08.BA260057 Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
12378 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case:
BA260057 – Walker Property Variance
Hearing Date:
July 16, 2026
Supervisor District:
4
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Applicant:
Natalie Wesbrock
Property Owner:
Claretta Walker
Request:
Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance to permit:
1)
Allow the west side-yard setback of 15 feet, where MCZO Section 502
requires a minimum 20 feet
Site Location:
APN 506-06-057J (no street address assigned) in the Aguila area
Site Size:
5.04 acres (approximately 219,648 sq. ft.)
Current Use / Zoning:
As-built accessory structures for animal keeping / Rural-43
Open Violation:
N/A
Background:
1.
October 2023: The subject lot was created via minor land division.
2.
January 2025: The property owner obtains the property via warranty deed MCR20250091890
3.
c.2025/2026: The property owner constructed a horse shade / pole barn accessory structure without
a building permit, sited approximately 15 feet from a side property line. Applicant states the owner
was advised to obtain a permit by a neighbor.
4.
March 10, 2026: The owner applies for the pole barn and corral fencing. Plan review comments
indicate that since no primary structure is on the parcel, that the roofed corral becomes the primary
structure and thus it must meet primary setback requirements.
5.
May 28, 2026: Variance application signed by property owner and authorized agent.
Page 2 of 6
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use:
On-site:
Rural-43 / Vacant with as-built accessory structure (animal keeping)
North:
Pete Rd then Rural-43 / Vacant
South:
Rural-43 / Vacant
East:
Rural-43 / Vacant
West:
Rural-43 / Single-family residence
Variance Request:
6.
The applicant proposes to allow an existing as-built accessory structure (a pole barn / horse
shade) to remain at its current side-yard setback of approximately 15 feet from the property line.
The structure was constructed without a building permit on a parcel that currently has no primary
residence. Under MCZO Article 806.2.3, a fence/corral is allowed on a parcel without an
established primary residence. The existence of a roofed structure is what triggers the primary
structure setback for that structure coming into effect; once a primary single-family residence is
established on the parcel, the accessory structure is subject to a reduced 5-foot side-yard setback
(within which the structure would be conforming). The applicant has indicated that the owner
intends to construct a primary single-family residence on the parcel within approximately two
years. Approval of this variance would grant a permanent 15’ setback on the west side of the
parcel.
Excerpt from proposed site plan facing north
Page 3 of 6
Photograph of subject site showing the completed pens
Site Analysis:
7.
The subject property is a 5.04-acre parcel located in the Aguila area of unincorporated Maricopa
County. The parcel currently has no primary residence and is used for animal keeping, consistent
with the RU-43 zoning district. An as-built accessory structure (pole barn / horse shade) is sited
approximately 15 feet from the west side lot line. The lot appears otherwise flat and sparsely
vegetated other than a wash appearing to run through its extreme southeast corner.
Aerial photo of subject site
Page 4 of 6
Aerial image & surrounding environs
Zoning District map
Page 5 of 6
Zoning District Standard:
8.
The variance if approved will allow an as-built accessory structure (pole barn / horse shade) at a
side-yard setback of 15 feet, where MCZO Section 502 requires a minimum side-yard setback of
20 feet for an accessory structure when no primary residence has been established on the parcel.
However, variance approval will establish a 15’ minimum west side setback line, which would
allow a future residence or other primary building at this lesser setback.
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. Side Yard Setback (residence to west property line)
20-feet
15-feet
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.
"This is agricultural property located between Wickenburg and Aquila RU-43. The property owners
built horse shade without a permit. They built if 15' away from the side property. They have not built
a house yet so the roofline is encroaching on the setback. However, when he builds his home he
will be within the setback requirements of 5' for the roofline. This is a request to permit this pole
barn that is AS-BUILT prior to the home being built."
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 only hardship that can come from not receiving the variance would be a violation due to no
permit, which has not happened. They were told to get it permitted by a neighbor and were given
my information. I would like to proceed with permit number BLDR2601895 request dated
03/10/2026 with this variance. I believe them to be ready to build a home within 2 years."
