04.BA260069 BOA Staff Report

Report to the Board of Adjustment 
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department 
 
 
Case:   
 
 
BA260069 – Kubacki Property  
 
Hearing Date:  
 
September 17, 2026 
 
Supervisor District: 
 
1 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Applicant/Owner:  
Jeremy Mattingly / John Kubacki 
 
Request: 
Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning 
Ordinance to permit: 
 
1) 
Proposed street side (north) setback of 6” where 10’ is the minimum 
permitted per MCZO Section 502 
 
Site Location: 
APN 304-89-064X @ 26417 S. 189th Way in the Queen Creek area 
 
Site Size: 
 
 
Approx. 35,933 sq. ft.  
 
Current Use / Zoning: 
Single-family residence / R-4 
 
Open Violation: 
N/A 
 
Background: 
 
1. 
January 17, 2025: Nexstar Homes, LLC, submitted a building permit application for a single-family 
residence (BLDR2500448). 
 
2. 
January 23, 2025: The subject parcel was created from an unregulated land division. The 
developer, Nexstar Homes, LLC, owned the property. 
 
3. 
April 9, 2026: A building permit application was submitted for a detached RV garage 
(BLDR2602795). 
 
4. 
May 20, 2026: The building permit for the single-family residence (BLDR2500448) was 
completed, passing the final inspections. 
 
5. 
May 29, 2026: The current owner took possession of the subject property. 
 
6. 
July 16, 2026: The owner submitted this variance request. 
 
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 
 
7. 
On-site: 
R-4 / Single-family residence 
 
North:  
R-4 / Single-family residence 
South:  
R-4 / Single-family residence 
East: 
 
Grapefruit Dr., then Rural-43 / Single-family residence 
 
West:  
R-4 / Vacant

Page 2 of 8 
 
Variance Request: 
 
8. 
The property owner is requesting a variance to permit a detached garage at a setback of six 
inches (6”) from the Happy Rd. street line. Happy Rd. is an access easement that parallels the 
property’s north lot line. Accessory structures, whether attached or detached, must adhere to the 
minimum street side setback required in the underlying zoning district, meaning they may not be 
located within the required street-side yard. Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance (MCZO) Section 
502 establishes the minimum street-side setback in the R-4 zoning district at 10’. The garage is 
subject to building permit BLDR2602795, which is currently in plan review, and is proposed at a 
6” street-side setback. Variance approval is necessary for the owner to obtain zoning clearance 
for the proposed location at a substandard setback. Otherwise, the proposed garage must be 
placed in a different location. 
 
Excerpt from Proposed Site Plan 
(staff annotations: access easements in red; VNAE in orange; existing setback lines in green) 
 
 
 
Site Analysis: 
 
9. 
Front and street side setback lines are generally measured from the lot lines that correspond with 
street frontage. However, where access easements encumber the property, the corresponding 
setback lines are measured from the edge of the easements themselves (i.e. street lines). An 
arguably peculiar condition of this property is that it features street frontage along three of its 
four lot lines: Grapefruit Dr. to the east, Happy Rd. to the north, and 189th Way to the west. For this 
reason, when the property was created, it bore the unusual distinction of being both a through-lot 
and a corner lot. Grapefruit Drive is within a MCDOT-owned right-of-way that lies entirely opposite 
the east lot line from the interior of the property. In 2026, the current owner recorded a 1’ vehicular 
non-access easement (VNAE) along the east lot line. By ordinance, this allows us to treat the east 
as a rear rather than another front on the through-lot. The VNAE and a 6’-high wall legally and 
physically block access to the property from Grapefruit Dr. As a result, the east yard is now 
considered the rear yard of the property.

