02.BA250079 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
19637 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: Hearing Date: Supervisor District: BA250079 – 479 Cahan Dr Variance February 12, 2026 (Cont. from 1/15/26) 4 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: Shade By Design LLC Property Owner: Diona Green Request(s): Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed rear setback of 16’ where 25’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Article 503.4.3. Site Location: APN 503-86-134 @ 479 Cahan Drive, Morristown, AZ, 85342 Site Size: 7,390 square feet Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence / R1-6 Open Violation: N/A Background: 1. June 1958: Circle City is platted. The subject is Lot 124. 2. 2020/2021: The subject lot is developed with an SFR as this northwestern section of the Circle City community finally begins to be developed. 3. October 2021: Owner takes possession of the subject property. 4. July 29, 2025: Applicant applies for a 13x28 attached patio cover. The applicant is informed by plan review staff they must seek a variance as the proposed addition will encroach into the rear setback. Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 5. On-site: R1-6 / Single-family residence North: Cahan Dr. then R1-6 / Single-family residence South: R1-6 / Single-family residence East: R1-6 / Single-family residence West: R1-6 / Single-family residence Page 2 of 7 Variance Requests: 6. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a patio cover to encroach 9’ into the required rear yard, as setback of 16’ where the minimum rear setback is 25’. Excerpt from proposed site plan Site Analysis: 7. The lot is flat, rectangular, and otherwise typical of the surrounding subdivision. There are no physical constraints on the site such as washes, slopes, irregular geometry, or easements that would limit reasonable development of the property. The applicant notes that the rear yard is south-facing and lacks natural shade. While staff understands the desire for shade and improved outdoor usability, the absence of shade is common throughout the area and is not unique to this parcel. Further, a detached shade structure would be permitted to encroach into the required rear yard as close as 3’ to rear and side lot lines at a maximum 30% yard coverage. Page 3 of 7 Aerial photo of subject site Aerial image & surrounding environs Page 4 of 7 Eagle view of subject site looking north into subject parcel (aerial image dated 1/14/24). Zoning District map centered over subject parcel Page 5 of 7 Zoning District Standards: 8. 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 Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Rear Yard Setback (south property line) 25-feet 16-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.” 9. 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 variance we are seeking is the rear setback. Currently the rear setback is set at 25'. The reason for the variance is a patio cover. Our cover was submitted where we had thought the setback was 15' which is fairly typical throughout the county. Our customer has a full sized yard that is flat with zero shade. The proposed structure from the edge would be no closer than 16' at its closest to the rear property line and far from the 8' PUE at the rear of the property. The patio is in line with the house so on the sides the cover would be 20' or further from the property line on each side, not violating any side setbacks. This would be our customers only source of shade on a southward facing direction as there are no trees or other natural shading factors. The direct neighbors also are having shade structures or other structures within 25' of their respective rear property lines. Our client wishes to proceed with a variance because she has no source of shade cover. The work would be performed by a registered contractor with quality materials. Before submitting this request we have talked with plan reviewers at Maricopa County for guidance not only on how to file for a variance but what the chances were and potential impacts to neighbors. The reviewer I remember speaking with was Ed. He had seen no issues with impacts to the neighbors and advised that if the customer wanted to proceed that he did not see a reason why a variance would not be approved for the patio. “ 10. 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. Page 6 of 7 “There is no natural sources of shade on the southward (sun facing) side. Her neighbor directly next to her has a patio and the other neighbors have things that also seem would be within a 25' rear setback. Having a setback at 25' which is not typical for many residential properties creates a hardship of having no shade but also energy costs, privacy and enjoyment of a regular sized yard. The proposed cover is not encroaching into any other setbacks or PUE's and is being built by a registered contractor with professional materials and quality..” 11. 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 proposed variance to allow a patio would not cause a negative impact because direct neighbors either have received a variance for some of their projects or just proceeded anyhow. We are just seeking to build a patio that is nowhere near the property lines. The purpose of the rear setbacks from my knowledge is to keep from crowding neighbors, prevent fire spread, keep access for PUE's, ect. This cover is not near any property lines as the closest point would be 16' from the property line. The closest point from cover to the PUE would be 8' leaving plenty of room. As for potential fire spread usually min required distance we see in the county for projects is 5-10 feet for attached and 3-8' for detached depending on circumstances. This patio is well beyond those distances.” Findings: 12. 