06.BA250068 BOA Staff Report

Report to the Board of Adjustment
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case: 
BA250068 – Ben Dusek Addition 
Hearing Date:
December 11, 2025
Supervisor District:
2
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Applicant / Owner: 
Ernie Merrill
Request:
Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning 
Ordinance to permit:
1)
Proposed rear yard setback of 10’ where 25’ is the minimum permitted in 
the R1-6 zoning district 
Site Location:
APN 141-63-725 @ 517 N. 63rd Pl in the Mesa area
Site Size:
6,430 sq. ft. 
Current Use / Zoning:
Single-family Residence / R1-6 
Open Violation:
No Violation on Property
Background:
1.
August 21, 1987: The Board of Supervisors approved the final plat for the The Vineyards of Mesa 
Subdivision, which includes 195 lots, including the subject site, and 4 tracts (MCR 315-46).
2.
Circa 1990: The Maricopa County Assessor Office Property Data identifies a single-family residential 
home was built. 
3.
September 14, 2022: The current owner takes possession of the subject parcel via Warrant Deed 
recorded under docket number 20220712495.
4.
September 1, 2025: Building Permit BLDR2507001 was applied for, to develop an attached sunroom 
to the existing residential home. Zoning review identified the 25’ setback with the proposed addition. 
5.
October 29, 2025: The owner applies for the subject variance request.
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use:
6.
On-site:
R1-6 / Single-family residence
North:
R1-6 / Single-family residence
South:
R1-6 / Single-family residence
East:
R1-6 / Single-family residence
West:
R1-6 / 63rd place then Single-family residence

Page 2 of 5
Variance Request:
7.
The applicant is requesting a variance for parcel 141-63-725 in order to construct an attached 
sunroom to the rear portion of the existing residential home. The variance request is for a rear 
yard setback of 10’ where 25’ is the minimum required for the R1-6 zoning district for an attached 
addition (but not if the room were structurally detached).  
Excerpt from proposed site plan
Site Analysis:
8.
The subject site is developed with a single-family residence, the parcel is a rectangular shaped 
lot measuring 64 feet in width and 100 feet in depth for an overall area of 6,430 square feet. The 
applicant desires to attach a 20’ x 15’ for a 300 sq. ft. enclosed sunroom structure to the rear of 
the residence, where there is currently an existing patio. The patio would be demolished, the 
attached sunroom would be considered part of the primary building and must meet the 25’ 
minimum setback the defines the principal building envelope.  If the sunroom were detached as 
an accessory structure it would be permitted without a variance no closer to 3 feet from the 
property line, subject to occupying no more than 30% of the rear yard.  The applicant states the 
sunroom cannot be a detached structure as they are proposing to connect the power from the 
single-family residence to the proposed sunroom to provide electricity and a/c.

Page 3 of 5
Aerial photo of subject site
Zoning District map with R1-6 zoning

Page 4 of 5
Zoning District Standards:
9.
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 required standards are indicated in 
bold).
Standard
R1-6 
Proposed with 
Variance
Min. Front Yard Setback 
20-feet
20-feet
Min. Rear Yard Setback
25-feet
10-feet
Min. Side Yard Setback 
5-feet
5-feet
Maximum Height 
30-feet
30-feet
Minimum Lot Area
6,000-sq. ft.
6,000-sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width
60-feet
60-feet
Lot Coverage
50%
50%
           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.” 
10.
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 homeowner would like to have an arizona room added to their home. The size of the new 
Arizona room is 20 feet wide and 15 feet deep. The room will be the same as the existing room. 
Power will be added, no plumbing will be added.”
11.
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.
“There are no unnecessary hardships that we are aware of.”
12.
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.
“This will improve the property and neighborhood. There are many other homes in the neighborhood 
with an Arizona room or patio.”

Page 5 of 5
Findings: 
13.
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.  
14.
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. Typical for most 
residential properties, the subject parcel is flat and not encumbered topographical or 
physical constraints.
•
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the general intent and purpose of the MCZO 
will be preserved with the variance, a covered patio can be developed in multiple ways 
without a need for a variance. 
•
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the strict application of the MCZO to the 
property has caused undue to physical hardship that prevents reasonable development of 
the property.
15.
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 minimum 10’ east rear yard setback for APN 141-63-725.
Presented by:
Paola Jaramillo, Planner
Reviewed by:
Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager 
Attachments:
Case Map (1 page)
Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages)
Site Plan (1 page)

/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
2
Gross Acres: 0 approx.
Generated December 2, 2025 11:42 AM
BA250068
Application Name:
Legal Description
Ben Dusek addition
Applicant
Case Address
1N 6E 13
Ernie Merrill
517 N 63RD PL
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:141-63-725
(480) 353-7481
info@customdesignbuildremodel.com
MESA, AZ 85205
Map scale 1:251
Supervisor District No.
Variance request for rear yard setback of 10' in the R1-6 zoning district