04.BA260040 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
25800 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA260040 – Ward Accessory Structure Setback Hearing Date: July 16, 2026 Supervisor District: 4 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant / Owner: Zach & Gabrielle Ward Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed north side accessory setback of 0’ where 3’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Section 502. Site Location: APN 502-21-065 @ 7407 N. 185th Ave – 316’ south of the SEC of 185th Ave & Orangewood Ave, in the Waddell area Site Size: 81,941 sq. ft. (1.88 ac.) Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence / Rural-43 Open Violation: V2501430 Background: 1. February 28, 1928: The ‘Romola of Arizona, Grapefruit Unit’ subdivision was founded. 2. c.2020: The previous owner constructs an accessory structure at a 0’ north setback. This structure is unpermitted. 3. September 22, 2023: Current owner purchased property. 4. October 6, 2025: Violation V2501430 opened for unpermitted construction and substandard setback. 5. May 4, 2026: Variance case BA260040 opened to resolve setback issues. Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 6. On-site: Rural-43 / Single-family residence North: Rural-43 / Single-family residence South: Rural-43 / Single-family residence East: Rural-43 / Single-family residence West: 185th Ave then Rural-43 / Single-family residence Page 2 of 7 Variance Request: 7. The applicant is requesting a variance for an existing animal pen shade structure located on the property line at 0’ where 3’ is the minimum side setback required for non-habitable accessory structures. The shade structure is 26’ x 24’ or 624 sq ft in size. It was built by a previous owner without benefit of an issued permit, and is visible in aerial imagery as far back as 2020. The variance request is a result of open violation V2501430 for unpermitted structures on the parcel. Excerpt from proposed site plan Photographs of subject site Site Analysis: 8. The parcel is approximately 1.9 acres in size and rectangular shaped. The shade structure in question is approximately 26’ x 24’, located along the northern parcel boundary and is made of solid metal. The structure appears to slope towards the interior of the property thus minimizing drainage impacts to the neighboring parcel. The remaining structures on the parcel conform to placement regulations in the MCZO. Page 3 of 7 Aerial photo of subject site Aerial image & surrounding environs Eagle view of subject site looking North into subject parcel (aerial image dated Mar 2025) Page 4 of 7 Zoning District map Zoning District Standards: 9. 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 (residence to west lot line) 40-feet n/a Min. Rear Yard Setback (east lot line) 40-feet n/a Min. Side Yard Setback (residence to south/north lot lines) 30-feet n/a Min. Side Yard Accessory Setback (structure to north lot line) 3-feet 0-feet Maximum Height 30-feet n/a Minimum Lot Area 43,560-sq. ft. n/a Minimum Lot Width 145-feet n/a Maximum 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.” 10. 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. Page 5 of 7 “The subject property is affected by peculiar conditions that limit the ability to reasonably place accessory structures in compliance with the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance, specifically development standards governing required setbacks for accessory structures. The property is actively used for agricultural purposes, including the housing and care of livestock. The proposed use associated with this variance request is the placement of livestock shade structures, which are essential for the health, safety, and welfare of the animals. Due to the extreme heat and environmental conditions common in Phoenix and surrounding areas, adequate shade is a necessary and customary component of responsible livestock management. Peculiar conditions affecting the property include the existing configuration and layout of the lot, the placement of current improvements, and limitations on usable space within standard setback areas. These conditions restrict the functional placement of livestock shade structures within areas that fully comply with setback requirements. Additionally, any existing easements and site constraints further reduce the available buildable area and limit alternative compliant locations. Due to these property-specific constraints, strict enforcement of setback requirements would impose a practical hardship by preventing the reasonable and customary use of the property for agricultural purposes. The inability to place shade structures in functional and effective locations would directly impact the care and management of livestock and limit the intended use of the property. The requested variance represents the minimum necessary adjustment to allow reasonable use of the property. The proposed shade structures are low-profile, open-air, and non-invasive in nature. They do not create noise, traffic, or visual obstruction, and will not negatively impact neighboring properties or interfere with surrounding uses. The hardship is not self-imposed, but rather arises from the inherent physical characteristics and layout constraints of the property. Granting the variance will not be detrimental to public welfare or injurious to nearby properties, and is consistent with the intent and purpose of the zoning regulations. For these reasons, the variance request is justified, as it allows a necessary, reasonable, and customary use of the property while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding area and adhering to the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance.” 11. 