06.BA260039 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
13348 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA260039 – Teigh Property Hearing Date: June 18, 2026 Supervisor District: 4 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant/Property Owner: Lori Teigh Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed side (southwest) setback of 0’ where 5’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Section 502 Site Location: APN 142-81-239 @ – 10343 W. Pinehurst Dr. 103rd Ave. and Pinehurst Dr., in the Sun City area Site Size: 1,569 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence / R1 - 6 SC Open Violation: V2501930 Background: 1. September 14, 1960: Parcel is created as Lot #1569 of Sun City Unit 3. 2. September, 2011: An addition (carport) appears in historical aerial photography at the southern end of the residence. There is no record of building permit for the addition. 3. November 3, 2022: Current owner takes possession of the subject property. 4. December 2, 2025: Property owner is notified of code violation for the existing unpermitted carport addition. The construction in question is the carport addition subject of this variance. 5. February 27, 2026: Property owner enters compliance agreement to resolve the violation. 6. May 1, 2026: Property owner files for the subject variance request in preparation of a building permit. Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 7. On-site: R1-6 / Single-family residence North: Pinehurst Dr. then R1-6 / Single-family residence South: R1-6 / Single-family residence East: R1-6 / Single-family residence West: Pinehurst Dr. then R1-6 / Single-family residence Page 2 of 9 Variance Request: 8. The applicant has entered into a compliance agreement to resolve the code violation for an addition to an existing residence. The 416 sq ft carport addition, which occurred prior to the purchase by the current owner, appears in historical county photography as early as September 2011. The addition is setback nearly 0’ from the southwestern property line, encroaching a 5’ public utilities easement and potentially draining stormwater onto adjacent property. The addition appears to have a water spout where storm water from the roof of the addition is directed to the ground at the western corner of the addition. The elimination of the side yard setback will negate the 30% side yard lot coverage maximum requirement. Excerpt from proposed site plan Page 3 of 9 Photographs of carport addition in relation to fence line / property line Page 4 of 9 Photographs of carport addition and stormwater management Site Analysis: 9. The site is a fully developed subdivision with complete infrastructure and no topographic or other natural constraints to development. The primary residence is existing along with the unpermitted carport addition (shown in the above photograph). Page 5 of 9 Aerial photo of subject site Aerial image & surrounding environs Page 6 of 9 Eagle view of subject site looking north into subject parcel (aerial image dated 10/17/2020). Page 7 of 9 Zoning District map 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 R1-6 Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Front Yard Setback 10-feet 10-feet Min. Rear Yard Setback 25-feet 25-feet Min. Side Yard Setback (residence to southwest property line) 5-feet 0-feet Maximum Height 35-feet 35-feet Minimum Lot Area 6,000-sq. ft. 1,569-sq.ft. Minimum Lot Width 60-feet 60-feet Lot Coverage 50% 50% Note: Standards indicated in bold do not meet base zoning standards Page 8 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.” 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. “requesting a variance south side of lot for as-built carport setback variance of 3 foot to "0 feet . 10343 W Pinehurst Dr is a peculiar lot size, we are on a corner cul-de-sac. Our backyard is a wedge the back length of lot is 19ft. only access to back yard is through the south side carport. Violation of zoning ordinance in the unincorporated area of Maricopa county. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, EQUIPMENT, AND SETBACKS - DD-3012-01 UN-Permitted carport not meeting the required setbacks" 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. 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. "It would be a hardship on us, it was not self created by us or the previous owner. To remove the carport and/or rebuild, a new carport would require many variances on a setback. It would require variances because of setback issues of the entire front and side of the lot is on the roadway. unless we installed in the front yard which does not follow the SCHOA CC&R's." 