05.BA260070 BOA Staff Report

Report to the Board of Adjustment
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case: BA260070 – Everett Residence Variance
Hearing Date: September 17, 2026
Supervisor District: 3
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Applicant/Owner: Shannon Everett / Shannon Everett Living Trust
Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance to permit:
1) Proposed hillside disturbance of 11,128 sq. ft. outside of the principal
buildable envelope where prohibited per MCZO Article 901.4.1.1
Site Location: APN 202-13-045E @ 46013 N. 38th Ln. – Black Canyon Hwy. and 38th Ln.,
in the New River area
Site Size: 54,450 sq. ft.
Current Use / Zoning: Horse corral and riding area with accessory stable / R1 - 6 SC
Background:
1. December 15, 2004: The subject parcel is created via unregulated land division.
2. July 13, 2005: Variance BA2005098 is granted to allow for a 43.46’ east street-side setback where
53’ was required. This was necessitated by a patent easement which splits the subject property
from the parcel directly east, APN 202-13-044C. The patent easement extends 33’ west from the
east parcel line into the subject parcel. The original variance granted an approximately 10’ setback
from the street line. The variance was proposed to permit a single-family residence which
ultimately never developed.
3. 2018: The subject parcel remained vacant until around 2018 when historic aerials indicate a
stable and horse fencing having been constructed.
4. March 1, 2023: The current owner takes possession of the subject property and adjacent east
property via MCR 20230104339.
5. November 26, 2025: The owner applies for a building permit (BLDR2509492) to develop a 4,024
sq. ft. single-family residence. The provided grading & drainage plan indicates the northeast
corner of the home being 30.9’ from the east parcel line, or about 2’ into the patent easement and
thus inconsistent with the previously granted variance.
6. April 16, 2026: Variance BA260016 is granted to allow for a 33’ eastern setback from the property
line. This is a zero setback from the street line of the patent easement.

Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use:
7. On-site: Rural-43 / Horse corrals and stables
North: Rural-43 / Single-family residence
South: 38th Ln. then Rural-43 / Single-family residence
East: Rural-43/ Single-family residence
West: Rural-43 / Single-family residence
Variance Request:
8. The applicant proposes 11,128 sq. ft. of hillside disturbance outside of the principal building
envelope. The site was previously graded during construction of equine structures which resulted
in the hillside disturbance. The site plan shows three areas of hillside disturbance outside the
principal building envelope. The applicant provided additional images of existing site conditions.
Site Photographs
Page 2 of 8

Site Plan Excerpt Hghlighting Hillside Disturbance
Page 3 of 8

Site Analysis:
9. The site has steeper slope in the north and less slope toward the front/south. This pushes
development southward toward the front portion of the parcel where more pragmatic. The
existing horse corral and stable structures arelocated in this area, roughly the proposed location
of the home. No drainage issues or other constraints appear to affect development within the
majority of the principal building envelope. The patent easement runs along the eastern boundary
of the parcel. The hillside areas are of minimal height despite the slope. The overall site
topography is of small knolls as opposed to a mountain side.
Aerial photo of subject site
Page 4 of 8

Aerial photo of the surrounding environs
Eagle view (north to right, aerial 10/16/2020)
Page 5 of 8

Zoning District map
Zoning District Standard:
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 Rural-43 Proposed with
Zoning District Variance
Hillside disturbance outside of principal building envelope Prohibited. 11,128 sq. ft.
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.”
Page 6 of 8

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.
“Buildable area after set-backs and right-of-way shrinks by 16,170 sq ft from 54,450 sq ft.. Just
the 33' easement on the South and East lot line reduce the space to 38,280 without accounting for
the 30' side set back. With 160' East to West lot size minus 2-side set backs of 30' each and the
33' easement, I only have 77' to build and we have topography to deal with on top of that. For this
reason and due to the aesthetic of the neighbors an neighboring properties, it makes sense to
face the house to the South with a slight angle West”
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.
“Due to the shape and topography of the land facing the home East/West instead of North/South
allows for no backyard at all and is not highest and best use of the lot itself. In addition, would quite
simply, not look right. With the 33' Easement on top of the 30' set back, there is just not enough
room to position the house facing South without a variance to remove the East side 30' set back.
Obviously, we are leaving the 33' easement so effectively, standard "set backs" remain.”
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.
“I don't believe there is a negative impact since the 33' easement will remain. In addition, I also own
46010 N 38th Ave to the East of the subject property. This lot also has a 33' easement that still
exists.”
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
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.
Page 7 of 8