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 imposed by the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance arises from the inherent physical characteristics and layout constraints of the subject property, which limit the ability to place accessory structures in full compliance with required setback standards. The property is actively used for agricultural purposes, including the care and management of livestock. Due to the configuration of the lot, the placement of existing improvements, and any applicable easements or restricted areas, the functional buildable area within compliant setback zones is limited. These conditions are inherent to the property and significantly restrict the available locations for livestock shade structures. While the current property owners constructed the livestock shade structures, their placement was dictated by the practical limitations of the site and the need to provide effective and immediate protection for livestock. The structures were not placed arbitrarily, but rather in response to the Page 6 of 7 limited usable areas available on the property and the necessity of providing shade in a climate such as Phoenix, where exposure to extreme heat presents a serious risk to animal health and welfare. The hardship is not self-created in the context of the zoning criteria, as it does not arise from a voluntary or avoidable action, but from the underlying physical constraints of the property itself. Even in the absence of the existing structures, the same limitations would prevent reasonable placement of required livestock shade in full compliance with setback requirements. Strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would impose an unnecessary hardship by preventing the property from being used in a manner consistent with customary agricultural practices. Without the requested variance, the property is effectively deprived of a reasonable and necessary use— specifically, the ability to provide adequate shelter for livestock. Granting the variance is therefore necessary to alleviate a hardship created by the unique characteristics of the property, while remaining consistent with the intent and purpose of the zoning regulations and without negatively impacting surrounding properties.” 12. 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 will not negatively impact the general intent or purpose of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. The intent of the zoning ordinance and associated development standards is to promote public health, safety, and welfare, ensure compatible land use, and maintain orderly development within the county. The proposed livestock shade structures are consistent with these objectives. They are low-profile, open-air, and non-invasive in nature, and are used solely to support agricultural activities that are customary and appropriate for the property and surrounding area. The structures do not generate noise, traffic, or visual obstruction, and will not interfere with neighboring properties or uses. The variance request does not alter the fundamental use of the property, increase density, or introduce any incompatible activity. Rather, it allows for the reasonable placement of necessary accessory structures in a manner that supports safe and responsible livestock management, particularly in a climate such as Phoenix where adequate shade is essential. The requested variance is limited in scope and represents the minimum necessary adjustment to accommodate the constraints of the property. It does not grant special privilege, but instead enables a use that would otherwise be permitted under the zoning ordinance if not for the property’s physical limitations. Approval of this variance will not be detrimental to public welfare, will not impair the intent of the zoning regulations, and will not establish any adverse precedent, as the request is based on conditions unique to the subject property. For these reasons, granting the variance remains consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance while allowing reasonable use of the property.” Findings: 13. 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. Page 7 of 7 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. 14. 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: • Staff cannot identify any peculiar condition facing the property, that when the ordinance requirement is applied, presents an undue physical hardship not self-created in the line of title that prevents reasonable development of the property. • The property is already developed with a residence thus fulfilling the purpose and intent of the ordinance. • There is opportunity to relocate the accessory structure in question so that it meets setback requirements and negates need for a variance. • The accessory structure in question was constructed by a previous property owner. 