09.BA250072 BOA Staff Report

Report to the Board of Adjustment
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case: 
BA250072 – Doherty Residence 
Hearing Date:
December 11, 2025
Supervisor District:
1
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Applicant: 
Monty Kuhstoss, J M Kuhstoss
Property Owner:
John and Nancy Doherty Living Trust
Request:
Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning 
Ordinance to permit:
1)
Proposed rear setback of 16’ where 25’ is the maximum permitted per 
MCZO Article 604.4.3 
Site Location:
APN 303-65-155 @ 9303 E. Parkside Dr. in the Sun Lakes area
Site Size:
6,939 sq. ft. 
Current Use / Zoning:
Single-family residence / R1-6
Open Violation:
N/A
Background:
1.
November 26, 1973: Sun Lakes Unit 6 subdivision final plat is recorded per Book 168, Page 9. The 
subject parcel is recorded as Lot 155.
2.
Circa 1978: The existing single-family residence is constructed.
3.
April 26, 2023: John C. Doherty and Nancy L. Doherty take ownership of the subject parcel via 
warranty deed MCR 2023-0214642. On May 28, 2025, ownership is transferred via warranty deed to 
the John and Nancy Doherty Living Trust per MCR 2025-0306901.
4.
December 12, 2023 : Building permit submitted for addition to the existing garage with B202313270 
and received final inspection on April 30, 2024. 
5.
September 7, 2025: A building permit application BLDR2507149 is received for an interior alteration 
and addition to the existing structure. The applicant is informed during the plan review process that 
a residential variance would be required to proceed with the proposed addition.  
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use:
6.
On-site:
Parkside Dr. then R1-6 / Single-family residence
North:
R1-6 / Single-family residence
South:
HOA tract then a community lake
East:
R1-6/ Single-family residence

Page 2 of 8
West:
R1-6 / Single-family residence
Variance Request:
7.
The applicant proposes a residential interior alteration while also extending the rear of the 
structure with a cantilevered roof patio. The proposed addition would stay within the lot coverage 
limitation of 50% but would encroach beyond the 25’ rear yard setback requirement. The existing 
rear yard patio would be enclosed and converted to livable space while also extending outwards 
along the east property line. A new cantilevered roof patio would be extended out into the rear to 
provide outdoor shade for the residence. The recorded subdivision plat for Sun Lakes Unit 6 
identifies a 16’ easement for underground public utilities and drainage along all rear lot lines. Staff 
notes the rear of the lot is adjacent to Tract C designated for walkway as outdoor open space.  
Excerpt from proposed site plan

Page 3 of 8
Image provided by applicant to identify other parcels with expansions into the rear yard (highlighted with red circles on 
image).  The subject site outlined in blue as lot 303-65-155 along left side of image. 
Image provided by applicant to show new addition to residence.

Page 4 of 8
Images provided by applicant to show existing floor plan and additional expansion.
Site Analysis:
8.
The subject parcel is located within a typical R1-6 subdivision that does not deviate from base 
zoning standards. The lot’s dimensions, setbacks, contours, and location of utilities and

Page 5 of 8
associated easements were intentionally designed. The general area is uniform in design and in 
construction of the single-family residences that comprise this subdivision. Any additions or 
alterations were later modifications, often with the granting of residential variances. Whereas a 
16’ public utilities easement is typically located between two adjacent parcels at 8’ per parcel, this 
parcel features the entirety of the dedicated PUE within its limits.  
Aerial photo of subject site
Aerial image & surrounding environs

Page 6 of 8
Eagle view of subject site looking from the southwest to the northeast into subject parcel (aerial image dated 10/19/2020). 
Zoning District map
Zoning District Standards:
9.
The following table (next page) 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).

Page 7 of 8
Standard
Rural-43  
Zoning 
District
Proposed with 
Variance
Min. Front Yard Setback (north property line) 
20-feet
n/a
Min. Rear Yard Setback (south property line)
25-feet
16-feet
Min. Side Yard Setback (east and west property lines)
0-feet, or 10-
feet
n/a
Maximum Height 
30-feet
n/a
Minimum Lot Area
6,000-sq. ft.
n/a
Minimum Lot Width
60-feet
n/a
Lot Coverage
50%
n/a
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.  
“There are multiple other locations throughout the subdivision that have approved variances to 
change rear yard setbacks. See as listed: BA-9-334 – Rear Setback to 16’, BA-80-168 – Rear Setback 
to 17’, BA3-173 – Rear setback to 16’ 8’. These are like next door to Doherty property “
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 a history of prior approvals throughout the subdivision”
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.
“The rear of property faces a large common area and would not impede on any property owners at 
rear. There are none.”

