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

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 2 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 3 of 8

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

2026 Aerial Image of the Surrounding Neighborhood
Zoning District Map
Page 5 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 Proposed with
Zoning Variance
District
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 6 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 7 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)
Page 8 of 8

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

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: REDUCTION OF ROAD EASEMENT SETBACK FROM 10' TO 6"
Existing Zoning District and Use of Property: PUC 0013
Related Case Number(s):
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Address (if known): 26417 S 189TH WAY QUEEN CREEK AZ 85142
General Location (include nearest city/town): QUEEN CREEK AZ
Size in Acres: 0.82 Square Feet: 35,933.00
Legal Description: Section: 31 Township: 2S Range: 7E
Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): 304-89-064X
Subdivision Name (if applicable): CHANDLER HEIGHTS CITRUS TRACT UNIT 3127
Is this subject property within an area of 15% or greater hillside slopes? Yes No ✔
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name: JEREMY MATTINGLY DESIGNS Contact: JEREMY MATTINGLY
Address: 6421 WEST KRISTAL WAY
City: GLENDALE State: AZ Zip: 85308
Phone #: (509) 675-0930 Fax #:
E-mail Address:
PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
Name: JOHN KUBACKI Contact: JOHN KUBACKI
Address: 26417 S 189TH WAY
City: QUEEN CREEK State: AZ Zip: 85142
Phone #: (602) 463-6159 Fax #:
E-mail Address:
PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT AUTHORIZATION
I (property owner) JOHN KUBACKI authorize (applicant’s name) JEREMY MATTINGLY
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: 7-15-26
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.
7-15-26
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.
7-15-26
Property Owner Signature: _________________________________________________________ Date: ______________________________
Planning & Development Department Residential Variance Application Packet
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 /24
P: 602.506.3301

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 Residential Variance Application Packet
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 12/2/24
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.
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.
*Additional sheets may be attached.
** DO NOT USE THIS FORM IF YOU ARE SUBMITTING AN INTERPRETATION
Planning & Development Department
6IWMHIRXMEP Variance Application Packet
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003
P: 602.506.3301





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
EXP. 3 / 31 / 28
&