04.BA260035 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
19749 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA260035 – Buringrud Property Hearing Date: June 18, 2026 Supervisor District: 3 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: Ed Buringrud Property Owners: Ed and Kendra Buringrud Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed use-specific setback of 10’ for a private sports court from the north and west lot lines where 20’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Article 602.7 Site Location: APN 211-24-121 @ 630 E. Tumbleweed Dr. in the Desert Hills area Site Size: Approx. 54,943 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence / Rural-43 Open Violation: No violation on property Background: 1. February 16, 2021: The subject parcel was created via minor lot split. 2. December 30, 2021: The current owners took possession of the subject parcel. 3. December 6, 2022: The single-family residence passed final inspections per B202109240. 4. October 27, 2023: A detached pre-engineered metal accessory building passed final inspections per B202304960. 5. January 24, 2025: The swimming pool/spa and associated pool barrier wall passed final inspections per B202305484 and B202305759, respectively. 6. April 15, 2026: The applicant submitted this variance request. Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 7. On-site: Rural-43 / Single-family residence North: Rural-43 / Vacant South: Rural-43 / Single-family residence East: 7th St., then Rural-43 / Single-family residence West: Rural-43 / Single-family residence Page 2 of 9 Variance Request: 8. The property owner is requesting a variance to permit a private basketball court at a setback of 10’ from the north and west lot lines. The MCZO allows private sports courts as accessory uses to single-family residences. However, MCZO Article 602.7 requires such courts to maintain a minimum setback of 20’ from adjoining properties under separate ownership. 9. MCZO Article 602.7, which regulates private sports courts and private outdoor recreational structures, includes the following standards: 1. Such court or structure shall not be constructed within 20 feet of any adjoining property under separate ownership, and provided that sports court fences or walls or recreational structures shall not exceed 14 feet in height. 2. Such courts are shall not be constructed within 20 feet of any adjoining property not internal to the multiple-family development and provided that tennis court fences or walls shall not exceed 12 feet in height and further provided that any lights for the tennis courts shall be subject to a use permit and shall be placed so as to not direct or reflect light upon adjoining land, and subject lights shall be in conformance with standards in Chapter 8, Section 812. (Outdoor Light Control Provisions) herein. More than one sports court is permitted so long as the primary use of the property is residential and so long as the court or courts are accessory to the residential use and maintained exclusively for the use of residents of the parcel on which it is located. Excerpt from Proposed Site Plan Page 3 of 9 Site Analysis: 10. The property is rectangular in shape and features a slight slope that generally increases in elevation from east to west. Residential development in the area is relatively recent, as the subject property and many of its neighbors were created from a series of unregulated land divisions in the early 2020s. The existing single-family residence was completed in 2022. A prefabricated metal accessory building was completed in 2023, followed by a swimming pool and spa in 2025. The primary residence is located within the southern half of the property, much closer to the front lot line than the rear lot line. The swimming pool is located near the approximate center of the property. The prefabricated building is located at an 11’ setback from the rear (north) lot line but is otherwise approximately midway between the east and west side lot lines. Much of the rear yard surrounding the pool has been laid down with artificial turf. On the east side of this lawn, a driveway path has been graded to allow vehicle access to the prefabricated building. 11. Per the most recently published aerial photograph of the site, the only portion of the property that remains undeveloped / unimproved is a small area toward the northwest corner of the lot. In the supplemental questionnaire submitted with this request, the owner states that this is the lowest area of the property; due to the resulting drainage following rainfall, this area often fills with weeds. To mitigate the issue, the owner has graded a concrete slab in this corner of the property. The slab measures 49’ x 49’ and is set back 10’ from the north and west lot lines. In the questionnaire, the owner implies that the slab has already been constructed. Zoning clearance is not required for a concrete slab on its own. However, the owner also confirms that he has installed a lone basketball hoop on the slab. The hoop is setback 33’ from the north lot line and 56’ from the west lot line. The addition of the hoop establishes the slab as a de facto private sports court. At 10’ from adjacent properties, the slab is located at half the required setback for a private sports court. Per the owner, there is no lighting nor fencing associated with the court, which would be used exclusively by his family. 12. Staff notes that, while zoning clearance is not required for a concrete slab on its own, drainage clearance may be required. In its review of this request, the Planning and Development Department’s Engineering Division stated no objection but noted that there is a historic drainage corridor that passes through the area where the court has been placed/proposed. Neither the subject property nor the immediate surrounding properties are encumbered by floodplain, although the sloping nature of the neighborhood does create drainage implications with which development must contend. Per the Engineering comments, if the court alters, modifies, or impedes the historic drainage patterns, then a grading permit will be required to ensure that historic drainage patterns are maintained. The court, then, should be poured flush with the existing elevations so as not to divert or back up the historic flows onto neighboring properties. Regardless of whether variance is granted for the use of the slab as a court, an as-built grading permit will be necessary if it has already been placed. 