Page 8 of 8
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 find a peculiar condition of the property that renders the proposed 
addition necessary, unavoidable, or causing undue hardship to the applicant or property 
owner. 
•
The lot’s dimensions, contours, and location of utility easements were purposely designed 
within the context and guidelines of the R1-6 zoning district. A land use case, LU20130021, 
resolved a substandard lot width issue and did not pertain to any other zoning regulation. 
•
Maricopa County Planning and Development does not consider precedence as 
justification or grounds for a residential variance as each case must be presented on its 
own merits and unique circumstances. To the contrary, a granting of this variance would 
further erode the general intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance.  
 
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 16’ rear yard setback line (south) for APN 303-65-155. 
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 (1 page)
Engineering Planning Review Memo (1 page)

/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
1
Gross Acres: 0 approx.
Generated November 20, 2025 1:54 PM
BA250072
Application Name:
Legal Description
Doherty
Applicant
Case Address
2S 5E 31
Monty Kuhstoss
9303 S PARKSIDE DR
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:303-65-155
(480) 251-6677
SUN LAKES, AZ 85248
Map scale 1:306
Supervisor District No.
request rear setback change from 25'0" to 15'0" to accommodate new rear patio cover,
there are three others next door & two two doors down that got variances to change rear setback.

ezlLlzLpr.led
uorlesrldriv ,sLEtJEt
| :.:... :):.-;a:. ziE,*
' : 
i'. 
r: 
_ :, 
'-.: .':.::,.:).:":::: 
;:.,:::,.
; i :* -i; jE d +* ; L.:;. :,-*:9 a r. ?.E ? &iir tjJue ld
'uf!€tn\?(Tr',S 
a{.\-
B I {r/ro4ddu ? e'aa- }.p
U 
?a\J oqa\,ll
'alI!l ]o aull aLll ul lalealc-+las lou
st I1laCol,l aLIJo uotitpuoc Jerlncod aqlleqiureldxa pue ssnosrp aseeld'elrs uo suorlrpuoc rerln d eqi/uorlrpuoo
lellnoal E ]o )snecaq seleelc acueulprg 6uruo7,[uno3 edo3uen eqt drqspleq {ressacauun eq} ureldxa aseald
.Z
r,, g or"<- u :,,. fr)-r,ffi-ilffi
,,o?', Ot 't tv -t ' -t O1*I-r, gil T=
1{?r,v1t?€ iVdL
av,ovrt o .) ?*,"11'r I q*'f}lli: 
.t f*,ff ':l]J X
,fr-[ ,t;-oilq-.!- s no\t rho^1 vtYP "[d '1rnJ{ ?bt' ryL
'rQtadotd eL I uo drqsp.req e
asodur prnon (s)prepuelg lueudole^ac ro (s)uorge;nDag 6uruo7 aqllo luarrJaorolua moq ure;dr3 .la'sluauresee
pue'ulllplaEan'saqsem'uorlecol 'adeqs re;nEarr 'sseumollEqs'ssaumorsu'ado;s:seare 6rmo;1o; aql ol
pre 6ar u r ,ilradord rnor( uo suollrpuoo re r;ncad ;;e u re;dxa pue ,{1r1uep I '}sanbar aoue ue^ aq} q}rM I }radord aLl} }o asn
pasodord aqt ulegdxl 'paue^ aq o1 (s)prepuels luar-udola^ac Jo (s)uot1elnOeg acueurprO 0uruo7 {r no3 edocrreyl
eql ol ecuele.-ai apnlcul pue rfradord aqt 6u1ce1 (s)uorlrpuoc ler;ncad eq] olelsl leqm ure;dxa p le s sncsrp oseold ' 
L
'paansetd eq illll ecuewp)o iutuoz eLil p sasod.lnd p-le iuaqt ptaua1
aql acLet.'et'-4cns 6w7uet6 ut tt 'dlqspteq {:essacauun ue \)o/A ppolA uoqeptdtalul lc/Jls e'suotltpuoc
rcqncad at 6wno 'uaqn acLteutpJo aqlJo suJa] aql wotJ acueuet e Moile lew luewlsnlotr' 1o pJeog elll
=H lvr* N c ll-s= **'IV3 ht= t^it-Idd ft s 3 3 Nvl] sv rr
z'g 9r8- t rS suv

ezlLlzL$\red
uollesflddv a?t&jJ€!
' ':' t""i1': l) -; '1
, ,. -,:. ; : .-:. ...,. , ..: ,::',:;.,r:',?t' tl .,lt
':..'. z ;;'', t.3 ", {, i u e :jF* c * n & * ? 6 * i iJ ue ; *
' <,)r/rLOI dv +1vd'z)u n
Vaozn<d Prto\g 3g""il* O+ - n€ tr w\?t
ffi" We:+ JA c'ito'-t \v"toYs
lorz,y) - luutd t*]'t \ '' >f - wt4' 'r1\'+ o6\Y
.e Lt - )qaz. / >:^r' ana?) / t^zz -2Lan-
T"Trrvrz*cA (onaa(V l%1dvt+l ffi=
NOlMlUdUlINl NV gNlILll,IEnS IUV nOA ll l lUOl SlHl lS0 ION O0 ++
'peqceue aq,{eu s}sls leuotUppv+
'acueurpro 6utuo7 eql;o asodtnd pue yt +lut letaue0 eq}
uo '-cedulp enrle0au e asnec lou plnoM acueuel palsanbar aq1 1o 6utluerD eq1 moq ute;dxa p{re ssn3srp aseeld 't
'Znrof,l az)U aar.!r!Jl- '"Jc1A4. \\l taalt\t'-no
Io alzd-+5 t6\lr t'\v\o\^ ry--*i:
i-,=,f t^.,"rrait- Ji " <'aaZ- ?1-\