15. 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 0’ north accessory setback line for APN 502-21-065 Presented by: Andrew Lorentzen, Planner Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (6 pages) Site Plan (1 page) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 4 Gross Acres: 2 approx. Generated June 24, 2026 8:17 AM BA260040 Application Name: Legal Description Ward Blanket Variance for livestock shade structures & Conex. Applicant Case Address Zach Ward 7407 N 185TH AVE WADDELL, AZ 85355 Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:502-21-065 (623) 298-9643 WADDELL, AZ 85355 Map scale 1:1,504 Supervisor District No. This application is a request for a zoning variance to allow existing livestock shade structures to remain on the property. Due to the unique layout and agricultural use of the land, strict enforcement of current 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. Response: The subject property is affected by peculiar conditions that limit the ability to reasonably place accessory structures in compliance with the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance, specifically development standards governing required setbacks for accessory structures. The property is actively used for agricultural purposes, including the housing and care of livestock. The proposed use associated with this variance request is the placement of livestock shade structures, which are essential for the health, safety, and welfare of the animals. Due to the extreme heat and environmental conditions common in Phoenix and surrounding areas, adequate shade is a necessary and customary component of responsible livestock management. Peculiar conditions affecting the property include the existing configuration and layout of the lot, the placement of current improvements, and limitations on usable space within standard setback areas. These conditions restrict the functional placement of livestock shade structures within areas that fully comply with setback requirements. Additionally, any existing easements and site constraints further reduce the available buildable area and limit alternative compliant locations. Due to these property-specific constraints, strict enforcement of setback requirements would impose a practical hardship by preventing the reasonable and customary use of the property for agricultural purposes. The inability to place shade structures in functional and effective locations would directly impact the care and management of livestock and limit the intended use of the property. The requested variance represents the minimum necessary adjustment to allow reasonable use of the property. The proposed shade structures are low-profile, open-air, and non-invasive in nature. They do not create noise, traffic, or visual obstruction, and will not negatively impact neighboring properties or interfere with surrounding uses. The hardship is not self-imposed, but rather arises from the inherent physical characteristics and layout constraints of the property. Granting the variance will not be detrimental to public welfare or injurious to nearby properties, and is consistent with the intent and purpose of the zoning regulations. For these reasons, the variance request is justified, as it allows a necessary, reasonable, and customary use of the property while maintaining compatibility with the surrounding area and adhering to the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance. 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. Response: The unnecessary hardship imposed by the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance arises from the inherent physical characteristics and layout constraints of the subject property, which limit the ability to place accessory structures in full compliance with required setback standards. The property is actively used for agricultural purposes, including the care and management of livestock. Due to the configuration of the lot, the placement of existing improvements, and any applicable easements or restricted areas, the functional buildable area within compliant setback zones is limited. These conditions are inherent to the property and significantly restrict the available locations for livestock shade structures. While the current property owners constructed the livestock shade structures, their placement was dictated by the practical limitations of the site and the need to provide effective and immediate protection for livestock. The structures were not placed arbitrarily, but rather in response to the limited usable areas available on the property and the necessity of providing shade in a climate such as Phoenix, where exposure to extreme heat presents a serious risk to animal health and welfare. The hardship is not self-created in the context of the zoning criteria, as it does not arise from a voluntary or avoidable action, but from the underlying physical constraints of the property itself. Even in