Page 3 of 8 
 
10. 
Unlike Grapefruit Dr., the other two streets are located within recorded easements that encumber 
the property. Happy Rd. corresponds with the northernmost 25’ of the property according to 
MCR# 2024-0175136. As along Grapefruit Dr., a 6’-high wall physically separates Happy Rd. from 
the rest of the property and effectively blocks direct access. The only practical access to the 
property is via 189th Way, a 20’-wide easement inside the property that parallels the west lot line. 
According to MCR# 2025-0174840, this easement enters the property from the south and extends 
60’ into the property before ending. It does not connect to Happy Rd. The easement for 189th Way 
is not adjacent to the west lot line but set back from the lot line by 10’, meaning that the required 
west setback effectively begins 30’ from much of the west lot line. The road itself ends in a cul-
de-sac that extends beyond the end of the recorded easement and is part of the lot’s internal 
circular driveway. 
 
11. 
The most recent site aerials show the single-family residence under construction, although permit 
records show that it has since been completed. The residence was built toward the approximate 
center of the property, albeit closer to the south lot line to allow sufficient room for driveways 
along the north and west sides of the house. Although access is from 189th Way, the property’s 
private driveway extends from the 189th Way cul-de-sac to the north side of the house. As the 
owner’s site plan shows, the house’s two-car garage faces north. This driveway would also 
provide access to the proposed RV garage if it could be built in the planned location. The site plan 
shows the eastern third of the property as being undeveloped. The house’s rear patio is oriented 
toward this direction, and the owner recently received an issued building permit for a swimming 
pool (not shown on the site plan) in this area. Beyond the area where the pool will be built, the site 
plan does show a retention area running along the east wall. Per the owner’s answers to the 
supplemental questionnaire, this retention area is required to maintain adequate drainage. As a 
result of these circumstances, the owner deduces that the only remaining location feasible for a 
detached RV garage is along, parallel to, and in very close proximity to Happy Rd. According to 
the applicant, in order to maintain sufficient separation from the residence and the attached 
HVAC units, the detached garage would need to be setback from Happy Rd. by less than the 
ordinance requirement. 
 
12. 
Staff notes that the wall that runs parallel to Happy Road is not along the edge of the easement; 
it actually encroaches 5’ into the easement. When the wall was permitted with the residence, the 
submitted site plan erroneously showed Happy Rd. at a width of only 20’ (instead of 25’), and the 
wall was shown on the edge of what was illustrated as a 20’ easement. The permit was approved 
and the wall was built. This request was originally for a variance to reduce the street side setback 
to 5’; the applicant’s original site plan illustrated an easement width of 20’. With Happy Rd. 
understood to be 25’ wide, this would place the proposed garage adjacent to the easement at a 
0’ street side setback. Following correspondence with staff, the applicant stated that the garage 
could be setback 6” from the easement. Staff notes that, if the Board approves a variance to allow 
a 6” setback from Happy Rd., the RV garage will still be subject to building codes, which may 
require additional setback for fire separation. Staff has listed the variance request as a 6” north 
street-side setback where a minimum 10’ setback is required. 
 
13. 
Staff also notes that the VNAE along the east lot line appears to have been recorded incorrectly. 
The legal description for the VNAE describes it as running parallel to the entire length of the east 
lot line (145.5’). However, since the northernmost 25’ of the property corresponds with Happy Rd., 
the VNAE (as currently recorded) has the inadvertent affect of restricting access to Grapefruit Dr. 
from Happy Rd. Although this does not have a direct implication for the variance request, staff 
advises the owner to re-record the VNAE so that it does not encumber the 25’ easement for Happy 
Rd. It would also be appropriate for the applicant to record a VNAE along but external to the 
correct street line for Happy Rd. to legally block access from the lot onto Happy Rd. This cannot 
be made a condition of any variance approval.

Page 4 of 8 
 
2026 Eagle Eye View of the Subject Site 
 
 
 
2026 Aerial Image of the Subject Site

Page 5 of 8 
 
2026 Aerial Image of the Surrounding Neighborhood 
 
 
 
Zoning District Map

Page 6 of 8 
 
14. 
The applicant argues that the proposed garage cannot be relocated and must be located 
proximate to Happy Rd. However, there may be alternative locations. The garage could be moved 
south or southeast so that it is attached to the residence. In turn, the HVAC units attached to the 
primary residence could be relocated slightly to the west, closer to the 2-car garage doors. 
Without changing the dimensions of the RV garage, attaching it to the north side of the residence 
would place it at a setback of 7’-7” from the street line. The site plan shows the RV garage would 
be 20’ wide, and in the answers to the supplemental questionnaire, the applicant implies this was 
the minimum feasible width. If the garage could be narrowed by 2’-5” and attached to the 
residence, this would allow the garage to be built without need for variance. 
 
