07.BA250069 BOA Staff Report

Report to the Board of Adjustment
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case: 
BA250069 – Coffey Property 
Hearing Date:
December 11, 2025
Supervisor District:
4
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Applicant: 
Onis Coffey, Wespac
Property Owner:
Onis Coffey
Requests:
Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning 
Ordinance to permit:
1)
Proposed retaining wall height of 8’ where 6’ is the maximum permitted 
per MCZO Article 1111.5.2.4 
2)
Hillside disturbance of 3,341 sq. ft. outside of the principle envelope
Site Location:
APN 201-17-932A @ 10303 W. Jomax Rd. in the Peoria area
Site Size:
44,870 sq. ft. 
Current Use / Zoning:
Undeveloped / Rural-43
Open Violation:
N/A
Background:
1.
February 12, 2021: Current property owner takes ownership via warranty deed MCR 2021-0165674.
2.
February 19, 2021: The subject parcel is created via recorded lot split MCR 2021-0186872. 
3.
May 7, 2025: A building permit application BLDR2503766 is received for a 234 linear feet retaining 
wall and fence.  Zoning plan review referred the applicant to pursue a residential variance for the 
allowance of an 8’ high retaining wall. 
4.
October 31, 2025: A residential variance for an 8’ high retaining wall is received. 
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use:
5.
On-site:
Rural-43 / Vacant parcel
North:
W. Jomax Rd (City of Peoria) then Rural-43 / Vacant parcel
South:
Rural-43 / Vacant parcel
East:
Rural-43 / Vacant parcel
West:
Subdivision Tract K (City of Peoria) / Vacant tract

Page 2 of 9
Variance Request:
6.
The applicant proposes to build a retaining wall around the northwest, west, and southwest 
perimeter of the property. The proposed height of the southwest portion of the retaining wall will 
measure 8’ from proposed grade to the top of the retaining wall. Wrought-iron fencing will be 
placed atop the retaining wall that does not exceed the combined retaining wall and wall height 
of 14’ as measured from the low side finished grade per MCZO 1111.5.2.6. The applicant also 
proposes a hillside disturbance of 3,341 sq. ft. outside of the principle envelope to accommodate 
for building the retaining wall. 
Excerpt from proposed site plan

Page 3 of 9
Photographs of subject site

Page 4 of 9

Page 5 of 9
Site Analysis:
7.
The subject parcel is located along the city limits of the City of Peoria, with the north end of the 
parcel located within the City of Peoria. This specific parcel was formed through an unregulated 
lot split. Other parcels that were derived from a shared parent parcel have resulted in the 
development of single-family residential homes which sit to the south and east of the subject 
parcel. To the northeast and west are subdivisions of single-family residential homes that are 
within the city limits of the City of Peoria. Further to the east is the Cross of Glory Lutheran Church. 
The northeast of the property sits at an elevation of 1,366’ and slopes southeast to an elevation 
of 1,344. 
Aerial photo of subject site
Aerial image & surrounding environment

Page 6 of 9
Eagle view of subject site looking south into subject parcel (aerial image dated 10/18/2020). 
Zoning District map

Page 7 of 9
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
Rural-43  
Zoning 
District
Proposed with 
Variance
Min. Front Yard Setback (north property line) 
40-feet
n/a
Min. Rear Yard Setback (south property line)
40-feet
n/a
Min. Side Yard Setback (east property line)
30-feet
n/a
Maximum Height 
30-feet
n/a
Minimum Lot Area
43,560-sq. ft.
n/a
Minimum Lot Width
145-feet
n/a
Lot Coverage
25%
n/a
Maximum Retaining Wall Height
6-feet
8-feet
Hillside Disturbance outside the principle building 
envelope
none
3,341 sq. ft.
Hillside
Area (sq. ft.)
% of gross 
area
Area of Lot that is Hillside
3,341 sq. ft. 
7.4%
Area of Hillside Previously Disturbed 
n/a
n/a
Hillside Disturbance Inside Building Envelope
n/a
n/a
Hillside Disturbance Outside Building Envelope
3,341 sq. ft.
7.4%
Note: Standards indicated in bold do not meet improper 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.  
“This property is 1.03 acres Zoned RU43 Residential. This lot is at the edge of the Agua Fria bed 
and is elevated approximately 35’ higher than the houses to the west that is separated by 103rd Ave. 
This lot has an existing wash ranging from elevation 1366.00 at the north east corner of the property 
to 1341.73 to the southwest 30’ east from the southwest property corner. The southwest property 
corner is at the elevation 1347.00. This highest part of the lot is at the northeast corner and the 
lowest part of the lot is located at the southwest part of the lot. There is a 19’ drop in elevation. By 
creating a 8’ retaining wall this would make the lot buildable.”
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.

