06. BA260008 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
29857 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case:
BA260008 – Veselovsky Property
Hearing Date:
February 12, 2026
Supervisor District:
2
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Applicant:
Melissa Veselovsky
Property Owners:
Melissa and Jeffrey Veselovsky
Request:
Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance to permit:
1)
Proposed horse corral in the front yard where a horse corral may be
permitted only in the rear yard, and a
2)
Proposed use-specific setback of 15’ from the south lot line for a horse
corral where 40’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Article 603.1.2.
Site Location:
APN 219-26-128A @ 2160 N. 77th Pl. in the east Mesa area
Site Size:
Approx. 36,590 sq. ft.
Current Use / Zoning:
Single-family residence / R1-35 RUPD
Open Violation:
No violation on property
Background:
1.
February 27, 1987: Maricopa County recorded the first known deed to the subject property per
Joint Tenancy Deed #1987-119601. The property and its neighbor to the south were created from
a minor land division around this time, and a single-family residence was developed on each
parcel shortly thereafter. Both parcels have remained in the same configuration since. At the time,
both parcels (together with the surrounding neighborhood) were zoned R1-18 and were
conforming to the R1-18 intensity of use regulations.
2.
1989: The Maricopa County Planning & Zoning Commission initiated a zone change for 240 acres
inclusive of the subject parcel from R1-18 to R1-35 RUPD. The purpose of this zone change was
to prepare the neighborhood for annexation into the City of Mesa, and the R1-35 zoning district
was most compatible with Mesa’s zoning at the time. Though Mesa did annex some of this area,
much of it remains in unincorporated Maricopa County. Nevertheless, the government action
rendered the subject property legally nonconforming with regard to lot width, although it meets
R1-35 lot area requirements. Staff notes that, despite the RUPD overlay, no RUPD-specific
development standards were included in the BOS-approved stipulations.
Page 2 of 10
3.
March 15, 2021: The current owners took possession of the subject property.
4.
April 12, 2021: Maricopa County issued building permit B202104332 for a detached pre-
engineered metal accessory building without utilities in the rear yard of the property.
5.
January 15, 2026: The owner submitted this variance request.
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use:
6.
On-site:
R1-35 RUPD / Single-family residence
North:
R1-35 RUPD / Single-family residence
South:
R1-35 RUPD / Single-family residence
East:
77th Place, then R1-35 RUPD / Single-family residence
West:
R1-35 RUPD / Single-family residence
Variance Requests:
7.
The property owner is requesting variances to MCZO Article 603.1.2 to permit a horse corral in
the front yard of the property and at a setback of 15’ from the south lot line. The R1-35 zoning
district allows a horse corral as an accessory use to a single-family residence but only in the rear
yard and at a minimum setback of 40’ from all lot lines.
Excerpt from Proposed Site Plan
Page 3 of 10
Site Analysis:
8.
The subject property was created circa 1987 via minor land division and shortly thereafter
developed with a single-family residence, effectively fulfilling the general intent and purpose of
the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. At the time of the property’s creation and subsequent
development, R1-18 was the underlying zoning district. The property measures 120’ wide, which
was the minimum lot width required in the R1-18 zoning district. However, in 1989, the Maricopa
County Planning & Zoning Commission initiated a zone change from R1-18 to R1-35 RUPD for a
240-acre area inclusive of the subject property. According to the published Commission minutes,
the purpose of this zone change was to support the land’s eventual annexation into the City of
Mesa. At the time, it was common practice for the County to rezone R1-18 land to R1-35 prior to
Mesa’s annexation.
9.
However, Mesa has not annexed the subject property nor any of its neighbors along 77th Place to
date. Furthermore, the zone change resulted in the property becoming nonconforming: its lot
width, at 120’, is 25’ shy of the R1-35 requirement for a minimum lot width of 145’. Because the
property has remained in the same configuration since prior to the zone change that rendered it
nonconforming, Maricopa County considers the parcel legally nonconforming (LNC) with respect
to lot width. Although no Board action is required to address the LNC lot width, staff nonetheless
offers an item to memorialize the existing lot width.
10.
The lot width notwithstanding, the parcel is otherwise unremarkable for a single-family residential
property in Maricopa County, as it is rectangular in shape, relatively flat, and not encumbered by
floodplain or washes. Although the zone change resulted in stricter lot area and setback
requirements, both the parcel and the residence onsite meet them. That said, the residence is
noticeably located much nearer to the rear lot line than the front lot line; in fact, the rear yard is
roughly half the depth of the front yard as can be seen in the site plan excerpt and site aerials.