Site Plan Excerpt 
 
 
 
Zoning District Standards: 
 
15. 
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 
 
R-4 
Zoning 
District 
Proposed with 
Variance 
Min. Front Yard Setback (189th Way – west street line)  
10-feet 
10-feet 
Min. Rear Yard Setback (Grapefruit Dr. – east street line) 
25-feet 
25-feet 
Min. Street-Side Setback (Happy Rd. – north street line) 
10-feet 
6-inches 
Min. Interior Side Setback (south lot line) 
5-feet 
5-feet 
Maximum Height  
40-feet 
40-feet 
Minimum Lot Area 
6,000-sq. ft. 
>6,000-sq. ft. 
Minimum Lot Width 
60-feet 
>60-feet 
Maximum Lot Coverage 
60% 
<60% 
 
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 8 
 
 
16. 
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.   
 
“REQUESTING A REDUCTION IN ACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACK FROM ROAD EASEMEN FROM 
10' TO 6" ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PROPERTY. THE NARROW WIDTH OF PROPERTY, 
TOPOGRAPHY, COMBINED WITH THE REQUIRED RETENTION AND DRAINAGE FLOWS AT THE 
EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, LEAVE LITTLE ROOM FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THIS 
PROPERTY.” 
 
17. 
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. 
 
“DUE TO THE REQUIRED DRAINAGE AT THE EAST OF THE PROPERTY, RETENTION AND SPACE 
REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THE FLOWS FROM SOUTH TO NORTH. THE AREA AVAILABLE FOR AN 
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IT LIMITED TO THE NORTH SIDE OF PROPERTY. THE EXISTING HOUSE 
IS PUSHED AS FAR SOUTH AS POSSIBLE LEAVING ONLY ONE AREA FOR A DETACHED RV 
GARAGE. WE HAVE DESIGNED A MINIMUM WIDTH RV GARAGE AND WOULD LIKE TO MAINTAIN 
A 5' SETBACK FROM THE EXISTING PERMITTED FENCE THAT IS BUILT RIGHT 5' INSIDE OF THE 
25' ROAD EASEMENT. (SEE ATTACHED SITE MAP) THE EXISTING HOUSE LOCATION, HVAC 
EQUIPMENT AND ELECTRICAL SERVICE, DICTATE THAT THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE CAN 
NOT BE LOCATED ANY CLOSER TO THE HOUSE TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM CLEARANCES AND 
INGRESS. THERE IS AN EXISTING PERMITTED 6' CMU FENCE LOCATED 5' INSIDE THE 25' 
STREET EASEMENT #20240175136. THE CURRENT DESIGN WOULD MAINTAIN A 5' SETBACK 
FROM THIS FENCE IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED” 
 
18. 
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. 
 
“THERE APPEARS TO BE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THE 
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WILL BE INSIDE THE EXISTING PERMITTED FENCE WALL 5'. 
IMPOSING NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE STREET EASEMENT OR APPEARANCE OF CROWDING 
THE SETBACK.” 
 
Findings:  
 
19. 
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.

Page 8 of 8 
 
 
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.   
 
20. 
Based upon what the applicant has submitted and the staff analysis in this report, staff offers the 
following observations the Board may consider in its findings: 
 
• 
Staff cannot identify a peculiar condition facing the property. Although it has street 
frontage along three lot lines, this feature – if not common – is not unique to the property. 
Furthermore, any hardships that may be generated by these frontages are arguably 
negated by the small setbacks required in the R-4 zoning district. The size of the property 
makes it very similar to a lot typical for the R1-35 zoning district. Yet, because the zoning 
is R-4, development of the property already benefits from generous setback allowances. 
 
• 
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 has been created by the enforcement of Zoning Ordinance 
requirements. 
 
