03.BA260034 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
23579 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case:
BA260034 – Stocktan Property
Hearing Date:
July 16, 2026
Supervisor District:
3
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Applicant / Owner:
Greens Home Design L.L.C / Doris Stocktan
Request:
Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance to permit:
1)
Proposed front (west) setback of 28’ from the property line for existing
accessory buildings where 65’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO
Section 502
Site Location:
APN 502-47-014H @ 3073 S. 199th Ave. in the Buckeye area
Site Size:
3.43 acres
Current Use / Zoning:
Single-family residence / Rural-43
Background:
1.
May 3, 2000: Owner takes possession of (original) parcel - 1/16th of a Quarter Section (approx.
10 acres).
2.
2004: Residence is constructed on the 10 acre parcel with single family residence located on
northern region of parcel.
3.
August 3, 2022: One-acre parcel at the northeast corner (APN 502-47-104D) is split from original
parcel and sold to a separate owner.
4.
September 1, 2022 remaining 9 acres is split into two parcels as Lot 1A for existing residence
and Lot 1B.
5.
May 1, 2023 Permits are issued for new construction of primary residence and metal storage
building on Lot 1B.
6.
March 2023: MCDOT reduces the required 40’ future right-of-way reservation along 199th Ave. to
25’.
7.
April 16, 2025 Lot 1A (APN 502-47-14F) and residence is sold to a separate owner.
8.
August 8, 2025 Lot 1B is split as Lot 2 (APN 502-47-14 G) and Lot 3 (APN 502-47-14-H being the
subject lot).
9.
July 2, 2025 Violation is opened for junk, trash and debris on subject lot.
Page 2 of 9
10.
July 16, 2025 Violation is resolved and closed.
11.
April 10, 2026: Application is submitted for variance request.
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use:
12.
On-site:
Rural-43 / Single-family residence
North:
Rural-43 / Undeveloped
South:
Rural-43 / Undeveloped
East:
Rural-43 / Undeveloped
West:
Rural-43 / Single-family residences
Variance Request:
Page 3 of 9
13.
The applicant proposes to reduce the front yard setback requirement from 40 feet to 3 feet (as
measured from the street line, or from 65’ to 28’ as measured from the property/lot line) for four
existing accessory structures placed at the western edge of the site between 2023 and 2025.
These unpermitted structures include a 240 sq. ft. storage building, a 216 sq. ft. shade structure,
a 160 sq. ft. Conex container and a 320 sq. ft Conex container. The variance if approved would
establish a min. 3’ front setback line as measured from the west street line, and would allow the
existing structures to remain as located and obtain required building permits.
Site Analysis:
14.
The structures were moved on to the property at the time construction started on a new 4,920 sq.
ft. residence and a 2,800 sq. ft. metal, detached accessory building. According to the applicant’s
narrative the structures are utilized for storage of construction materials and animal feed.
15.
The subject 3.43 acre parcel was created via unregulated land divisions from a 10-acre parent
parcel that extended north Lower Buckeye Rd. The parent parcel was limited to a farmhouse and
an agricultural field. The western boundary of the site is the 199th Ave. along a mid-section line
subject by ordinance to a 40’ future right-of-way reservation (as additional setback). Within that
same alignment, the Roosevelt Irrigation District maintains an existing concrete ditch that
connects to the existing network of ditches in the area.
Page 4 of 9
16.
Before permits were issued for the construction of the residence and storage building (when the
subject lot was still part of Lot 1B), the owner requested a waiver to the required 40’ future right-
of-way reservation along 199th Ave. In March 2023, MCDOT granted a partial waiver and reduced
the future right-of-way reservation to 25’. Access to the site is from 199th Ave.
17.
The Rural-43 District establishes a 40’ front setback from 199th Ave. on the west side and a 40’
rear setback on the east side adjacent to existing residential properties. The front setback is
measured from the street line (which equates to 65’ from the lot line calculated as the 25’ future
right-of-way reservation for 199th Ave. plus the minimum 40’ front setback). The large metal
storage building setback 40’ from the street line, and the residence is setback 70’ from the street
line. However, the smaller storage buildings were are setback only 3’ from the street line.
18.
Staff cannot identify a peculiar condition impacting the property. The parcel is more than three
acres. The residence under construction on site meets setback requirements and thus fulfills the
general intent and purpose of the MCZO, as well as the Rural-43 zoning district. The site is fairly
flat used as a farm field until the residential construction. No physical hardship results from the
ordinance’s minimum 40’ front yard setback from street line (or 65’ from lot line).
Aerial Image and surrounding environs
Page 5 of 9
Zoning District Standards:
19.
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).
Rural - 43
Zoning District Map
Google 3D Image – Looking Northeast to the site
Page 6 of 9
Standard
Rural-43
Zoning
District
Proposed with
Variance
Min. Front Yard Setback
(All buildings to west lot line inclusive of a 25’ future right-
of-way reservation along the midsection alignment)
65-feet
28 feet
Min. Rear Yard Setback (east lot line)
40-feet
40-feet
Min. Side Yard Setback (north and south lot lines)
20-feet
20-feet
Maximum Height
35-feet
35-feet
Minimum Lot Area
43,560-sq. ft.