11.
Despite its smaller depth relative to the front yard, the rear yard can accommodate a horse corral
on paper: the R1-35 regulations require that each horse kept on a property be provided at least
1,200 square feet of fenced space. A 1,200-square-foot corral could be built in the rear yard of the
property and meet the required 40’ setbacks from adjacent lot lines, while maintaining a 9’
setback from the residence itself. As the site plan excerpt shows, the maximum possible size to
which a corral could be built while meeting the location and setback requirements is 1,560 square
feet (40’ x 39’), although this would take the east edge of the corral right up to the edge of the
house’s attached patio.
12.
Nevertheless, the owner hopes to keep two rescue horses on the property, which would require a
minimum of 2,400 square feet of fenced space. As there is insufficient room on the rear yard of
the developed property for a corral of this size, keeping two horses on the property would require
that a corral be in the front yard. Though this would require variance addressing the corral’s
location, it could be done without need for additional variance to the use-specific setbacks
required for corrals. For example, to meet the required setbacks, the corral would need to measure
no more than 40’ in width (the 120’ lot width and 40’ setbacks required to either side allow a 40’-
wide envelope for a corral). To accommodate two horses, then, it would need to measure a depth
of at least 60’. This could be done without encroaching on the required 40’ setback to the front
lot line while maintaining a setback of as much as 68’ from the residence.
13.
To maximize space for the horses to roam and exercise, however, the owner is proposing a larger
corral generally measuring 65’ x 100’ (approx. 6,500 square feet). Though it would meet the
required 40’ setbacks from the north and east, it would encroach up to 15’ from the south lot line.
As the owner notes in her supplemental questionnaire, 65’ would be the allowable width for a
corral on an R1-35 property that met the 145’ lot width requirement. That said, a nonconforming
Page 4 of 10
lot width, even one that is LNC, arguably does not justify reducing a side setback accordingly.
Regardless of any hardship generated by the LNC lot width, the purpose of the 40’ setbacks for
horse corrals is specifically to prevent unwanted impacts, such as noise, odor, or dust generation,
to nonconsenting neighboring properties.
14.
On that note, however, the property owner has provided two letters of support, one of which is
from the neighbor to the south: the neighbor who would be directly impacted by the proposed
setback reduction. In their letter, the neighbors affirm their support to allow the corral both in the
front yard and to a 15’ setback from their shared lot line. The neighbors attest that the subject
property owners are good neighbors themselves, would keep the property clean, and care for the
animals well. Having experience as horsekeepers themselves, the neighbors further attest that
they are looking forward to seeing the horses, who would be a welcome addition to the
neighborhood, and believe they will improve their quality of life. In addition to her neighbors’
support, the owner also notes in her questionnaire that the rear yards are where property owners
most tend to congregate when enjoying the outdoors. Therefore, locating the corral in the front
yard instead of the rear yard would significantly reduce any adverse impacts to any one of the
three neighboring properties, as well as to the subject property owners themselves.
2025 Aerial Image of the Subject Site
Page 5 of 10
Eagle View of the Subject Site (dated November 24, 2025)
2025 Aerial Image of Surrounding Environs
Page 6 of 10
Zoning District Map
Zoning District Standard:
15.
The following table is included to illustrate and contrast the standards for the underlying zoning
district with those proposed by the owner (proposed changes to standards are indicated in bold).
Standard
R1-35 RUPD
Zoning
District
Proposed with
Variance
Min. Front Yard Setback (residence to east lot line)
40-feet
40-feet
Min. Rear Yard Setback (residence to west lot line)
40-feet
40-feet
Min. Interior Side Setback (residence to north lot line)
20-feet
20-feet
Min. Interior Side Setback (residence to south lot line)
20-feet
20-feet
Min. Horse Corral Setback (to south lot line)
40-feet
15-feet
Location of Horse Corral (relative to residence)
Rear Yard
Only
Front or Rear
Yard
Maximum Height
35-feet
<35-feet
Minimum Lot Area
35,000-sq. ft.
36,590-sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width
145-feet
120-feet
(LNC)
Lot Coverage
30%
≈11%
Page 7 of 10
State Statute / County Zoning Ordinance Tests - ARS § 11-816.B.2 and MCZO Article 302.2.2 states the
Board of Adjustment may, “Allow a Variance from the terms of the Ordinance when, owing to a peculiar
condition of the land that is not self-created in the line of title, a strict interpretation of the Ordinance
creates an unnecessary hardship, as long as in granting such Variance the general intent and purposes
of the Zoning Ordinance will be preserved.”
