07.BA260032 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
27745 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA260032 – Loeks Property Variance Hearing Date: May 14, 2026 Supervisor District: 4 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: Lance Loeks Property Owner: Lance and Angela Loeks Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed wall height of 21’ where 8’ is the maximum permitted per MCZO Article 811.5.4. Site Location: APN 200-93-644 @ 14607 N Cameo Drive – Cameo Dr. and Boswell Blvd., in the Sun City area Site Size: 10,556 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence / R1 - 6 SC Open Violation: V2501809 Background: 1. June 15, 1970: The lot is platted as unit 644 of Sun City Unit 25. The existing residence is constructed the following year. 2. May 21, 2019: The homeowner takes possession of the property via MCR-20190373175. 3. November 10, 2025: A violation, V2501809, is initiated after neighbor complaint regarding the homeowner erecting a 21’ netted fence on the southeast corner of the parcel aligned with the fairway of the neighboring Palmbrook Golf Club. 4. April 8, 2026: The homeowner applies for the subject variance request to allow for the netted fence to remain in place. Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 5. On-site: R1-6 SC / Single-family residence North: R1-6 SC / Single-family residence South: R1-6 SC / Single-family residence East: R1-6 SC / Palmbrook Golf Club West: N Cameo Dr then R1-6 SC / Single-family residence Variance Request: Page 2 of 9 6. The homeowner proposes to allow the 21’ netted fence to remain in place to protect his property from errant golf balls. The property sits west of the fairway on a dogleg, which makes the home particularly vulnerable to ball strikes. The applicant has provided photos of damage to the side of the home, the rooftop solar panels, and the pool patio. 7. The net is intended to safely deflect balls away from the property. Since the fence was erected in fall 2025, however, it has had the unintended effect of redirecting several balls onto the neighboring property to the south. The applicant states that the neighbor has left the balls in his yard rather than returning them or raising any concerns. If approved, the variance would run with the subject property in perpetuity, meaning neighboring properties could be affected by errant balls indefinitely from the subject property. The property would also remain subject to SCHOA regulations, which apply independently of any County zoning or permitting requirements. 8. While sympathetic to the homeowner’s situation, staff cannot support a structure that permanently shifts the burden of errant golf balls onto an adjacent property. Staff encourages the applicant to work with Sun City authorities on a comprehensive solution for homes adjoining the golf courses in Sun City and Sun City West. Excerpt from proposed site plan, oriented from the west looking east. The golf course tee box is to the south. Page 3 of 9 Photograph of fence taken from the southern neighbor’s yard north towards the subject site (showing the fence in question) Page 4 of 9 Photograph of side of subject site’s residence. The blue marks represent golf ball impacts. Photographs of damaged solar panels on roof of subject site’s residence. Site Analysis: 9. The site is fully developed and is of a similar topography and design to virtually all the homes within this section of Sun City. The golf course is located to the east of the property. 2026 aerial photo of subject site. The net is visible in the lower right corner. Page 5 of 9 Aerial image & surrounding environs Eagle view of subject site looking west into subject parcel (aerial image dated 10/3/21). Page 6 of 9 Zoning District map of the R1-6 zoning district. Zoning District Standard: Page 7 of 9 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 R1-6 SC Zoning District Proposed with Variance Max. allowed fencing height outside principal building envelope (MCZO 811.5.4) 8-feet 21-feet 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.” 