13. Staff cannot identify a peculiar condition facing the property. Although the property does feature mild, varying slopes, these features are not unique to this property and have not inhibited development of primary and accessory uses. Development of a single-family residence as the primary use means that the property already fulfills the general intent and purpose of the MCZO, as well as the Rural-43 zoning district specifically. For this reason, it is difficult to argue that an undue physical hardship facing the property is created by the enforcement of the required 20’ setback for a private sports court. The purpose of this setback requirement is to minimize potentially unwanted impacts on neighboring properties that could result from use of the court (such as basketballs crossing into a neighbor’s property). Although the property to the north is currently vacant, the property to the west is residential. Regardless of whether the variance is approved, should the slab remain on the property, drainage clearance will be necessary to ensure that it does not cause adverse drainage impacts on the property or to neighboring properties. Page 4 of 9 2026 Aerial Image of the Subject Site Page 5 of 9 2026 Aerial Image of Surrounding Environs Page 6 of 9 Zoning District Map Zoning District Standard: 14. The following table is included to illustrate and contrast the standards for the underlying zoning district with those proposed by the owner (proposed changes to standards are indicated in bold). Standard Rural-43 Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Front Yard Setback (residence to south lot line) 40-feet 40-feet Min. Rear Yard Setback (residence to north lot line) 40-feet 40-feet Min. Street Side Setback (residence to east lot line) 20-feet 20-feet Min. Interior Side Setback (residence to west lot line) 20-feet 20-feet Min. Sports Court Setback 20-feet 10-feet Maximum Height 35-feet 35-feet Minimum Lot Area 43,560-sq. ft. 54,943-sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 145-feet 194-feet Maximum Lot Coverage 25% <25% State Statute / County Zoning Ordinance Tests - ARS § 11-816.B.2 and MCZO Article 302.2.2 state that the Board of Adjustment may, “Allow a Variance from the terms of the Ordinance when, owing to a peculiar condition of the land that is not self-created in the line of title, a strict interpretation of the Ordinance creates an unnecessary hardship, as long as in granting such Variance the general intent and purposes of the Zoning Ordinance will be preserved.” Page 7 of 9 15. Statutory Test 1 – Does the applicant’s property contain any peculiar condition – Discuss and explain the peculiar conditions facing the property and include reference to the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulations or Development Standards to be varied. 16. 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 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. 17. 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 8 of 9 Findings: 18. 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 302.2.2, 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. 19. 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 a peculiar condition facing the property. The mild slopes are not unique to the property and have not inhibited development of primary and accessory uses. Development of a single-family residence as the primary use means that the property already fulfills the general intent and purpose of the MCZO. For this reason, it is difficult to argue that an undue hardship is created by the enforcement of the required 20’ setback for a private sports court. • There is a historic drainage corridor that passes through the area where the basketball court has been placed / proposed. If the slab alters, modifies, or impedes the historic drainage patterns, then a grading permit will be required to ensure these historic drainage patterns are maintained. The slab should be poured flush with the existing elevations as to not divert or back up the historic flows onto neighboring properties. Page 9 of 9 • The proposal is to install a single basketball hoop; staff considers this to fall under the umbrella of a sports court; however, a full basketball court is not proposed. 20. 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 10’ setback for a private sports court for APN 211-24- 121. Presented by: Nick Schlimm, Planner Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages) Site Plan (1 pages) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 3 Gross Acres: 1 approx. Generated May 29, 2026 1:36 PM BA260035 Application Name: Legal Description SPORTS COURT Applicant Case Address 5N-3E-8 DANIEL M HENDERSON 630 E TUMBLEWEED DR PHOENIX, AZ 85085 Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:211-24-121 6029999566 PHOENIX, AZ 85085 Map scale 1:704 Supervisor District No. change set back requirement for sports court from 20 feet to 10 feet Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Variance Application Packet /23 VARIANCE / INTERPRETATION APPLICATION ALL FEES ARE DUE AT TIME OF APPLICATION AND ARE NON-REFUNDABLE Is this Design Build? Yes No Is this Residential? Yes No Please select the type of Board of Adjustment application from the checkboxes below. Residential Variance Non-residential Variance Interpretation BA Blanket Variance Is this subject property within an area of 15% or greater hillside slopes? Yes No 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): 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 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 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: ______________________________ PER ARTICLE 602.7 Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Variance Application Packet /23 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. Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Variance Application Packet /23 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