16.
Statutory Test 1 – Does the applicant’s property contain any peculiar condition – Discuss and
explain the peculiar conditions facing the property and include reference to the Maricopa County
Zoning Ordinance Regulations or Development Standards to be varied.
“The peculiar conditions of the property are:
“1. Lot width is 120.4, which is 25 feet less than the minimum width (MCZO Article 601.5)
“2. Out of 31 parcels on 77th place, 87% of the parcels are over 120.4 feet in width. (one very small
parcel is not included as it is part of the same property and owned by the same owner as the
adjoining property)”
“3. SRP Utility easement exists on South and West rear and side yard”
“4. Our house is set back on the far 1/3 of the property but so is our neighbor to the South who has
a legal non-conforming lot that has a variance to be closer to our house than per zoning (8' rather
than 20') and would be more affected by a horse corral in our back yard than if we had a horse
corral in our front yard.
“The MCZO regulation to be varied is MCZO article 603.1(2). Variances: (1) keep horses in a horse
corral in the front yard, where the back yard is the permitted location and (2) have a 15' setback on
the south side of the front yard where 40' is the permitted setback.
“The proposed use of the property is as a single-family residence with 2 pet horses on the property.
We recently took ownership of 2 amazing horses that had been abandoned/neglected by their
owner. The horses have good temperaments but have a history of trauma, need medication every
day, and may be very stressed when they are transported and placed in a new environment. We
enlisted the assistance of a well-known Director of Equine Science from Scottsdale Community
College who advised that moving them out of their current environment and keeping them on our
property would give them the best quality of life - (if the County is agreeable, of course). (See
statement attached QUES-DETL-3)”
17.
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 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 adherence to the zoning regulations causes undue hardship as we are unable to develop the
property as allowable per MCZO because of the peculiarities of the property that are not self-
created in the line of title such as:
“1. Narrowness of the lot
Page 8 of 10
“2. Utility easements that further narrow the lot
“The location of our house on our property and the location of our South neighbor's house are such
that it would be near impossible to satisfy the requirements and the intent of the zoning ordinance
as it is written.”
18.
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.
“According to A.R.S. §11-811 (A) zoning ordinances are adopted to ‘conserve and promote the
public health, safety, convenience, and general welfare’. And the Maricopa County Board of
Supervisors states that the zoning ordinance is ‘designed to promote the public health, peace,
safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the residents of Maricopa County; to guide,
control and regulate future growth and development in order to promote orderly and appropriate
use of land in the entire unincorporated area of said county; and to protect the character and
stability of residential, business and industrial areas of Maricopa County.’
“In this case, placement of a metal pipe rail horse corral in the front yard rather than strict adherence
to the letter of the zoning ordinance for the placement of horse corrals in the back yard may actually
be a better way to conserve and promote the public health, convenience, and general welfare as the
horses would then be farther away from the living quarters neighbors and it would allow for more
convenient removal and disposal of animal waste.
“For example, if the purpose of the horse corral setback of 40’ and placement in the back yard is to
minimize the impact on neighbors by reducing noise and flies and ensuring adequate space for
horse welfare and maintaining a reasonable separation between animal care and living spaces, then
placement of the horse corral in the front yard is actually closer to the intent of the ordinance as
the front yard actually provides the most separation between animal care and living spaces while
ensuring adequate space for the horses.
“In addition, our neighbors socialize in their back yards and have get togethers, so a farther distance
from flies would be more considerate of their space.
“In regards to the proposed 15’ setback on the South side of the front yard, where 40’ is required, a
strict interpretation of the ordinance would create a hardship as the horse corral setbacks were
written based on the minimal lot width of the lots being 145’, not 120’.
“A 40’ setback on all sides of property like ours that does not meet the minimum requirement for
width does not afford us the same rights to use our property in the same way as others who were
also zoned for R1-35 but met the width requirements. Reducing the setback by the same number
of feet that we are short would create parity with other R1-35 property owners and would allow
more room for the wellbeing of the animals and will prevent overcrowding (see support statement
QUES-DETL-3).
“Our South neighbors, who would be the only neighbors affected by the proposed 15’ setback are
supportive of the proposed 15’ setback, feel that it would improve their quality of life to have horses
nearby, and believe that it would not negatively impact their property in any way (see support
statement QUES-DETL-4 attached).