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. “The property is located 238 yards from the 17th hole tee box of Palmbrook Golf Course, situated at the exterior apex of a curve that places it in the high-velocity landing zone for amateur golfers. As shown in SITE-PLAN-1 in the Trajectory Analysis, a 250-yard drive maintains a descending height of 17.9 feet as the golf ball crosses the property boundary. Because this is more than double the 8- foot structure height limit mandated by Section 811.5.4 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance, the ordinance is physically incapable of preventing projectiles from entering the residential area. The 21-foot protective golf net is the necessary height required to mitigate this site-specific physical hazard. The affected Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance: Chapter 8 – General Regulations Section 811 – Additional Height Regulations Article 811.5. Fences, Walls, and Retaining Walls Sub article 811.5.4. Single-family and Multi-family zoning districts, Paragraph 2, "Fences, hedges or walls located outside of the lot's buildable area, but not within the required front yard, shall not exceed a height of eight (8) feet as measured from finished grade, or as measured from the top of an integral retaining wall. This height shall include any columns, decorative caps, and light fixtures."” 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. “Strict enforcement of the 8-foot zoning ordinance creates an unnecessary hardship by denying the owner the ability to block documented physical hazards. Golf balls entering the property at a 40- degree descending trajectory easily clear an 8-foot wall, reaching a height of 17.9 feet at the property line. This peculiar condition has resulted in significant personal injury and structural damage (see PHOT-DETL-1). The 21-foot net is a safety utility that addresses these external forces; Page 8 of 9 without a variance, the 8-foot limit leaves a "Safety Gap" that renders the property unsafe for its intended residential use” 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. “Granting this variance preserves the general intent of the Zoning Ordinance, which is to regulate neighborhood aesthetics and maintain open sightlines. Unlike a masonry wall or wooden fence, the proposed protective netting is 93% transparent and utilizes slim-profile poles, ensuring that the "open space" feel intended by the height restrictions is maintained. The ordinance's intent is to prevent "spite walls" or bulky obstructions; this request is for a safety utility. By allowing a material (polyester netting) that was not widely contemplated when the 8-foot limit was drafted, the Board is providing for modern safety needs without compromising the aesthetic spirit of Sun City. This is consistent with neighboring jurisdictions (e.g., Fountain Hills Section 5.09) that distinguish "protective netting" from "boundary fencing" to balance safety with zoning harmony.” 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. 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 positive and/or negative observations the Board may consider in its findings: • Staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition unique to the subject property different that other lots in this zoning district bordering the golf course fairway. Exposure to errant golf balls is a common condition for homes adjoining the course. Other avenues remain available to the applicant. These may include erecting the proposed fence within the lot’s principal building envelopment which would permit structure height up to 35’, or coordinating with other property owners and local community associations to address the homeowner’s concerns with errant golf balls. Page 9 of 9 • The proposed remedy unduly burdens the southern neighboring property. Staff cannot support a variance that resolves one property’s condition by arguably imposing a harmful condition on another. The errant golf balls are redirected off the wall into the neighboring property. 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 establishes a 21’ maximum fence height outside the principal building envelope along or proximate to the south lot line for APN 200-93-644. Presented by: Joel Landis, Planner Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages) Photos (8 pages) Site Plan (3 pages) Opposition (7 pages) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 4 Gross Acres: 0 approx. Generated April 23, 2026 9:32 AM BA260032 Application Name: Legal Description Loeks Residential Variance Applicant Case Address 3N 1E 9 Lance Loeks 14607 N CAMEO DR Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:200-93-644 (253) 939-2744 SUN CITY, AZ 85351 Map scale 1:334 Supervisor District No. Variance for Protective Golf Netting 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: ______________________________ Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Variance Application Packet 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. 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. 