BA260032 Handout Memo

DATE:  
5/13/26 
 
TO: 
 Board of Adjustment    
 
From: 
 Darren Gérard, AICP Planning Manager 
 
SUBJECT: 
 BA260032 – Loeks Property Variance 
 
 Agenda Item: 7 
 
 
Since the publishing of the staff report, staff has received two additional letters of support for 
the proposal. Those letters are attached to this memo.  
 
Second, following publication of the staff report, the applicant contacted staff regarding a 
characterization in item 7, which stated that the net has had the unintended effect of redirecting 
several balls onto the neighboring property to the south, and that the neighbor had left those 
balls in his yard without raising concerns. 
 
The applicant disputes this characterization. He states the net was intentionally installed more 
than three feet from the property line so that balls would strike the net and drop into his yard 
rather than deflect onto adjacent properties. He further states he did not represent that his 
neighbor left deflected balls in his yard. Staff acknowledges this distinction and notes this for 
the Board's consideration. 
 
Staff's concern with the deflection question remains. A ball striking a net at approximately 17 
feet at a 40-degree descending trajectory may or may not drop directly into the applicant's yard 
depending on the tension and material properties of the net. The application does not specify 
net tension, mesh size, or installation method with sufficient detail to verify the applicant's 
claim. 
 
 
Attachments: 
 
Conversation with applicant re: net (3 pages) 
 
 
 
Support Letters (4 pages)

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
Outlook
Re: Plan BA260032: Scheduled for Hearing
From Joel Landis (PND) <Joel.Landis@maricopa.gov>
Date Fri 5/8/2026 9:33 AM
To
Hello,
Once the staff report is published, we put out handout memos for any clarifications that need to be made or
otherwise if people have sent it support or opposition past the date of publishing. We received a support item for
you this morning so we'd be putting out one next week as we get closer to the hearing.
Joel Landis
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
301. W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003
Planner
O:   602-506-8358    
MARICOPA.GOV
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube 
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next
decade and beyond.  Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard!
Please be aware there is rampant fraud attempts to solicit wire transfer payments based upon email addresses found in public
records. Maricopa County will never ask for a wire transfer payment.
From
Sent: Friday, May 8, 2026 9:30 AM
To: Joel Landis (PND) <Joel.Landis@maricopa.gov>
Subject: Re: Plan BA260032: Scheduled for Hearing
 
Thanks Joel, 
Will you be updating the report, or are the clarifications to the Board handled a different way?
Lance 
On May 8, 2026 7:28 AM, "Joel Landis (PND)" <Joel.Landis@maricopa.gov> wrote:
Hello,
5/13/26, 3:24 PM
Inbox - Joel Landis (PND) - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0A2H3oqvHd10GesD6HHtI4owAEnBOSCgAA?deeplink=m…
1/3

My characterization of the net's effect on neighboring properties was based on the idea that a ball hitting a net
at 17 feet at that trajectory isn't going to drop straight down into your yard unless the net material is loose
enough to absorb the impact. I'll note your clarification for the Board, but this is something you should be
prepared to address in your presentation.
On the statutory tests, the golf course has been there since the neighborhood was built. Errant shots are a
known condition for homes along golf course fairways, and that's true for a lot of properties in Sun City, not just
yours. That's the core problem with the peculiar condition test here. Otherwise, unfortunately, it is part and
parcel of living next to a golf course. I would still encourage you to reach out to Lisa Gray at SCHOA to see if
there's a solution to be worked out. Approval of this variance will not stop SCHOA from pursuing whatever
measures they would want as an HOA, and the County would consider this a civil matter between you as a
property owner and the HOA, regardless of whether we issue a permit to resolve the violation. I'll take your
request to add analysis on the unsafe condition under advisement, but I want to be upfront that it doesn't
change staff's position on the statutory tests.
Joel Landis
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
301. W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003
Planner
O:   602-506-8358    
MARICOPA.GOV
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube 
Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next
decade and beyond.  Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard!
Please be aware there is rampant fraud attempts to solicit wire transfer payments based upon email addresses found in public
records. Maricopa County will never ask for a wire transfer payment.
From: 
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2026 3:49 PM
To: Joel Landis (PND) <Joel.Landis@maricopa.gov>
Subject: FW: Plan BA260032: Scheduled for Hearing
 
Hello Joel,
 
This is Lance Loeks and I am working with you regarding BA260032.
 
I have read the Report to the Board of Adjustment and would like to bring to your attention a
misunderstanding.  In the staff report, item 7 states the following:
 
“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.”
 
5/13/26, 3:24 PM
Inbox - Joel Landis (PND) - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0A2H3oqvHd10GesD6HHtI4owAEnBOSCgAA?deeplink=m…
2/3

The protective golf net was intentionally installed over 3 feet from the property line so the errant golf balls
would hit the net and drop into the owner’s yard.  I never stated the “neighbor has left the balls in his yard
rather than returning them.”  I’m not sure where this information came from.  I did provide a photo from my
neighbor’s yard showing they too have a large quantities of errant balls land in their yard.  This is corroborated
by my neighbor’s email statement where he says, “we agreed there were an issue with golf balls being errantly
hit and landed in our properties.”  My neighbor’s property to the south is the neighbor (James Poad) who wrote
the email included on page 30 of the staff report.  His email also makes no reference to any balls being
deflected into their yard from the protective golf net.  These errant golf balls in my neighbor’s yard were not
deflected from the net.  Thus, there is no shifting of the burden of errant golf balls from me to our neighbors
(item 8 of the staff report).
 
Please correct item 7 to remove any reference about the net deflecting several balls into the neighbor’s yard.
 
Please update the staff report, or share with me where this impression of deflected golf balls came from so I
can properly address this concern during the meeting.
 
