"
44'-6"
65'
45'
9'-4"
18'
32'
94'-5"
27'-9"
131'-11"
4
5
6
7
10
8
9
NEW 28X35
ACCESSORY
BLDG
11
35'
28'
3'
5'
110'
86'-10"
26'
20'
68'-4"
43'-7"
32'-8"
8'-8"
252'-2"
E SHAWNA CT
N 10TH ST
E TANYA RD
930 E SHAWNA CT
E TANYA TRL
E IRVINE RD
N 7TH ST
E SHAWNA CT
north
SITE PLAN KEYNOTES
1. EXISTING LIVABLE
2. EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE
3. EXISTING COVERED PATIO
4. EXISTING RAMADA
5. EXISTING POOL
6. EXISTING GARDEN BED
7. EXISTING ASPHALT DRIVEWAY
8. EXISTING CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
9. EXISTING ABC DRIVEWAY
10.EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEM
11.NEW ACCESSORY BUILDING
VICINITY MAP
SITE INFORMATION
PROJECT#:
S26-1042
DRAWN BY:
PC
DATE:
5/5/26
SITE PLAN
SP1
OWNER
BRUCE KING
ADDRESS
930 E SHAWNA CT
CITY/STATE/ZIP
PHOENIX, AZ 85086
APN
211-49-007H
LOT #
7
STR
28 6N 3E
SUBDIVISION
BASCOM HILLS
ZONING
RU-43
SETBACKS
F:40' R:40' S:30'
EXISTING LIVABLE
2,525 SF
EXISTING ATTACHED
768 SF
GARAGE
EXISTING COVERED
472 SF
PATIO
EXISTING RAMADA
576 SF
NEW ACCESSORY BLDG
980 SF
TOTAL BUILT AREA
5,321 SF
TOTAL LOT AREA
48,722 SF
LOT COVERAGE
10.9%
16150 N Arrowhead Fountains Ctr Dr #260
Peoria, AZ 85382
Phone: (623) 505-3179
ROC #330481 Class KB-1
S26-1042 B King
930 E Shawna Ct Phoenix, AZ 85086
BRUCE KING
DETACHED
ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE
Received 06/18/2026