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 Variance Application Packet Description: Looking in - Front of house Direction Picture Faces: East Location Picture Taken: West side of N Cameo Dr Description: Looking out - View from front of house Direction Picture Faces: West Location Picture Taken: Front of house, by garage door Description: Looking out - Side yard Direction Picture Faces: South Location Picture Taken: Back yard Description: Looking in – Back side yard Direction Picture Faces: North Location Picture Taken: South corner of neighbor’s yard Note: Neighbor has not occupied house for a while and has not picked up any errant golf balls. If you zoom in you can see the large quantity of golf balls (15 visible in photo) which landed in their yard Description: Looking in – Back yard Direction Picture Faces: West Location Picture Taken: Golf course, facing house Description: Looking out – back yard Direction Picture Faces: East Location Picture Taken: Back yard, near house Note: Golfers constantly hit errant balls near house and away from fairway Description: Looking out – North side of back yard Direction Picture Faces: North Location Picture Taken: Back yard, near side yard Description: Looking in – North side of back yard Direction Picture Faces: South Location Picture Taken: North corner of neighbor’s yard Description: Looking in – South Wall Golf Ball Damage Direction Picture Faces: North Location Picture Taken: South Side Yard Information: Blue tape marks 24 stucco repairs due to golf ball impact. 2019 to 2025 Description: Looking in – Patio Post Golf Ball Damage Direction Picture Faces: North Location Picture Taken: Covered Patio Information: Blue tape marks 2 stucco repairs due to golf ball impact. 2019 to 2025 Description: Looking in – Solar Panel Golf Ball Damage Direction Picture Faces: Down from roof Location Picture Taken: Roof Information: Five golf ball impacts to solar panels Description: Looking in – Solar Tube Lens Golf Ball Damage Direction Picture Faces: Down from roof Location Picture Taken: Roof Information: Golf ball impact broke solar tube lens Description: Looking in – Pergola Golf Ball Damage Direction Picture Faces: Down from roof Location Picture Taken: Roof Information: Blue circles show location of Golf ball impact damage Pergola installed in 2024, photo shows two years of damage (19 locations) Description: Looking in – Gutter Golf Ball Damage Direction Picture Faces: West Location Picture Taken: Covered Patio Information: Example of golf ball impact damage to gutter, identified by blue circle Multiple incidences Description: Looking in – Window Frame Golf Ball Damage Direction Picture Faces: West Location Picture Taken: Covered Patio Information: Broken Window Frame identified by blue circle Description: Looking in – Pool Tile Golf Ball Damage Direction Picture Faces: North Location Picture Taken: Pool Information: Shatter blue tile identified by blue circle N S E W Pool Putting Green Pergola Covered Patio Residence Pool Equip Planter Planter Tree Tree Tree Driveway Sidewalk -4 Sidewalk - 4 Street – N Cameo Dr Palmbrook Golf Course General Direction of Errant Golf Balls Entering Property 5’ Fence Around Back Yard 7 9.75 3 4.75 14 25.25 21.25 61 40.5 44.5 40 20.25 30 14 21.5 14 29 Protective Golf Netting – 21’ 89 60 130 13.5 12 17 18 39.5 11.5 9.75 2 9.25 11.75 4 14 2 9 9 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 8 5 1.25 3.25 6 3 3 3 5 5.5 1” = 15’ 0 10 20 30 10 20 30 SCALE IN FEET VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE N Boswell Blvd W Raintree Dr W Rolling Hills Dr W Newport Dr N Shiprock Dr N Cameo Dr THIS SITE N Garage 19.5 46.25 Parcel No.: 200-93-644 Owner: Loeks (Paper Size 11 x 17) Page 1 of 3 238 Yards (713 Feet) From Tee to House 200 Yards From Tee 250 Yards From Tee Most amateur golfers hit a golf ball within the 200 - 250 yard range Putting Green Tee For Hole #17 558 Yards Map is copied from Google Maps 1” = 200 Feet Scale in Feet 0 200 400 600 North This Site Parcel No.: 200-93-644 Owner: Loeks Palmbrook Golf Course Hole Number 17 Hole number 17 is a “dog leg” left. The ideal first shot to the center of the fairway is 256 yards (slight NE direction). The ideal second shot toward the green is 239 yards (slight NW direction). The fairway curves to the left, i.e. dog leg left. The ideal third shot is a 63 yard chip shot onto the green. Note that a straight golf shot from the tee towards the green (avoiding the curve) causes the errant golf ball to land in a zone nearest the affected site. Page 2 of 3 For average shots from the tee, 250 yards represents a standard "long" distance for many amateur golfers. At the property line, which is approximately 238 yards from the tee box, a ball traveling this distance is approximately 17.9 feet in the air. Page 3 of 3 This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders. Always validate the sender first. Outlook Plan Number: BA260032: Variance for Protective Golf Netting From hmmarie74 <hmmarie74@protonmail.com> Date Mon 4/27/2026 12:21 PM To Joel