05.BA260076 BOA Report

Report to the Board of Adjustment
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case: BA260076 – Putman Property
Hearing Date: October 15, 2026
Supervisor District: 4
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Applicant: Max Christiansen, Tru Builders
Property Owner: Phillip Putman
Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance to permit:
1) Proposed side yard setback of 3’ where 5’ is the minimum permitted per
MCZO Article 502
Site Location: APN 200-84-009 @ 13643 N. Buccaneer Way –Del Webb Blvd. &
Buccaneer Way, in the Sun City area
Site Size: 8,757 sq. ft.
Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence / R-3 RUPD SC
Open Violation: N/A
Background:
1. December 12, 1967: Parcel created as Lot 6, Sun City Unit 12.
2. May 19, 2023: Current owner takes possession of the subject property.
3. 2023-2024: County aerial photographs capture additions at the north side of the residence. These
additions were completed without benefit of issued permit authorizing the work.
4. June 29, 2026: Building permit BLDR2605089 submitted for a proposed rear yard patio and as-
built additions on the north side of the residence. The permit has not been approved due to
encroachment into the required north side yard.
5. August 20, 2026: Variance application BA260076 submitted.
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use:
6. On-site: R-3 / Single-family residence
North: R-3 / Single-family residence
South: R-3 / Single-family residence
East: R1-8 / Lake
West: Buccaneer Wy then R-3 / Single-family residences

Variance Request:
7. The applicant is requesting a reduction in the minimum required side yard setback. This is due
to unpermitted construction that encroaches into the north side yard setback for two existing
expansions to the single family residence. In order to secure zoning clearance for the building
permit, the unpermitted additions must be removed, modified to meet the minimum required 5’
setback, or a variance obtained. The applicant seeks variance to reduce the required side yard
setback for the north lot line from the minimum required 5’ to 3’.
8. The additions appear to have been completed between 2023-2024. One non-livable addition of
about 74 sq. ft. and a second livable addition of 207 sq. ft. At the closest point the additions are
3.27’ from the north lot line.
9. Staff notes the aggregate square footage for the house, garage, two unpermitted additions and
the proposed new patio accounts for 4,378 sq. ft. equating to a 49% lot coverage, below the R-3
zoning district’s allowance of 60%.
Excerpt from proposed site plan
Page 2 of 7

Photograph provided by the applicant of subject side yard to be reduced looking east. Subject property with existing
additions shown on right side of image.
Site Analysis:
10. The property is fully developed in Sun City Unit 14 with the lot’s rear overlooking a lake. It is
surrounded by similarly styled single-family residences. The site is relatively flat and
unencumbered by any natural features.
Page 3 of 7

Aerial photo of subject site
Aerial image & surrounding environs
Page 4 of 7

Zoning District map
Zoning District Standards:
11. 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 R-3 RUPD Proposed with
Zoning Variance
District
Min. Front Yard Setback (residence to west property line) 10-feet n/a
Min. Rear Yard Setback (residence to east property line) 25-feet n/a
Min. Side Yard Setback (residence to north property line) 5-feet 3-feet
Maximum Height 40-feet n/a
Minimum Lot Area 6,000-sq. ft. n/a
Minimum Lot Width 60-feet n/a
Lot Coverage 60% n/a
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
Page 5 of 7

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.”
12. 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.
“We purchase 13643 N Buccaneer Way and did not know that Mr. Timothy J. Hurst added the
additions without a valid permit. We eventually filed a complaint against Mr. Hurst with the
contractors licensing bureau. Criminal charges were filed against Mr. Hurst for contracting without
a license. Mr. Hurst for contracting without a license. Mr. Timothy Hurst was found guilty by the
Arrowhead Justice of the Peace on June 15, 2026 for the above aforementioned charges.“
13. 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.
“We paid Mr. Hurst for the purchase of the home and he repeatedly told us he had a permit for the
additions on the home. We later found his license was suspended or revoked therefore prompting
us to file initiate a formal complaint for prosecution. We have not as of today received any
restitution as victims yet we have already spent a great deal of fund to bring additions into code.
*We are requesting the north side setback to be 3’ instead of 5’.”
14. 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 north property line in question, the existing home and neighbor to the north, the existing pavers
& fencing is 5’ from the 2 structures already (see pictures) and has been like this for years.”
Findings:
15. 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 6 of 7

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.
16. 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 that when the ordinance
requirement is applied created an undue physical condition not self-created that prevents
reasonable development of the property.
 The lot does not host any natural barriers that prevent reasonable development within the
required setbacks.
 The intent of the ordinance is met in that the property is already developed with a single-
family residence.
 The R-3 zoning district permit a minimum 5’ interior side setback. Reducing the side yard
further abandons the intent of the zoning ordinance side setback that adequately separate
structures in the interest of preventing the spread of fire. Building code requires any part
of a structure located closer than 5’ from property line to be one-hour fire-rated.
 The variance is not warranted. The as-built construction is a self-created condition.
17. 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 minimum 3’ (north) side setback line for APN 200-84-009.
Presented by: Daniel Johnson, Planner
Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager
Attachments: Case Map (1 page)
Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages)
Site Plan (1 page)
Page 7 of 7

Application Name: Putman Home Remodel & Addition
Legal Description
Applicant Applicant Phone/Email
(623) 546-8681
Max Christiansen
BA260076
Case Address Parcel Primary:200-84-009
13643 N BUCCANEER WAY SUN CITY, AZ 85351
SUN CITY, AZ 85351
Generated September 23, 2026 5:08 PM Gross Acres: 0 approx. Map scale 1:298
Supervisor District No. 4
Variance requested for unpermitted structures completed by previous owner that extend past the side
setbacks
/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ




