07.BA260082 BOA Report

Report to the Board of Adjustment
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case: BA260082 – Kenner Property
Hearing Date: October 15, 2026
Supervisor District: 3
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Applicant: Morgan Busby – Busby Permits
Property Owner: Rebecca Kenner
Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance to permit:
1) Proposed front setback of 60’ from the south lot line where 70’ (inclusive
of the 30’ access easement) is the minimum permitted per MCZO Section
502
Site Location: APN 202-16-008P @ 1114 W. Gibbons Rd. – 15th Ave. & New River Rd. in
the New River area
Site Size: 107,663 sq. ft.
Current Use / Zoning: Single-family Residence / Rural-43
Open Violation: V2500488
Background:
1. Circa 2019: According to the records from the Assessor’s department, the parcel was created
from a lot merge sometime in 2019.
2. July 30, 2019: The current owner took possession of the subject property.
3. January 30, 2020: A building permit for a single-family home was issued and then finalized.
(B201909884).
4. April 2, 2025: Code violation opened due to citizen complaint of unpermitted construction and
altered natural drainage, V2500488.
5. October 10, 2025: The property owner entered into a Compliance Agreement to resolve the
violation. It set an April 27, 2026, compliance deadline to have completed all necessary
construction permits.
6. May 26, 2026: Applicant applied for a building permit for the existing horse stables located inside
the front setback. (BLDR2604142).

Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use:
7. On-site: Rural-43 / Single-family residence
North: Rural-43 / Single-family residence
South: Rural-43 / Single-family residence
East: New River Road Rural-43 & C-2 / Single-family residences & Feed store
West: Rural-43 / Single-family residence
Variance Request:
8. The applicant is requesting a variance for an existing horse coral located within the required front
yard. There is a wash traversing the western portion of the lot. The corral shade is 13’ x 65’, 845
sq. ft. located east of the wash toward the south/front of the lot inside a 5’ x 305 LF corral fence.
The site is zoned Rural-43, and the request is to reduce the required minimum front setback line
from 40’ to 30’ as measured from the street line (edge of access easement) that runs along the
south lot line. This setback line would be 60’ from the south lot line.
9. There is a wash traversing the western portion of the lot. West of the wash is hillside slope. The
pragmatic area for development of the lot is limited due to the area east of the wash.
Excerpt from proposed site plan
Page 2 of 9

Photographs of subject site provided by the applicant
Page 3 of 9

Page 4 of 9

Site Analysis:
10. The lot has a wash traversing north to south in its western portion along with hillside slopes. The
lot originally was square shaped but due to the expansion of New River Road, the northeast corner
of the lot was acquired for right-of-way and consequentially cut through the property. The right-
of-way acquisition did not result in a substandard lot size as it is 2.47 acres. There is a seemingly
unused 15-foot-wide easement running along the east side of the property. When the existing
single-family residence was permitted in 2020 this corner lot had two 330’ long property lines
(south and east lot lines) and the property owner selected the south as the front line. Staff notes
the grading and drainage plan show no indication of driveway access onto New River Rd. For
consistency, Planning considers the south lot line as the front of the lot.
11. An approx. 10’ segment of the corral shade structure encroaches into the required front yard. An
alternative to variance approval is to remove a 10’x13’ segment of the shade so the structure
meets the required front setback.
Aerial photo of subject site
Page 5 of 9

Aerial image & surrounding environs
Eagle view of subject site looking North into subject parcel (aerial image dated 10/20/21).
Page 6 of 9

Zoning District map
Zoning District Standards:
12. 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 Variance
District
Min. Front Yard Setback (to south property line, inclusive 70’ 60’
of 30’ ingress/egress easement)
Min. Rear Yard Setback (to north lot line) 40’ 40’+
Min. Side Yard Setback (to west lot line) 30’ 30’+
Min. Street Side Setback (to east street line) 20’ 20’+
Maximum Height 35’ 35’
Minimum Lot Area 43,560-sq. ft. 107,663-sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width 145’ 330’
Max. Lot Coverage 25% 1.4%
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 7 of 9

13. Statutory Test -1 Does the applicant’s property contain any peculiar condition– Discuss and
explain what the peculiar conditions is/are facing the property and include reference to the
Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulations or Development Standards to be varied.
“The Property is constrained by natural topography, including a hill and wash along the west side,
which makes nearly half of the lot unsuitable for development. In addition, a 30-foot easement runs
along the south property line. Per MCZO §806.2, accessory structures may not be located within
the required 40-foot front yard setback. Although the existing accessory structure is approximately
60 feet from the south property line, the 30-foot easement effectively pushes the setback farther
into the property and further reduces the available building area. The east side of the property is
bordered with a main road. The current accessory structure is there to house horses. Enforcing the
current zoning regulations, would leave no where for other then closer to the high traffic road for
the horse to house overnight which would be a safety risk to the animals and drivers. “
14. 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 about 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.
“The unnecessary hardship is created by the combination of the existing 30-foot easement along
the south property line and the natural topography, including the hill and wash along the west side
of the property. These conditions substantially reduce the usable building area and cause the
required front setback to extend farther into the developable portion of the lot. These conditions
were not self-created by the current property owner and are inherent to the property and its existing
easement configuration.”
15. 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.
“Granting the variance would not negatively impact the general intent or purpose of the zoning
ordinance. The property would remain in its existing condition, and no additional development is
proposed as part of this request. The variance would only allow the existing accessory structure to
remain in its current location.”
Findings:
16. 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, the 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 titles. 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
Page 8 of 9