Lastly, I appreciate the time you took to create the report to the Board of Adjustment.  It seems to focus on the
property damage, however, the requested variance is about the existing ordinances creating an unsafe
condition which has caused bodily injury.  In the report where an analysis is made (positive or negative) of the
zoning ordinance test there is no mention as to whether the protective golf net addresses the unsafe
conditions.  Is this something you can add?
 
Thank you,
 
Lance Loeks
253-939-2744
 
From: noreply@permitcenter.maricopa.gov <noreply@permitcenter.maricopa.gov>
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2026 1:05 PM
To: 
Cc: Joel.Landis@Maricopa.gov
Subject: Plan BA260032: Scheduled for Hearing
 
Hello,
The above case has been scheduled for public hearings. Please see the attached checklist and please
let me know if you have any questions.
This is a no-reply e-mail address. To contact us, please send an e-mail to Joel.Landis@Maricopa.gov
5/13/26, 3:24 PM
Inbox - Joel Landis (PND) - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0A2H3oqvHd10GesD6HHtI4owAEnBOSCgAA?deeplink=m…
3/3

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
Protective Golf Net
From
Date Mon 5/11/2026 8:23 AM
To
Joel Landis (PND) <Joel.Landis@maricopa.gov>
Cc
loeks@comcast.net <loeks@comcast.net>; Jane Bushor <jane.bushor@cox.net>
Joel Landis
I am writing in on Case BA 260032, regarding the protective golf net installed by Lance Loeks.
I'm a neighbor, and I do not find the net a nuisance.  The net was put up after Angie was hit by a
golf ball, and there are other nets on the Palmbrook golf cource, since the Palmbrook
management takes no responsibility for the damages done.
Jane Bushor
9401 W. Rolling Hills
602-710-0478
5/13/26, 3:22 PM
Inbox - Joel Landis (PND) - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0A2H3oqvHd10GesD6HHtI4owAEne%2BztQAA?deeplink=…
1/1

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
Neighbors IN SUPPORT of the NETTING
From
Date Fri 5/8/2026 8:56 AM
To
Joel Landis (PND) <Joel.Landis@maricopa.gov>
Case number BA260032
Letter of Support to Homeowner —
May 8th ,2026 
 
Maricopa County Board of Adjustment
Re: Support for Approval of Protective Golf Ball Safety Net
To the Board of Adjustment,
We are writing as neighboring homeowners to express our full support for the installation and
continued use of the professional‑grade, 20‑foot golf ball safety net recently installed by our neighbor.
We also wish to make clear that we, too, will require the same protective netting, as our property is
experiencing the very same dangerous conditions.
Our home, along with the homes on both sides of us, is being struck by golf balls daily. We have a
backyard pool, and it has become a war zone with golf balls landing unpredictably and forcefully
throughout the day. These projectiles strike our yard, our pool area, our home, and come dangerously
close to our family and guests. The situation has escalated to the point where it is only a matter of
time before someone is seriously injured or even fatally harmed.
This is not a minor inconvenience — it is a significant and ongoing safety hazard. The repeated
intrusion of golf balls constitutes a clear nuisance, trespass, and a direct violation of our right to the
quiet enjoyment of our property. No homeowner should be forced to live in fear while using their own
backyard.
The net our neighbor installed is a professional, purpose‑built safety barrier. It is not an eyesore. It is:  
- tightly stretched,  
- does not flap or move in the wind,  
- and is 90+% transparent, similar to a window screen.  
5/13/26, 3:23 PM
Inbox - Joel Landis (PND) - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0A2H3oqvHd10GesD6HHtI4owAEnBN2cAAA?deeplink=m…
1/3

It is far less noticeable than many common backyard structures, and it is the only effective method to
prevent injury and property damage.
Liability Consideration
We also feel it is important to note that once the Board is made aware of a foreseeable and ongoing
safety hazard, and a reasonable protective measure is proposed, a denial of that measure places the
Board in a position of assumed responsibility for future incidents. If homeowners are prevented from
installing necessary safety protections, then any resulting injuries or property damage occur only
because the Board prohibited the remedy.
In today’s legal environment, it is well understood that when a governing body denies a homeowner
the ability to protect their family and guests from a known hazard, the governing body may bear
increased liability exposure. A homeowner gains nothing from being struck by a golf ball — but a
county that knowingly denies protection after documented warnings may face significant
responsibility for the consequences.
Request
We want to emphasize that this is not a matter of preference or aesthetics — it is a matter of safety
and liability. As homeowners, we have the right and the responsibility to protect our families, our
guests, and our property from foreseeable harm. The Board also has an interest in reducing liability
exposure by allowing reasonable and necessary safety measures.
Given the severity and frequency of the golf ball intrusions affecting multiple households, we
respectfully request that the Board approve the existing 20‑foot safety net and allow similarly
constructed nets for neighboring properties, including ours. This is the only practical solution to
restore safe use of our backyards and uphold the fundamental right to quiet enjoyment.
We appreciate your attention to this urgent matter and hope to work together toward a resolution
that protects the wellbeing of all residents.
Sincerely,  
Mike and Laine Anderson 
15019 N. Cameo Dr.
Sun City, AZ 85351
Laine Anderson
ML-Anderson Real Estate 
715.377.6350
www.mikeandlaine.com
5/13/26, 3:23 PM
Inbox - Joel Landis (PND) - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0A2H3oqvHd10GesD6HHtI4owAEnBN2cAAA?deeplink=m…
2/3

5/13/26, 3:23 PM
Inbox - Joel Landis (PND) - Outlook
https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0A2H3oqvHd10GesD6HHtI4owAEnBN2cAAA?deeplink=m…
3/3