Landis (PND) <Joel.Landis@maricopa.gov> (This email is resent because first email was incomplete and accidently sent). We want to record our objection to any appoval of the requested variance at 14607 N CAMEO DR , SUN CITY, AZ, 85351 We believe we have standing in this case, as we live within the affected neighborhood boundaries. Our objection is two-fold: 1) The fence's extreme height and length not only excessively violates Maricopa County Building code and Sun City HOA CC&R's (which the homeowners signed), but it is also completely contrary to the Neighborhood Characteristics, thereby making the neighborhood less desirable. To say the fence is noticable from a distance is an understatement. The fencing in question is abnormal to the neighborhood. This abnormal characteristic affects the value of all homes in the neighborhood, not just the adjoining properties. As a former real estate appraiser, I can attest to this fact. 2) There are two pairs of Harris' Hawks that nest in the trees located behind the Cameo home and also in the trees just south of Boswell. These raptors use the golf course and the neighborhood to hunt for and to feed their young and themselves. We have watched this happen year after year for the last 9 years. There are also owls that hunt at night along this corridor. As such, this type of fencing is an immediate threat to the lives and health of these raptors, not to mention other birds. For the above reason's, we request that this application for a variance be rejected, and that County order the offenging fence to be removed immediately. Thank you, Michael and Helen Pianga 9439 W Newport Dr Sun City AZ 85351 928-662-8526 Sent with Proton Mail secure email. May 5, 2026 Maricopa County RE: BA260032 – Variance (Residential) – APN 200-93-644 The public hearing sign is attached to a tree in the front yard. There is only one sign in the yard. According to Maricopa County ordinance the posting shall be in no less than two places with at least one notice for each quarter mile of frontage along perimeter right-of-way so that the notices are visible from the nearest public right-of-way. The postings shall remain in place for the entire application period. Each notice shall be a minimum of six square feet in area unless combined with the public hearing notices. Inquiry #: 126655 Status: Assigned Request Date: 5/4/2026 8:26:45 AM Inquiry Type: Code Compliance Customer: James Poad Address: 14601 N Cameo Drive, Sun City, AZ, 85351 Contact Via: Email Email: poad.jim@sbcglobal.net Phone: +1 (608) 774-5429 Description: We oppose the request for Variance of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Standards and/or Regulations at 14607 N. Cameo Drive, Sun City, Arizona. We were approached by the owners of the property via email on 6/27/24. The owners indicated they were considering installing a 20 ft net for protection of the property. Our property is directly south of 14607 N. Cameo Drive, and the net was to be installed between our properties. In the email, the owners indicated the nets were approved by the HOA in Sun City. We responded to the email on 8/6/24. We indicated that we agreed there were an issue with golf balls being errantly hit and landed in our properties, but we also understood the issues with owning golf course property when we purchased the property. We also indicated a net would not be our choice for protection and that our choice would be something more aesthetically appealing like a pergola type structure. To this date we have not installed any structures for protection. We also indicated no matter what structure you installed, it would not provide 100% structure damage or physical injury. Our main issue with the net is its size and its potential impact on property values for future sales. We also believe the net would not be as big an issue if were not for the liability of guests at the property because of its AirBNB status. James M and Beth Poad Richard and Debra Poad Thomas and Gail Poad Theodore and Patricia Evans Loc. Address: 14607 N Cameo Drive, Sun City, AZ Loc. X-Streets: Rolling Hills Drive Board of Supervisors: Related By: Permit Number: Parcel Number: Edit Customer Entered By: Web Inquiry - 5/4/2026 8:26:45 AM Division: Planning Assigned To: Planning - 5/4/2026 12:32:14 PM Subject: Land Use Planning and Zoning Applications Attach Files: Choose Files No file chosen Upload Notes/Comments: Resolution/Action Assign To / Completed By: Schedule For: Notes / Comments: Assign Request Finalize Request Save Comments Invalid Request © 2026 - Maricopa County Planning and Development / Environmental Quality Department: Planning and Development Division: Planning Subject: Land Use Planning and Zoning Applications Person: Joel Landis