the absence of the existing structures, the same limitations would prevent reasonable placement of required livestock shade in full compliance with setback requirements. Strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would impose an unnecessary hardship by preventing the property from being used in a manner consistent with customary agricultural practices. Without the requested variance, the property is effectively deprived of a reasonable and necessary use—specifically, the ability to provide adequate shelter for livestock. Granting the variance is therefore necessary to alleviate a hardship created by the unique characteristics of the property, while remaining consistent with the intent and purpose of the zoning regulations and without negatively impacting surrounding properties. 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. Response: Granting the requested variance will not negatively impact the general intent or purpose of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. The intent of the zoning ordinance and associated development standards is to promote public health, safety, and welfare, ensure compatible land use, and maintain orderly development within the county. The proposed livestock shade structures are consistent with these objectives. They are low-profile, open-air, and non-invasive in nature, and are used solely to support agricultural activities that are customary and appropriate for the property and surrounding area. The structures do not generate noise, traffic, or visual obstruction, and will not interfere with neighboring properties or uses. The variance request does not alter the fundamental use of the property, increase density, or introduce any incompatible activity. Rather, it allows for the reasonable placement of necessary accessory structures in a manner that supports safe and responsible livestock management, particularly in a climate such as Phoenix where adequate shade is essential. The requested variance is limited in scope and represents the minimum necessary adjustment to accommodate the constraints of the property. It does not grant special privilege, but instead enables a use that would otherwise be permitted under the zoning ordinance if not for the property’s physical limitations. Approval of this variance will not be detrimental to public welfare, will not impair the intent of the zoning regulations, and will not establish any adverse precedent, as the request is based on conditions unique to the subject property. For these reasons, granting the variance remains consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance while allowing reasonable use of the property. Additonal Response: The requested variance also includes the existing Conex/storage container located on the property. The Conex is used for agricultural, livestock, and property-maintenance storage, including feed-related supplies, tools, equipment, fencing materials, and other items necessary to safely maintain the livestock and acreage. It is not being used as a residence, business storefront, or public-use structure. The Conex is located so that it does not obstruct visibility, drainage, access, emergency movement, or the use of neighboring properties. It does not create noise, traffic, odor, dust, or other impacts beyond normal rural residential/agricultural property use. Strict enforcement of the zoning/development standard would create an unnecessary hardship because the property has active livestock uses that require secure, weather-resistant storage. Requiring removal or relocation of the Conex would reduce the owners’ ability to safely store livestock and property-maintenance materials, while providing no meaningful benefit to surrounding properties or the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Granting the variance for the Conex would not negatively impact the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance because the structure supports the existing rural/agricultural use of the property, remains contained on-site, and does not interfere with neighboring properties, public safety, access, or the character of the area. S I T E P L A N ϳϰϬϳ N ϭϴϱƚŚ AǀĞ tĂĚĚĞůů͕ A ϴϱϯϱϱ PĂƌĐĞů I͗ ϱϬϮͲϮϭͲϬϲϱ LŽƚ ĂƌĞĂ͗ ϭ͘ ϴϴ AĐƌĞƐ PĂƉĞƌ SŝnjĞ͗ ϭϭΗdžϭϳΗ scale 1"=50' This is not a Legal Survey, nor is it intended to be or replace one. These measurements are approximate and are for illustrative purposes only. This work product represents only generalized location of features, objects or boundaries and should not be relied upon as being legally authoritative for the precise location of any feature, objects or boundary. Disclaimer ϲϬϴΖ ϭϯϳΖ ϲϬϴΖ ϭϯϲΖ ϰϳΖ ϴϵΖ ϯϬΖ ϯϬΖ ϭϮΖ ϮϭΖ ϮϲΖ ϯϬΖ ϰϱΖ ϭϵΖ ϵΖ ϱϮΖ ϯϵΖ ϮϰΖ ϮϲΖ ϯϭΖ ϭϭΖ ϮϲΖ ϭϮΖ ϭϱΖ ϵϬΖ ϭϳϱΖ ϰϭΖ ϮϬΖ ϭϰΖ ϮϳΖ ϯϯΖ ϭϯϮΖ ϵϯΖ ϮϲϯΖ ϭϬϳΖ PƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ ůŝŶĞ PƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ ůŝŶĞ PƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ ůŝŶĞ PƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ ůŝŶĞ ĚƌŝǀĞǁĂLJ ĚƌŝǀĞǁĂLJ ƐŚĞĚ ƐŚĂĚĞ ǁĂůů ůŝŶĞ EXISTING HOUSE NŽ͘ ϳϰϬϳ ƐŚĂĚĞ ĂƌŶ N ϭϴϱƚŚ AǀĞ ĐĞŶƚĞƌůŝŶĞ ZŽĂĚ ƌŽŽĨůŝŶĞ ǁĂůŬǁĂLJ ϰϬΖ ϮϬΖ ϴΖ ϴϯΖ ƐŚĂĚĞ ĐŽŶĞdž ϴΖ ϰϬΖ ϯΖ ϮϬΖ ϭϬΖ ϭϭΖ ϮϳΖ