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. 13. 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: • No peculiar physical condition unique to the property has been identified. Page 7 of 7 • The proposed patio cover is an accessory improvement, not required for reasonable use of the property. The applicant could detach the patio cover without issue and obtain permits now. • The hardship cited is not tied to the physical characteristics of the lot. • Approval would be based primarily on personal convenience rather than statutory criteria. • There are alternative designs available to the property owner that would allow for detached shade structure/s. 14. 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 16’ south rear setback line for APN 503-86-134. Presented by: Joel Landis, Planner Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages) Site Plan (2 pages) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 4 Gross Acres: 0 approx. Generated December 24, 2025 8:44 AM BA250079 Application Name: Legal Description GREEN COVER Applicant Case Address 6N 3W 33 Travis Campbell 479 CAHAN DR Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:503-86-134 6026032151 MORRISTOWN, AZ 85342 Map scale 1:327 Supervisor District No. We applied for a permit to build a patio cover(BLDR2506030). We had 15' for the setbacks and received redlines saying the rear setback is 25' and we needed to add septic to the site plan. We are seeking a Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Residential Variance Application Packet 12/2/24 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: ______________________________ Seeking variance to build an attached patio that is within the rear setbacks. BLDR2506030 479 CAHAN DR MORRISTOWN, AZ 85342 NO CITY/NO TOWN (MORRISTOWN/MARICOPA COUNTY) 7,390.00 MORRISTOWN 503-86-134 CIRCLE CITY I Shade by Design Travis 1510 E Bell Rd Phoenix AZ 85022 (480) 709-9619 permits.sbdaz@gmail.com GREEN DIONA 479 CAHAN DR Morristown AZ 85342 (804) 339-2921 Diona Green Shade by Design 12/02/2025 single family residential 12/02/2025 12/02/2025 Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Residential Variance Application Packet 12/2/24 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. 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 variance we are seeking is the rear setback. Currently the rear setback is set at 25'. The reason for the variance is a patio cover. Our cover was submitted where we had thought the setback was 15' which is fairly typical throughout the county. Our customer has a full sized yard that is flat with zero shade. The proposed structure from the edge would be no closer than 16' at its closest to the rear property line and far from the 8' PUE at the rear of the property. The patio is in line with the house so on the sides the cover would be 20' or further from the property line on each side, not violating any side setbacks. This would be our customers only source of shade on a southward facing direction as there are no trees or other natural shading factors. The direct neighbors also are having shade structures or other structures within 25' of their respective rear property lines. Our client wishes to proceed with a variance because she has no source of shade cover. The work would be performed by a registered contractor with quality materials. Before submitting this request we have talked with plan reviewers at Maricopa County for guidance not only on how to file for a variance but what the chances were and potential impacts to neighbors. The reviewer I remember speaking with was Ed. He had seen no issues with impacts to the neighbors and advised that if the customer wanted to proceed that he did not see a reason why a variance would not be approved for the patio. There is no natural sources of shade on the southward (sun facing) side. Her neighbor directly next to her has a patio and the other neighbors have things that also seem would be within a 25' rear setback. Having a setback at 25' which is not typical for many residential properties creates a hardship of having no shade but also energy costs, privacy and enjoyment of a regular sized yard. The proposed cover is not encroaching into any other setbacks or PUE's and is being built by a registered contractor with professional materials and quality. 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 Residential Variance Application Packet 6/17/24 The proposed variance to allow a patio would not cause a negative impact because direct neighbors either have received a variance for some of their projects or just proceeded anyhow. We are just seeking to build a patio that is nowhere near the property lines. The purpose of the rear setbacks from my knowledge is to keep from crowding neighbors, prevent fire spread, keep access for PUE's, ect. This cover is not near any property lines as the closest point would be 16' from the property line. The closest point from cover to the PUE would be 8' leaving plenty of room. As for potential fire spread usually min required distance we see in the county for projects is 5-10 feet for attached and 3-8' for detached depending on circumstances. This patio is well beyond those distances.