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.
Page 6 of 6
"There will be no negative impact due to the obvious fact that once the primary use changes to
Residential Single-Family Residence they will be within the roofline setback requirements for their
pole shade"
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.
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:
•
There is no peculiar condition or unnecessary hardship foreseeable on the property.
•
There is considerable room on the subject five-acre parcel in the Rural-43 zoning district
with a one-acre minimum lot area requirement, for the primary building/structure to be
located within an extensive principal building envelope.
•
Approval of a building permit for a single-family residence as the primary use of the
property would moot the need for this variance as detached accessory structures can
encroach into required side and rear yards.
•
Granting of this variance would give unnecessary permanent entitlement to the 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 15-foot (west) side-yard setback line on APN 506-06-
057J.
Presented by:
Joel Landis, Planner
Reviewed by:
Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager
Attachments:
Case Map (1 page)
Site Plan (1 page)
Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (4 pages)
/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
4
Gross Acres: 5 approx.
Generated June 25, 2026 10:12 AM
BA260057
Application Name:
Legal Description
Walker Claretta AS-BUILT Horse Shade Permit with setbacks encroachments
Applicant
Case Address
7N-9W-33
Natalie Wesbrock
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:506-06-057J
9288146916
Map scale 1:1,646
Supervisor District No.
Side Yard Setback for AS-BUILT Horse Shade Pole Barn to 15' prior to Single-Family Residence
33' EASEMENT
S89°19'29"E 331.46'
S0°42'23"W
663.44'
S89°25'34"E 331.58'
506-06-057G
S0°41'44"W 662.86'
506-05-057K
506-05-057H
506-03-023B
W. PETE ROAD
1% SLOPE
FLOODZONE
15'
110'
20'
20'
20'
20'
20'
20'
20'
20'
20'
20'
20'
20'
10'
10'
40'
200'
AS BUILT -
(10) TOTAL 20' x 20' POLE
SHADE COVERS (TYP)
AS BUILT -
(10) TOTAL 20' x 40' PENS,
POST AND RAIL FENCING (TYP)
EXISTING-
PERIMETER FENCING - POST AND RAIL
SITE PLAN
JOB
DATE
DRAWN
SHEET
OF 1 SHEET(S)
1
3513 E. COLORADO DRIVE, COTTONWOOD, AZ 86323
TEL: (928) 420-0731 AZONSITE@MSN.COM
DATE
506-06-057J
20 FEB 2026
DGS
DESCRIPTION
APN: 506-06-057J
CLARETTA WALKER
AGUILA, AZ 85320
SCALE 1" = 40'
0
40'
80'
LOCATION MAP
OWNERSHIP INFO:
CLARETTA WALKER
6366 ROAD M SE
MOSES LAKE, WA 98837
FENCING INFO:
PERIMETER FENCING (EXISTING) = 1990 LINEAR FT
INTERIOR FENCING = 840 LINEAR FT
TOTAL FENCING
= 2830 LINEAR FT
DRIVING DIRECTIONS
HWY 60 TO 527TH DR,
527TH SOUTH TO LONG
RIFLE, LONG RIFLE WEST
TO 529TH AVE, 529TH AVE
SOUTH TO W. WILLIAMS
ROAD, WILLIAMS ROAD
EAST TO 525TH AVE,
525TH AVE SOUTH TO
PETE ROAD. SITE SECOND
LOT EAST FROM CORNER
OF PETE ROAD AND 525TH
AVE
60
525TH AVE
527TH DR
LONG RIFLE RD
SITE
AGUILA, ARIZONA
529TH AVE
PETE RD.
W. WILLIAMS RD
APN: 506-06-057J
NO ADDRESS ASSIGNED
LATITUDE: 33.913030
LONGITUDE: 113.196651
AREA: 219,848 SQFT
SITE MAP