PLANS ERROR.
THESE HUMAN
MAIN
SMALL FISH DRAFTING LLC KNOWLEDGE, AGAINST
3' EXST WROUGHT IRON FENCE JEREMIAH WARD
O BSL 11435 W BUCKEYE RD #104-166 MY GUARANTEE
MAIN 120.00' ELECTRICAL AVONDALE, AZ 85323 OF
PL PL O PL O 623-312-4151
3.27' 4.19' 3.71' www.SmallFishDraftingLLC.com BEST NOT
PL BSL UNPERMITTED BSL 5.72' jeremiah@smallfishdraftingllc.com THE
ROW WATER 8.43' NON-LIVABLE UNPERMITTED TO CAN
ADDITION LIVABLE ADDITION U/G DESIGNER
74 S.F. 207 S.F. PROCESS.
U/G 22.09' FFE=0.0'
THE
6" CONSTRUCTION
MAIN MISTAKES,
GAS TO AVOID
EXST CONCRETE DUE
DRIVEWAY EXST GARAGE U/G ELECTRIC SERVICE TO
U/G 407 S.F. DAMAGED PLAN
31.05' THIS
BEING OF
OF
PREPARATION
20.69' DANGER
8' MAIN PUE 1 2 3 4 5 6
20' BSL ANY THE
IN IN
MAIN BSL BSL PUE PL OR MADE
WAY PL 20.18' 38' PLAN SAVED, BEEN
EXST LIVABLE NEW PATIO ELECTRICAL L=82.02' R=4045.00' AND/OR HAS
WATER 3,363 S.F. 327 S.F.
BUCCANNEER L=79.59' R=3925.00' FFE=0.0' FLOOR EFFORT
REUSED
MAIN U/G U/G CALCS BE EVERY
INDEX TO
ROW GAS 6" DETAILS VALUE WHILE
25.06' ROW 30' BSL INFORMATION ADDITION
OF BEGUN.
U/G SHEET - ELECTRICAL ITEMS
HAS
-
31.29' PLAN SECTIONS RELOCATE CONSTRUCTION ISSUED.
PLAN -
9.5' PROJECT PLAN OR BE
PLAN REMOVE WILL
FLOOR - AND/OR
- FRAMING TO REFUNDS
PLAN FOUNDATION PRECAUTIONS MUNICIPALITY NO
PL ELEVATIONS ELECTRICAL
18.18' MAIN EXISTING ISSUE.
MAIN PL BSL BSL PUE SITE ROOF THE
BSL BSL NECESSARY GOVERNING
31.65' REMEDY
MAIN U/G WATER SERVICE 10.3' U/G WATER SERVICE BSL THE
WATER U/G GAS SERVICE U/G GAS SERVICE 7.18' ELECTRICAL TAKE BY TO
7' WILL PLAN
GAS PL [][] PL [] [] PL APPROVED A
U/G [] [] [] [] DEVISE
NEW 6' CMU WALL (35 L.F.) 120.00' EXST 6' CMU WALL U/G HOMEOWNER BEEN
U/G 6" & 8' GATE TO
[] [] WORK. HAVE DRAFTING
ADDITION ANY PLANS
THE FISH
ROW
FABRICATING ONCE SMALL
OR CONDITIONS CONTACT
W BELL RD & WAY BEGINNING TO
UNKNOWN
85351 BEFORE RESPONSIBILITY
BLVD
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IN THE VICINITY OF A MILITARY FACILITY (LUKE OR
AIR FORCE BASE) WHERE STATE STATUTE REQUIRES NOISE LEVEL ERRORS
REDUCTION TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WEBB REMODEL BUCCANEER AZ DISCREPANCIES CONTRACTORS
OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. ACCORDINGLY, R30 ROOF AND CEILING SITE PLAN FOR
ASSEMBLY, R18 EXTERIOR WALL ASSEMBLY, DUAL-GLAZED WINDOWS AND N 200-84-009
SOLID WOOD, FOAM-FILLED FIBERGLASS OR METAL DOORS TO THE 1"=10'-0" DEL AVE OR LIABLE OR
EXTERIOR ARE REQUIRED FOR THE NEW CONSTRUCTION / LIVABLE SPACE. CITY, NOT
N OMISSIONS IS OWNER'S
ROOF INSULATION: R-38 99TH N LLC
WALL INSULATION: R-19 THE
N SUN ERRORS, DRAFTING IS
IT
HOME 13643 BEGUN,
FISH
DIMENSIONAL
SMALL HAS
NW ANY
GRAND OF CONSTRUCTION
AVE RESPONSIBILITY.
DRAFTING
PUTMAN ONCE
FISH AND
REVEALED
SMALL EXPENSE
IS
NOTIFY
BUILDER'S CONDITION
AND
BEGINS AND/OR
DIFFERENT
OWNER'S A
CONSTRUCTION IF
THE
AT THEREAFTER.
BEFORE BE
WILL
CONNECTIONS PERMITTING RESPONSIBLE
AND AFTER SOLELY
PLANS BE
CONDITIONS AND
PERMIT NUMBER THE
TO
SPECS, MADE CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT NUMBER 24052 DIMENSIONS, CHANGES TO
PRINT DATE 6/29/2026 ANY PRIOR
ALL
DRAWN BY J WARD VERIFY DETAILS
SPECIFICATIONS.
SHEET TITLE AND OTHER
SITE PLAN - PROJECT REVIEW AND
INFORMATION BUILDER'S
SHALL DIMENSIONS
OWNER AND/OR
ALL
HOME OWNER'S CHECK
AND/OR THE MUST
WITH JOB
1 THE
CONTRACTOR COMPLY OF
TO
BUILDING CONTRACTOR
SHEET NUMBER 1 OF 6 DRAWN
THE ARE THE