Page 9 of 10
“Furthermore, having horses on the property is within the acceptable uses of the R1-35 zoning and
we believe that keeping horses in the front yard would preserve the character of the neighborhood
and Maricopa County, which has long been known for its western cowboy hospitality and culture.
In fact, while researching our parcel we discovered that it had actually been part of 325 acres of
land given to Benjamin Greenstone in 1862 as part of the Homestead Act.
“Thank you very much for your consideration.”
Findings:
19.
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 302.2.2, 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.
20.
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 facing the property. Although the existing
single-family residence was built much closer to the rear (west) lot line than the front
(east) lot line, the chosen location for the residence does not appear to have been
motivated nor necessitated by any physical peculiarity or hardship toward the east half of
the property. Furthermore, the development of a single-family residence as the primary
use of the property means that the property already fulfills the general intent and purpose
of the MCZO. That a primary use of the property was established without need for variance
means that enforcement of the MCZO cannot be interpreted as imposing an unnecessary
hardship on the property.
•
However, the purpose of the use-specific setbacks is to mitigate potential adverse
impacts on neighboring properties, and the current neighbors who would be directly
impacted by the reduced setback have offered their explicit support and encouragement
for the project. Furthermore, locating the corral in the front yard of the property, as
opposed to the rear yard, would likely reduce additional impacts on neighboring property
owners who use their own rear yards for outdoor enjoyment.
Page 10 of 10
21.
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 that a horse corral may be permitted in the front yard for
APN 219-26-128A.
b)
Variance approval establishes a 15’ south setback for a horse corral for APN 219-26-128A.
c)
Variance approval memorializes a legally nonconforming lot width of 120’ for APN 219-
26-128A.
Presented by:
Reviewed by:
Attachments:
Nick Schlimm, Planner
Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager
Case Map (1 page)
Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (5 pages)
Site Plan (1 pages)
Letters of Support (2 pages)
/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
2
Gross Acres: 1 approx.
Generated January 29, 2026 3:19 PM
BA260008
Application Name:
Legal Description
Horse Corral
Applicant
Case Address
1N 7E 5
JEFFREY/MELISSA VESELOVSKY
2160 N 77TH PL
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:219-26-128A
(480) 341-3461
MESA, AZ 85207
Map scale 1:753
Supervisor District No.
(1)Variance to have horse corral and keep horses in front yard, where back yard is permitted and
(2)Variance to have 15' south setback for corral, where 40' is permitted.
Response to question 3
HOW THE GRANTING OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WOULD NOT CAUSE A NEGATIVE IMPACT
ON THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
According to A.R.S. §11-811 (A) zoning ordinances are adopted to “conserve and promote the
public health, safety, convenience, and general welfare”. And the Maricopa County Board of
Supervisors states that the zoning ordinance is “designed to promote the public health, peace,
safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the residents of Maricopa County; to guide,
control and regulate future growth and development in order to promote orderly and appropriate
use of land in the entire unincorporated area of said county; and to protect the character and
stability of residential, business and industrial areas of Maricopa County.”
In this case, placement of a metal pipe rail horse corral in the front yard rather than strict
adherence to the letter of the zoning ordinance for the placement of horse corrals in the back
yard may actually be a better way to conserve and promote the public health, convenience, and
general welfare as the horses would then be farther away from the living quarters neighbors and
it would allow for more convenient removal and disposal of animal waste.
For example, if the purpose of the horse corral setback of 40’ and placement in the back yard is
to minimize the impact on neighbors by reducing noise and flies and ensuring adequate space for
horse welfare and maintaining a reasonable separation between animal care and living spaces,
then placement of the horse corral in the front yard is actually closer to the intent of the
ordinance as the front yard actually provides the most separation between animal care and living
spaces while ensuring adequate space for the horses.
In addition, our neighbors socialize in their back yards and have get togethers, so a farther
distance from flies would be more considerate of their space.
In regards to the proposed 15’ setback on the South side of the front yard, where 40’ is required,
a strict interpretation of the ordinance would create a hardship as the horse corral setbacks were
written based on the minimal lot width of the lots being 145’, not 120’.
A 40’ setback on all sides of property like ours that does not meet the minimum requirement for
width does not afford us the same rights to use our property in the same way as others who were
also zoned for R1-35 but met the width requirements. Reducing the setback by the same number
of feet that we are short would create parity with other R1-35 property owners and would allow
more room for the wellbeing of the animals and will prevent overcrowding (see support
statement QUES-DETL-3).
