08.BA260064 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
10163 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA260064 – Wachter Property Hearing Date: August 13, 2026 Supervisor District: 4 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: Alex Bukey Property Owner: Anette Wachter Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed front yard setback of 43’ where a minimum of 60’ is required (MCZO 811.4.1) Site Location: APN 506-09-090G @ Abbott Rd & 463rd Ave., in the Wickenburg area Site Size: 218,989 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence / Rural-190 Open Violation: V202300875 Background: 1. September 30, 1992: Parcel created as Lot #24 of J-1 Ranches Resurvey (Survey) Parcels 1-32 subdivision plat. 2. March 6, 2000: Parcel further split to current configuration. 3. October 5, 2022: Current owner acquires subject property. 4. April 25, 2023: Violation V202300875 opened for unpermitted grading and construction. 5. February 5, 2026: Accessory building permit BLDR2600958 filed for subject shade structure. 6. June 24, 2026: Subject variance request filed. Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 7. On-site: Rural-190 / Single-family residence North: Rural-190 / Single-family residence South: Abott Rd then Rural-190 / Single-family residence East: Rural-190 / Single-family residence West: 463rd Ave then Rural-190 / Single-family residence Page 2 of 8 Variance Requests: 8. The applicant is requesting an as-built shade structure remain at its current location (highlighted below) setback 43’ from the edge of the right-of-way for Abott Rd., or 73’ total from the southern property line. The variance is required to obtain zoning clearance for the building permit and to resolve the violation. Site plan Page 3 of 8 Photograph of subject shade structure Site Analysis: 9. The site is improved with a single-family residence, some site grading and private equestrian related improvements such as corral fencing, corral shades, and a riding arena. Vegetation at the southern end of the property indicates some pooling of drainage. Surrounding properties are similarly improved with homes and equine structures. The roads in the area are unpaved. Page 4 of 8 Aerial photo of subject site Page 5 of 8 Aerial image & surrounding environs Zoning District Standards: 10. 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-190 Proposed Minimum Lot Area Minimum 190,000 sf 218,989 sf Minimum Lot Width Minimum 300’ 330.67’ Maximum Lot Coverage Maximum 10% 10% Minimum Front Yard Setback (southern street line) 60’ 40’ Minimum Side Setback (eastern lot line) 30’ 30’ Minimum Street-Side Setback (western street line) 30’ 30’ Minimum Rear Setback (northern lot line) 60’ 60’ Note: Standards indicated in bold do not meet base zoning standards Page 6 of 8 Zoning District map 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.” 11. 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. “WE ARE REQUESTING THAT THE CURRENT 43'-0" SETBACK BE ACCEPTABLE FOR THE 30'-0" X 77'-0" PEN SHADE COVER, IN LIEU OF THE 60'-0" SETBACK AS STATED PER THE ZONING REVIEW COMMENTS OF MARILU LOPEZ 3-6-2026. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE SETBACK DIFFERENCE IS 17'- 0". THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.“ 12. 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. Page 7 of 8 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. “MOVING THE SHADE COVER AT THIS POINT IS REALLY NOT AN OPTION. IT WOULD BE VERY EXPENSIVE TO THE HOMEOWNER, AND TIME CONSUMING FOR THE CONTRACTOR HIRED TO MOVE IT 17'-0". IN ADDITION, THERE ISN'T ALOT OF SHADE IN THIS PEN, THE ANIMALS SUFFER, IF THE SHADE HAD TO BE MOVED, IT MIGHT TAKE MONTHS AND IN THIS SUMMER HEAT, IT'S JUST, INHUMANE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.” 13. 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. “THE STRUCTURE HAS STOOD FOR THE LAST 3 YEARS IN ITS PLACE, AND THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS ON RECORD, THAT IT'S LOCATION IS CREATING ANY ZONING ISSUES FOR MARICOPA COUNTY OR SURROUNDING PARCELS. IN ADDITION, THIS SHADE STRUCTURE IS OFF THE EAST ENTRANCE, WHICH GIVES ACCESS TO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY, A SECONDARY ENTRANCE UNSEEN FROM THE MAIN ENTRANCE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.” Findings: 14. 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. 15. Based upon what the applicant has submitted and the staff analysis in this report, staff offers the following positive and/or negative observations the Board may consider in its findings: Page 8 of 8 • Staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition facing the property that when the ordinance requirement is applied creates an undue physical hardship not self-created in the line of title that prevents reasonable development of the property. The applicant has failed to demonstrate warrant for a 43’ front setback where the ordinance requires a minimum of 60’. • The lot is five acres (218,989 sf) exceeding the Rural-190 zoning district’s 190,000 sf minimum lot area. There is considerable room for detached accessory structures to be relocated and meet minimum setback requirements. The ordinance permits detached accessory buildings limited encroachment into required rear and side yards. • The property is developed with a residence and a large (5,460 sf) detached mare motel meeting ordinance setback requirements thus the intent and purpose of the ordinance are fulfilled. 16. 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 43’ minimum front setback (south) setback measured from the street line of Abott Rd. for APN 506-09-090G Presented by: Daniel Johnson, Planner Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages) Site Plan (1 page) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 4 Gross Acres: 5 approx. Generated July 29, 2026 8:52 AM BA260064 Application Name: Legal Description Wachter Property Applicant Case Address 7N-8W-11 Alex Bukey 52623 N 463RD AVE WICKENBURG, AZ 85390 Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:506-09-090G 4436996095 WICKENBURG, AZ 85390 Map scale 1:1,645 Supervisor District No. REQUEST 43'-0" EXISTING SETBACK FOR 30 X 77 SHADE COVER REMAIN, IN LIEU OF 60'-0" MINIMUM PER STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS BA260064 RCVD 6/25/26 BA260064 RCVD 6/25/26 BA260064 RCVD 6/25/26