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 observations the Board may consider in its findings:
• The parcel has already received a variance for a reduced east street-side setback to resolve
site planning issues and did not include hillside development.
• Staff cannot identify any requirement of the Ordinance that, when applied to a peculiar
condition facing the property, has created an undue physical hardship that prevents
reasonable development of the property.
• Hillside slopes in the northern portion of the lot pragmatically pushes development
southward.
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 will permit 11,128 sq. ft. of additional hillside disturbance outside of
the building envelope for APN 202-13-045E.
Presented by: Andrew Lorentzen, Planner
Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager
Attachments: Case Map (1 page)
Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages)
Site Plan (1 page)
Page 8 of 8

Application Name: Shannon Everett Residence
Legal Description
7N-2E-34
Applicant Applicant Phone/Email
(_60) 255-0800
SHANNON RENE EVERETT
BA260070
Case Address Parcel Primary:202-13-045E
46013 N 38TH LN NEW RIVER, AZ 85087
NEW RIVER, AZ 85087
Generated August 26, 2026 3:49 PM Gross Acres: 1 approx. Map scale 1:821
Supervisor District No. 3
Variance request is to allow the existing disturbance to remain outside the building envelope.
/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ

Authentisign ID: 36FF40FF-380C-F111-A69A-000D3A4FF82A
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: Residential Variance Request
Existing Zoning District and Use of Property: R-43
Related Case Number(s):
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Address (if known): 46013 N 38th Lane
General Location (include nearest city/town): New River, AZ 85087
Size in Acres: 1.25 Square Feet: 54,450.00
Legal Description: Section: 37 Township: 7N Range: 2E
Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): 202-13-045E
Subdivision Name (if applicable):
Is this subject property within an area of 15% or greater hillside slopes? Yes No I
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name: Shannon Everett Contact: 602-550-8002
Address: 46010 N 38th Ave
City: New River State: AZ Zip: 85087
Phone #: (602) 550-8002 Fax #:
E-mail Address:
PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
Name: Shannon Everett Contact: 602-550-8002
Address: 46010 N 38th Ave
City: New River State: AZ Zip: 85087
Phone #: (602) 550-8002 Fax #:
E-mail Address:
PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT AUTHORIZATION
I (property owner) Shannon Everett authorize (applicant’s name) Shannon Everett
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: ______________________________
Planning & Development Department Residential Variance Application Packet
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 12/2/24
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.
Buildable area after set-backs and right-of-way shrinks by 16,170 sq ft from 54,450 sq ft.. Just the 33' easement on the South and East lot
line reduce the space to 38,280 without accounting for the 30' side set back.
With 160' East to West lot size minus 2-side set backs of 30' each and the 33' easement, I only have 77' to build and we have topography
to deal with on top of that. For this reason and due to the aesthetic of the neighbors and neighboring properties, it makes sense to face the
house to the South with a slight angle West
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 shape and topography of the land facing the home East/West instead of North/South allows for no backyard at all and is not
highest and best use of the lot itself. In addition, would quite simply, not look right. With the 33' Easement on top of the 30' set back, there
is just not enough room to position the house facing South without a variance to remove the East side 30' set back. Obviously, we are
leaving the 33' easement so effectively, standard "set backs" remain.
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.
I don't believe there is a negative impact since the 33' easement will remain. In addition, I also own 46010 N 38th Ave to the East of
the subject property. This lot also has a 33' easement that still exists.
*Additional sheets may be attached.
** DO NOT USE THIS FORM IF YOU ARE SUBMITTING AN INTERPRETATION
Planning & Development Department
Residential Variance Application Packet
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 6/17/24
P: 602.506.3301

dig.
you
what'sbelow.
before
Call
Know
Juan Digitally DN: CN=Juan signed Reyes, by Juan Reyes
E=reyesdcllc@gmail.com Reason: document I am the author of this
Reyes Location: Date: 2026-08-09 your signing 19:37:49 location here
Foxit PhantomPDF Version: 9.7.5