Our South neighbors, who would be the only neighbors affected by the proposed 15’ setback are
supportive of the proposed 15’ setback, feel that it would improve their quality of life to have
horses nearby, and believe that it would not negatively impact their property in any way (see
support statement QUES-DETL-4 attached).
Furthermore, having horses on the property is within the acceptable uses of the R1-35 zoning and
we believe that keeping horses in the front yard would preserve the character of the
neighborhood and Maricopa County, which has long been known for its western cowboy
hospitality and culture. In fact, while researching our parcel we discovered that it had actually
been part of 325 acres of land given to Benjamin Greenstone in 1862 as part of the Homestead
Act.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Melissa Veselovsky
2160 N. 77th Pl
Mesa, AZ 85207
PROPERTY LINE 120.4’
PROPERTY LINE 120.4’
40’ setback
from west side
of property
40’ setback
from south side
of property
40’ setback
from north side
of property
1,560 sq ft
40’ setback
from north side
of property
15’’ setback
from north side
of property
9
Utility easement
~6,500 sq ft
PARCEL 219-26-128B
PARCEL 219-26-133
PARCEL 219-26-128A
20’
10’
10’
20’
3
5
1
14
6
3
4
10
11
12
1
2
10
11
PARCEL 219-26-096Q
PARCEL 219-26-098H
Existing
ABC
Driveway
4
39’
40’
65’
100’
28’
43’
40’
40’
30’
77TH PLACE
Owners:
Jeff & Melissa Veselovsky
Parcel 219-26-128A
2160 N. 77th Pl
Mesa, AZ 85207
Zoning: R1-35
Ex. liveable: 1,508 sq. ft
Ex. att. garage: 400 sq. ft
Ex. cov patio: 732 sq. ft
Ex. shed: 112 sq. ft
Ex. det. garage: 1,200 sq. ft
Ex. animal enclosure: 192 sq. ft
Total built area: 4,144 sq. ft
Total lot area: 36,590 sq. ft
Lot coverage: 11.3%
KEY
1 Proposed horse corral area
2 Proposed corral stalls
4 Proposed corral fence - 5’
tall metal pipe rail fence
with no climb grid
Proposed setback
Horse corral
setback per MCZO
5 Animal enclosure
6 Det. garage
7 Ex. wood rail fence to be
replaced with 5’ tall metal
pipe rail fence with
no-climb grid (permit tbd)
8 Shed
9 Block wall
10 Neighboring house
11 Neighboring back yard
7
7
7
9
9
79’
8’
27’
0 10 20 30 40
SCALE IN FEET
1” = 40’
N
E. Hermosa Vista Dr.
E. McKellips Rd
VICINITY MAP
not to scale
X
N
Letter of Support
January 13, 2026
I am writing to support the variance request by Melissa Veselovsky to have two horses in
the front yard of her property on 77th Place in Mesa.
Melissa’s daughter Autumn is an equine student of mine at Scottsdale Community College.
Autumn and her mother came to me a few months ago seeking my advice regarding two
horses that were owned by someone else and were severely neglected. We have been
working together since that time to help them gain the trust of these horses and to come up
with a plan to rescue them from their current horrible situation.
In just a few short months they have made tremendous progress, gaining the trust of these
horses. They had ownership of the horses transferred to them so they could provide much
needed and long overdue veterinary and farrier services. They tend to the horses regularly
and must constantly advocate for them to be fed properly at their current location.
Together with guidance, they have developed a plan for the future safety of these horses
along with nutritional needs and continued veterinary and farrier needs for a better quality
of life. These horses need to be transferred off the former owner’s property to survive. I fully
support their proposal to bring the horses home to their property, with open space where
they can have room to run and receive the best care and love that they desperately need
and deserve to thrive.
Horses remember trauma and these 2 horses are no exception. Moving them to a new
environment with the Veselovsky family will allow them to heal emotionally and physically.
This family truly cares about these horses and wants to give them a better life and a
“forever home”. Autumn is an excellent student, and I have witnessed how they have
applied the knowledge and best practices that Autumn has learned in her equine science
classes to these horses. This level of care is what these horses need and deserve. I have no
doubt these horses will receive the best care when they are moved to the Veselovsky home.
I hope that you will approve their request to have a horse corral in the front of their property
and to have a reduced setback on the south side of their front yard.
Kind regards,
Jay Clements
Director – Equine Science
Scottsdale Community College