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.
17. 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:
 There are hillside slopes and a wash traversing length of the western portion of the lot that
restricts pragmatic development to the easter portion of the lot. Arguably, this squeezes the
building envelope including toward the south street frontage.
 There are options available to the property owner such as modifying the existing corral shade
structure so that it meets the minimum 70’ front setback from the south lot line (40’ from street
line).
18. 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 60’ minimum setback line measured from the south lot
line inclusive of access easement for APN 202-16-008P.
Presented by: Olaf Rosas Rios, Planner
Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager
Attachments: Case Map (1 page)
Application / Supplemental Questionnaire ( 3 pages)
Letter of Authorization ( 1 page)
Grading & Drainage / Structural Plans (6 pages)
Property Photos (4 pages)
Page 9 of 9

Application Name: Kenner Property
Legal Description
7N-3E-31
Applicant Applicant Phone/Email
Morgan Busby (425) 377-4589
BA260082
Case Address Parcel Primary:202-16-008P
1114 W GIBBONS RD NEW RIVER, AZ 85087
NEW RIVER, AZ 85087
Generated September 23, 2026 5:08 PM Gross Acres: 2 approx. Map scale 1:826
Supervisor District No. 3
Request to reduce front yard setback from 40' to 30' in the Rural-43 Zoning District
/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ

VARIANCE / INTERPRETATION
APPLICATION
ALL FEES ARE DUE AT TIME OF APPLICATION AND ARE NON-REFUNDABLE
Is this Design Build? Yes I No Is this Residential? Yes No
Please select the type of Board of Adjustment application from the checkboxes below.
Residential Variance Non-residential Variance Interpretation BA Blanket Variance
Is this subject property within an area of 15% or greater hillside slopes? Yes No
REQUEST
Description of Request: Reduction of front yard setback from 40' to 30'
Existing Zoning District and Use of Property: RU43
Related Case Number(s): V2500488
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Address (if known): 1114 W GIBBONS RD NEW RIVER 85087
General Location (include nearest city/town):
Size in Acres: 2 Square Feet:
Legal Description: Section: Township: Range:
Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): 202-16-008P
Subdivision Name (if applicable):
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name: Morgan Busby Contact:
Address: 35205 N. third Ave Phoenix, AZ 85086
City: State: Zip:
Phone #: 4253774589 Fax #:
E-mail Address:
PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
Name: Rebecca Kenner Contact:
Address: 515 E, carefree hwy 141
City: Phoenix, AZ 85085 State: Zip:
Phone #: 970-426-1169 Fax #:
E-mail Address:
PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT AUTHORIZATION
I (property owner) Rebecca Kenner authorize (applicant’s name) Morgan Busby
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.
09/03/26
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: 09/03/26
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.
09/03/26
Property Owner Signature: _________________________________________________________ Date: ______________________________
Planning & Development Department Variance Application
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Packet 12/1/23
P: 602.506.3301

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.
The property is constrained by natural topography, including a hill and wash along the west
side, which makes nearly half of the lot unsuitable for development. In addition, a 30-foot
easement runs along the south property line.Per MCZO §806.2, accessory structures may
not be located within the required 40-foot front yard setback. Although the existing
accessory structure is approximately 60 feet from the south property line, the 30-foot
easement effectively pushes the setback farther into the property and further reduces the
available building area. The east side of the property is bordered with a main road. The
current accessory structure is there to house horses. Enforcing the current zoning
regulations, would leave no where for other then closer to the high traffic road for the horse
to house overnight which would be a safety risk to the animals and drivers.
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.
The unnecessary hardship is created by the combination of the existing 30-foot easement
along the south property line and the natural topography, including the hill and wash along
the west side of the property. These conditions substantially reduce the usable building
area and cause the required front setback to extend farther into the developable portion of
the lot.These conditions were not self-created by the current property owner and are
inherent to the property and its existing easement configuration.
Planning & Development Department Variance Application
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Packet 12/1/23
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.
Granting the variance would not negatively impact the general intent or purpose of the
Zoning Ordinance. The property would remain in its existing condition, and no additional
development is proposed as part of this request. The variance would only allow the
existing accessory structure to remain in its current location.
*Additional sheets may be attached.
** DO NOT USE THIS FORM IF YOU ARE SUBMITTING AN INTERPRETATION
Planning & Development Department Variance Application
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Packet 12/1/23
P: 602.506.3301

LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION
Property Owner: Rebecca Kenner
Property APN: 202-16-008P
Authorized Agent: Morgan Busby
To Whom It May Concern:
I, Rebecca Kenner, owner of the property identified as APN 202-16-008P, hereby
authorize Morgan Busby to act as my authorized agent in connection with the variance
request for the above-referenced property.
Morgan Busby is authorized to prepare and submit the variance application and all
supporting documents on my behalf, communicate and correspond with Maricopa
County and its representatives, respond to comments and requests for information,
attend meetings or hearings as necessary, and otherwise coordinate and handle
matters related to the variance application and review process.
This authorization shall remain in effect for the duration of the variance application and
associated review process unless revoked by me in writing.
Property Owner:
Rebecca Kenner
Signature: __________________________________
09/08/2026
Date: ______________________________________
Authorized Agent:
Morgan Busby
Signature: __________________________________
09/08/2026
Date: ______________________________________




RECIEVED 9/16/26 - BA260082 - 1ST SUBMITTAL



Middle of property looking East

Middle of property looking south

Niddle of property looking North

Middle of property looking west