43,560-sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width
145-feet
145-feet
Maximum Lot Coverage
25%
25%
Note: Standards indicated in bold do not meet base zoning standards
20.
The variance request is essentially to allow detached accessory buildings within the required front
yard. However, per court instruction we do not approve variances subject to conditions. Therefore,
variance approval will effectively establish a 3’ front setback line measured from the street line.
All future re/development of the lot will be subject to the minimum 3’ front setback.
Eagle Eye View of subject site 10/2021
Eagle Eye View of subject site 3/2025
Page 7 of 9
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.”
21.
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.
“This property is situated down a narrow lane with all the houses facing north. The designated
199 ave. has an irrigation ditch right down the middle of the right of way. This house was going to
be addressed on Miami St. The homeowner pointed out that the owners of parcels 502-47-957
and 502-47-950 fenced off access to her lot without knowing that would affect her lot orientation.
Thus 199 Ave. was created for this one house. The house to the north is addressed on 198 Lane.
198 Lane does not exist anymore. The houses south and west of this lot all face west. Their rear
fences and sheds are within the 25' right of way. Any future improvements of 199 Ave. as a thru
street would require modification and/or removal of the irrigation ditch and moving existing
fences and sheds.”
22.
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 boxes and storage shed have been there since before the construction of the home. Now
that everything is built around it, there is a large amount of labor and costs involved with clearing
access to get equipment in to move it. They store feed for animals and some construction
materials.”
23.
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 boxes and shed in question are not in the 25' right of way. It will not cause any burden to
ingress or egress of future houses. The maximum number of lot splits for future houses would be
one to the south and 2 to the north. The owner currently owns the full parcel and has no intention
of splitting it.”
Findings:
24.
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
Page 8 of 9
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.
25.
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:
•
The existing accessory structures that were placed on the site during residential
construction may have served a legitimate purpose as storage for materials during
construction. However, the applicant has not demonstrated how a required front yard only
3’ deep rather than the ordinance required 40’ is warranted. Maintaining the ordinance-
required minimum 40’ front setback line for the primary and all accessory buildings is
appropriate.
•
The lot is three acres in areas much larger than the Rural-43 zoning district’s one acre
minimum lot area. There is considerable room for the detached accessory buildings to be
relocated and meet minimum setback requirements. The ordinance permits detached
accessory buildings to encroach into required rear and side yards and meet a minimum 3’
setback from rear and side lot lines.
•
The residence and a large, detached accessory storage building meet setback
requirements thus the intent and purpose of the ordinance are fulfilled.
•
Future right-of-way reservation along the mid-section alignment was reduced from 40’ to
25’ further expanding the lot’s buildable area and lessening argument for a front setback
variance.
•
The 199th Ave. alignment is currently limited to three residential access points on the east
side, with an irrigation ditch physically blocking access from the west side. This scenario
does minimize the impact of accessory structures proximate to the roadway.
26.
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 28’ (west) setback line from the lot line inclusive of the
future right-of-way reservation along the mid-section alignment (or 3’ from the street line)
for APN 502-47-014H.
Page 9 of 9
Presented by:
Ron Quarles, Senior Planner
Reviewed by:
Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager
Attachments:
Case Map (1 page)
Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (2 pages)
Site Plan (1 page)
/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
5
Gross Acres: 3 approx.
Generated June 24, 2026 8:17 AM
BA260034
Application Name:
Legal Description
Stockton Custom Home
Applicant
Case Address
Darvel Loren Green
3073 S 199TH AVE BUCKEYE, AZ 85326
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:502-47-014H
6023264061
BUCKEYE, AZ 85326
Map scale 1:1,131
Supervisor District No.
Variance to leave an existing 40' connex box in the required front yard.
Planning & Development Department
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003
P: 602.506.3301
Residential Variance Application Packet
12/2/24
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:
______________________________
Use 40' connex box, 20' connex box and storage shed in front setback
Lower Buckeye & Jackrabbit - Buckeye
5.50
20
1N
2W
502-47-014H
I
Loren Green
1870 S. 234 Dr.
Buckeye
AZ
85326
(602) 326-4061
lgreen@greenshomedesign.com
Doris Stokton
3073 S 199 Ave
Buckeye
AZ
85326
(602) 541-2220
kilmartaz@aol.com
Doris Stokton
Loren Green
02/26/2026
RU-43
02/26/2026
Planning & Development Department
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003
P: 602.506.3301
6IWMHIRXMEPVariance Application Packet
6)7-()28-%0VARIANCE 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.
This property is situated down a narrow lane with all the houses facing north. The designated 199 ave. has an irrigation ditch right down the middle
of the right of way.
This house was going to be addressed on Miami St. The homeowner pointed out that the owners of parcels 502-47-957 and 502-47-950 fenced off
access to her lot without knowing that would affect her lot orientation. Thus 199 Ave. was created for this one house. The house to the north is
addressed on 198 Lane. 198 Lane does not exist anymore.