Page 8 of 9
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.
“History of lot. At one point there was a 5 acre parcel south of Jonex and between 102 and 103 
avenue. The lots were split into 4 parcels. My parcel is 201-17-932A. This lot is the most western 
lot”
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 granting of this request will not affect the community or any neighbors as this wall is on the 
west property line and the 8’ retaining wall will only occur on approximately 70’ of the west wall and 
40’ of the south wall. I have no neighbors adjacent to my property on the west side and one neighbor 
directly to the south of me.”
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:
•
The applicant has demonstrated applying the requirements of the MCZO to this property that 
has this peculiar condition causes an undue physical hardship that requires retaining walls 
and hillside disturbance due to the slopes and wash that runs through the site. Installation of 
the retaining walls due to existing grade and slope would allow for development of the lot for

Page 9 of 9
a single family residence. The topographic conditions of the lot push development northward 
into the required front yard.  Staff believes a series of terraced retaining walls could meet 
ordinance standards without requiring a variance to retaining wall height, but that may result 
in increased disturbance.
•
The applicant has demonstrated that the general intent and purpose of the MCZO will be 
preserved despite the variance. The development of the single-family residence meets the 
Rural-43 development standards. Approval of the variance will allow for the installation of the 
retaining wall and minimal hillside disturbance outside the building envelope, owing to the 
peculiar condition of the property, that would otherwise not be possible without a variance.  
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 maximum retaining wall height of 8’ and 3,341 sq. ft. 
allowance of hillside disturbance outside the building envelope for APN 201-17-932A. 
Presented by:
Isaac Perez, Planner
Reviewed by:
Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager 
Attachments:
Case Map (1 page)
Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages)
Site Plan (2 pages)
Engineering Review (1 page)

/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
4
Gross Acres: 1 approx.
Generated November 20, 2025 1:53 PM
BA250069
Application Name:
Legal Description
Coffey Residence
Applicant
Case Address
4N 1E 5
Onis Coffey
10303 W JOMAX RD
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:201-17-932A
6025584507
PHOENIX, AZ 85027
Map scale 1:730
Supervisor District No.
Variance for 8' retaining wall

Date:
Checked by:
SEAL
JOB  NUMBER
SHEET
Designed by:
Drawn by:
OF
Version
MJP
MJP
MJP
100
06/30/2025
4435 E. Chandler Blvd
Suite 200
Phoenix, AZ 85048
480-625-9795
103RD AND JOMAX
JAY COFFEY
A PORTION OF SECTION 5,
TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST,
OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN,
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.
1
EXPIRES: 9/30/25
PREFLING
Engineering
2
3
103RD AND JOMAX, PEORIA AZ 85383
FOR
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
A PORTION OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, 
GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA 
VINICITY MAP
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
COVER SHEET
1
4
OWNER/DEVELOPER
ENGINEER
BENCHMARK
BASIS OF BEARING
SITE DATA
EARTHWORK
ESTIMATED EARTHWORK (RAW)
’
’
MARICOPA  COUNTY P&D RESIDENTIAL GENERAL
NOTES & CONDITIONS
DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE
DRAINAGE NOTE
FEMA FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
W. JOMAX RD.
A
A
B
B
C
LEGEND
C
DOMESTIC WATER
SURVEY CERTIFICATION
CUT/FILL SLOPE REQUIREMENTS

Date:
Checked by:
SEAL
JOB  NUMBER
SHEET
Designed by:
Drawn by:
OF
Version
MJP
MJP
MJP
100
10/29/2025
4435 E. Chandler Blvd
Suite 200
Phoenix, AZ 85048
480-625-9795
103RD AND JOMAX
JAY COFFEY
A PORTION OF SECTION 5,
TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST,
OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN,
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.
1
EXPIRES: 9/30/28
PREFLING
Engineering
VINICITY MAP
HILLSIDE SITE PLAN EXHIBIT
1
1
OWNER/DEVELOPER
ENGINEER
BENCHMARK
BASIS OF BEARING
SITE DATA
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
W. JOMAX RD.

Page 1 of 1 
Revised 3/1/23 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Alba L. Holloway  
Engineering Associate 
Planning & Development 
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 
Phoenix, Arizona 85008 
Phone: (602) 372-0850 
Fax: (602)506-3282 
www.maricopa.gov/planning 
Email address: 
alba.holloway@maricopa.gov 
  
Planning & Development 
 
Engineering Plan Review 
Date:   
 
November 24, 2025 
 
Memo To: 
Darren Gerard, Planning Manager, Planning & Development 
 
Attn:  
 
Isaac Perez, Planner, Planning and Development 
 
 
 
From: 
Alba L. Holloway, Engineering Associate 
 
Planning & Development Department 
 
cc: 
Bob Fedorka, P.E., Engineering Manager, Planning and Development 
 
Subject: 
BA250069  –  Residential Variance / Construction of 8-ft retaining wall. 
 
Address: 
9061 W Behrend Dr Peoria AZ 85382 
 
APN(s): 
201-17-932A 
 
 
PND Engineering has no comments on the variance request. 
 
PND Flood Control District has no comments on variance request.  
 
PND MCDOT has no comments on the variance request.  
 
 
 
 
Other Maricopa County Agencies must review and recommend approval of this project.   
 
Please contact me if you have any questions or require clarification of these comments.