• 
There are alternatives available for locating a detached or attached garage that would 
maintain minimum setback requirements. 
 
21. 
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 6” minimum street-side (north) setback line for APN 304-
89-064X. 
 
 
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) 
 
Building Elevations (10 pages)

/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
1
Gross Acres: 1 approx.
Generated August 26, 2026 3:49 PM
BA260069
Application Name:
Legal Description
Kubacki Variance
Applicant
Case Address
Jeremy   Mattingly
26417 S 189TH WAY QUEEN CREEK, AZ 85142
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:304-89-064X
5096750930
QUEEN CREEK, AZ 85142
Map scale 1:614
Supervisor District No.
request for setback reduction from 10' to 5' at north property

Planning & Development Department
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003
P: 602.506.3301
Residential Variance Application Packet 
/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:
 ______________________________
REDUCTION OF ROAD EASEMENT SETBACK FROM 10' TO 6" 
PUC 0013
26417 S 189TH WAY QUEEN CREEK AZ 85142
QUEEN CREEK AZ
0.82
35,933.00
31
2S
7E
304-89-064X
CHANDLER HEIGHTS CITRUS TRACT UNIT 3127
✔
JEREMY MATTINGLY DESIGNS
JEREMY MATTINGLY
6421 WEST KRISTAL WAY
GLENDALE
AZ
85308
(509) 675-0930
JOHN KUBACKI
JOHN KUBACKI
26417 S 189TH WAY
QUEEN CREEK
AZ
85142
(602) 463-6159
JOHN KUBACKI
JEREMY MATTINGLY
7-15-26
7-15-26
7-15-26

RESIDENTIAL 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.
REQUESTING A REDUCTION IN ACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACK FROM ROAD EASEMEN FROM 10' TO 6" ON THE NORTH 
SIDE OF PROPERTY. THE NARROW WIDTH OF PROPERTY, TOPOGRAPHY, COMBINED WITH THE REQUIRED RETENTION 
AND DRAINAGE FLOWS AT THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, LEAVE LITTLE ROOM FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON 
THIS 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.
DUE TO THE REQUIRED DRAINAGE AT THE EAST OF THE PROPERTY, RETENTION AND SPACE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THE 
FLOWS FROM SOUTH TO NORTH. THE AREA AVAILABLE FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IT LIMITED TO THE NORTH SIDE 
OF PROPERTY. THE EXISTING HOUSE IS PUSHED AS FAR SOUTH AS POSSIBLE LEAVING ONLY ONE AREA FOR A DETACHED 
RV GARAGE. WE HAVE DESIGNED A MINIMUM WIDTH RV GARAGE AND WOULD LIKE TO MAINTAIN A 5' SETBACK FROM THE 
EXISTING PERMITTED FENCE THAT IS BUILT RIGHT 5' INSIDE OF THE 25' ROAD EASEMENT. (SEE A TT ACHED SITE MAP) THE 
EXISTING HOUSE LOCATION, HVAC EQUIPMENT AND ELECTRICAL SERVICE, DICTATE THAT THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE 
CAN NOT BE LOCATED ANY CLOSER TO THE HOUSE TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM CLEARANCES AND INGRESS. THERE IS AN 
EXISTING PERMITTED 6' CMU FENCE LOCATED 5' INSIDE THE 25' STREET EASEMENT #20240175136. THE CURRENT DESIGN 
WOULD MAINTAIN A 5' SETBACK FROM THIS FENCE IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED 
-------" -------
Planning & Development Department 
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 
P: 602.506.3301 
Residential Variance Application Packet 
12/2/24

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 

THERE APPEARS TO BE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WILL BE 
INSIDE THE EXISTING PERMITTED FENCE WALL 5' . IMPOSING NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE STREET EASEMENT OR 
APPEARANCE OF CROWDING THE SETBACK.

&
EXP.  3 / 31 / 28
3/20/26

&
EXP.  3 / 31 / 28
3/20/26

&
EXP.  3 / 31 / 28
3/20/26

&
EXP.  3 / 31 / 28
3/30/2

&
EXP.  3 / 31 / 28
3/20/26