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 carport has been in place for 15+ years with no complaints from any of the neighbors. It blends in very well with the aesthetics of the home. We do have a peculiar lot size, we are on a corner cul- de-sac. Our backyard is a wedge. It would be a hardship on us, it was not self created by us. To remove the carport and/or rebuild, a new carport would require many variances on a setback. It would require variances because of setback issues of the entire front and side of the lot is on the roadway. unless we installed in the front yard which does not follow the SCHOA CC&R's." 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 Page 9 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. 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: • Staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition facing the property that when presented with application of the zoning ordinance requirements prevents reasonable development of the property. • The property is already developed with a single-family residence that meets zoning district requirements. • Identified concerns regarding the unpermitted structure’s stormwater draining onto adjacent property with recommendation that the carport not extend to the property line. • Zoning clearance will not be issued for a structure that encroaches a public utilities easement despite variance request approval. The PUE will require abandonment via separate administrative process. 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 0’ side (southwest) setback line for APN 142-81-239. b) Variance approval memorializes the west lot line as the front of APN 142-81-239. Presented by: Daniel Johnson, Planner Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages) Planning & Development Engineering Plan Review (1 page) Site Plan (1 page) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 4 Gross Acres: 0 approx. Generated May 29, 2026 1:40 PM BA260039 Application Name: Legal Description car port variance Applicant Case Address 3N-1E-20 Lori Teigh 10343 W PINEHURST DR SUN CITY, AZ 85351 Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:142-81-239 (928) 240-0580 SUN CITY, AZ 85351 Map scale 1:362 Supervisor District No. variance is requested to keep the attached car port/garage conversion in the southern portion of the lot. request to reduce the required south side setback of 5’ to 0’ in the R1-6 zoning district to accommodate BA260039 RCVD 4/30/26 Planning & Development Engineering Plan Review Daniel Lechwar Engineering Associate Planning & Development 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85008 Phone: (602) 372-2923 Fax: (602)506-3282 www.maricopa.gov/planning Email address: Daniel.lechwar@maricopa.gov Date: May 18, 2026 Memo To: Darren Gerard, Planning Manager, Planning & Development Attn: Daniel Johnson, Planner, Planning and Development From: Daniel Lechwar, Engineering Associate Planning & Development Department cc: Bob Fedorka, P.E., Engineering Manager, Planning and Development Subject: BA260039 – Residential Variance Address: 10343 W Pinehurst Dr. Sun City, AZ 85351 APN(s): 142-81-239 PND Engineering: Has no comments or objections on the variance request, subject to the following conditions: 1. The carport should not extend to the property line, so that storm water is maintained on the subject property and does not fall onto the neighboring property. Other Maricopa County Agencies must review and recommend approval of this project. Please contact me if you have any questions or require clarification of these comments. Revised 3/1/23 Page 1 of 1 S I T E P L A N ϭϬϯϰϯ t PŝŶĞŚƵƌƐƚ ƌ SƵŶ ŝƚLJ͕ A ϴϱϯϱϭ PĂƌĐĞů I͗ ϭϰϮͲϴϭͲϮϯϵ LŽƚ ĂƌĞĂ͗ Ϭ͘ Ϯϯ AĐƌĞƐ PĂƉĞƌ SŝnjĞ͗ ϭϭΗdžϭϳΗ scale 1"=20' 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 EXISTING HOUSE NŽ͘ ϭϬϯϰϯ ϮϱΖ ϯϮΖ ϭϵΖ ϭϱΖ ϯϰΖ ϭϱΖ ϭϮΖ ϯϮΖ ϮϬΖ ϱΖ ϮϬΖ ϱΖ ϯϭΖ ϭϭΖ ϴΖ ϴΖ ϴΖ ϴΖ ϯΖ ϱΖ ϰΖ ϰϴΖ ϰϴΖ ϵϵΖ ϭϵΖ ϭϭϭΖ ϮϯΖ ϯϴΖ ϮϵΖ ϭϬΖ PƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ ůŝŶĞ PƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ ůŝŶĞ PƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ ůŝŶĞ PƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ ůŝŶĞ ƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬ ǁĂůů ůŝŶĞ PƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĨĞŶĐĞ t PŝŶĞŚƵƌƐƚ ƌ ĐĞŶƚĞƌůŝŶĞ ĚƌŝǀĞǁĂLJ ϮϴΖ ϭϳΖ ϭϯΖ Existing Carport ϱΖ ϱΖ ϭϬΖ ϭϬΖ ϱΖ ƐĞƚďĂĐŬ ƐĞƚďĂĐŬ ƐĞƚďĂĐŬ ƐĞƚďĂĐŬ ϯΖ BA260039 RCVD 4/30/26