The houses south and west of this lot all face west. Their rear fences and sheds are within the 25' right of way. Any future improvements of 199 Ave.
as a thru street would require modification and/or removal of the irrigation ditch and moving existing fences and sheds.
The boxes and storage shed have been there since before the construction of the home. Now that everything is built around it, there is a large
amount of labor and costs involved with clearing access to get equipment in to move it. They store feed for animals and some construction
materials.
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
6IWMHIRXMEPVariance Application Packet
The boxes and shed in question are not in the 25' right of way. It will not cause any burden to ingress or egress of future houses. The maximum
number of lots splits for future houses would be one to the south and 2 to the north. The owner currently owns the full parcel and has no
intention of splitting it.
SHEET
4
2
3
PROJECT:
DATE:
Rev.
PROJECT NO.:
DRAWN BY:
REVISIONS
SHEET CONTENT:
DATE:
1
LOCATION:
Greens Home Design L.L.C.
Architect
1870 S. 234th Dr., Buckeye, AZ 85326
LOREN GREEN
PH. (602) 326-4061
6/25/2026
STOCKTON
BUCKEYE,AZ
SITE PLAN
THIS DRAWING IS AN INSTRUMENT
OF SERVICE AND THE PROPERTY OF
LOREN GREEN, ARCHITECT. THIS
DRAWING MAY NOT BE
REPRODUCED OR REPRODUCTIONS
HEREOF USED WITHOUT WRITTEN
PERMISSION.
C
E
N
g
O
A
S
i
e
D
at
Z
R
I
U
A
.
,
.
.
n
e
d
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A
S
.
E
F
GREEN
DARVEL LOREN
T
R
G
E
R
C
E
I
R
I
S
E
T
E
.
N
O
R
A
D
T
A
I
C
C
T
I
H
T
EXPIRES 12/31/2023
.
72475
S1
6/25/2026
D:\OneDrive\GHD-2022\stockton\stockton 2.pln
CLF
CLF
CLF
CLF
CLF
CLF
S89°57'42"W 330.46'(M) 330.44'(R2)
N00°02'08"E 726.59'(M)
LOCATION. WRONG DOCUMENT LISTED
N88°17'57"E 330.58'(M)
31.63'
50' ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION
LINE EASEMENT. APPROXIMATE
IN (R2)
16.50' R/W
PER BK. 232,
PG. 356 OF DEEDS
16.66'
17.68'
24.03'
40.17'
84.00'
112.16'
134.19'
70.00'
20.00'
20.00'
10.00'
12.00'
75.88'
335.73'
221.89'
40.00'
65.52'
194.80'
73.92'
10.00'
10.00'
50.00'
1.33'
8.00'
1.33'
60.00'
50.00'
319.64'
30.98'
25.00'
30.95'
8.00'
29.49'
26.54'
28.05'
10.82'
23.34'
WELL
ELEC.
SES
PANEL
WELL PEDESTAL
XFMR.
S0°02'05"W 1,036.40'(M) 1036.34'(R2)
RESIDENTIAL
PATIO
HOUSE
PORCH
GARAGE
PATIO
RESIDENTIAL
30' B.S.L.
25' R.O.W.
40' B.S.L.
30' B.S.L.
METAL
BUILDING
D. G. DRIVEWAY
CONC.
DRIVEWAY
CONC.
DRIVEWAY
RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL
8'x40' CONEX BOX
D. G. DRIVEWAY
EDGE OF IRRIGATION
EDGE OF IRRIGATION
IRRIGATED PASTURE
40' B.S.L.
8'x20' CONEX BOX
10'x24'
STORAGE
12'x18' SHADE
Property Information
Project Type: CUSTOM HOME
Owners: DORIS STOCKTON
Site Address: TBD. BUCKEYE AZ 85326
Assessor Parcel Number: 502-47-014E
Zoning: RU-43
Type of construction:
VB
CODES:
2018 IBC WITH AMENDMENTS
2018 IRC WITH AMENDMENTS
2018 IPC WITH AMENDMENTS
2018 IMC WITH AMENDMENTS
2018 IECC WITH AMENDMENTS
2018 IFGC WITH AMENDMENTS
2017 NEC WITH AMENDMENTS
2018 IEBC WITH AMENDMENTS
ALL AS AMENDED PER MARICOPA COUNTY LOCAL
ADDITIONS AND ADDENDA
Lot Area:
241,682 Sq
Ft
Allowable Coverage for structures
(35% of Lot Area):
3086 LIVABLE
524 PATIOS
1225 GARAGE
85 PORCH
4920 TOTAL
2800 METAL BUILDING
7720 TOTAL
Total Lot Coverage: 7720/241,682 = 3.19% Coverage
1
1
SCALE: 1" = 40'
1
SITE PLAN (2)
S1
0
20'
40'
80'
THIS SITE
Vicinity Plan
not to scale
^
North
W LOWER BUCKEYE RD
S TUTHILL RD
W WINSLOW AVE
W MIAMI ST
S 197TH AVE