THESE DRAWINGS SHALL
NOT BE REPRODUCE OR
OTHER STRUCTURES BUILT
FROM THESE DRAWINGS
WITHOUT CONSENT FROM
GRAND DESIGNS
RESIDENTIAL DRAFTING
EMAIL: GRANDDESIGNS.PLANS@GMAIL.COM      PHONE: (480) 745-5288
REVISIONS
#
DATE
N
N
VICINITY MAP
57.25'
r=770.57'
110'
70.8'
r=313.07'
110'
COND.
45'-6"
50'-2"
55'-6"
48'-3"
10'
45'-6"
10'
SCALE 1" = 10'
5
10
15
20
25
50
10'
25'
10'
26'-8 1/16"
15'-1 13/16"
20'-7 3/4"
20'
16'-7 1/8"
10'-1 5/16"
16'
16'
S
W
E
SITE PLAN
      LOT COVERAGE
LOT AREA: 6,939 S.F.
EXISTING LIVABLE: 1,116 S.F.
NEW LIVABLE: 889 S.F.
      TOTAL LIVABLE: 2,005 S.F.
NEW STORAGE: 40 S.F.
NEW PATIO: 455 S.F.
EXISTING NON-LIVABLE: 879 S.F.
      TOTAL NON-LIVABLE: 1,374 S.F.
TOTAL: 3,379 S.F.
    48.6% COVERAGE
EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES- 
LOW PRESSURE SODIUM
(150 WATTS INCANDESCENT LIGHT)
COMPLY W/ (MCZO SECTION 1112 AND ARTICLE 1112.4)
PARCEL: 303-65-155
OWNER NAME: JOHN AND NANCY DOHERTY LIVING TRUST
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 9303 E PARKSIDE DR
                                         SUN LAKES, AZ 85248
JURISDICTION: MARICOPA
LOT SIZE (SQ FT): 6,939
SUBDIVISION: SUN LAKES 6 
LOT #: 155
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
SUN LAKES HOA
200 AMP 
SERVICE PANEL
EXISTING 
RESIDENCE
SBL
SBL
SBL
EXISTING
GATE
EXISTING 4'
CMU WALL
EXISTING 4'
CMU WALL
EXISTING 4'
CMU WALL
EXISTING 4'
CMU WALL
EXISTING 
CONC.
DRIVEWAY
R.O.W.
E PARKSIDE DR
-THE GRADE AWAY FROM
FOUNDATION WALLS SHALL
FALL 6" WITHIN THE FIRST 10'
F.F.E. = TO MATCH
EXISTING RESIDENCE
CANTILEVERED 
PATIO ROOF
NEW ADDITION
SCOPE OF WORK
-REMOVE BACK EXTERIOR WALL AND EXISTING PATIO
-EXTEND BACK EXTERIOR WALLS OUT 
-NEW CANTILEVERED PATIO ROOF
-REMODELED MASTER BATHROOM & MASTER BEDROOM
-ADD NEW LAUNDRY ROOM WITH ADJUSTED THE STORAGE ROOM 
-NEW OFFICE AND STORAGE ROOMS ADDED
-KITCHEN REMODELED AND RELOCATED
PUE
S1
SHEET:
DOHERTY ADDITION
SCALE:
9303 E PARKSIDE DR
SUN LAKES, AZ 85248
SITE PLAN
DATE:
1"=10'
11/24/2025
3
10-20-25
2
1

Planning & Development 
Engineering Plan Review 
 
 
 
 
Daniel Lechwar 
Engineering Associate 
Planning & Development 
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 
Phoenix, Arizona 85008 
Phone: (602) 372-2923 
Fax: (602)506-3282 
www.maricopa.gov/planning 
Email address:  
Daniel.lechwar@maricopa.gov    
 
Date: 
December 3, 2025  
Memo To: 
Darren Gerard, Planning Manager, Planning & Development 
Attn: 
Isaac Perez, Planner, Planning and Development  
From: 
Daniel Lechwar, Engineering Associate 
Planning & Development Department 
 
cc: 
Bob Fedorka, P.E., Engineering Manager, Planning and Development 
 
Subject: 
BA250072 – Residential Variance 
 
  
 
Address: 
9303 S Parkside Dr. Sun Lakes, AZ 85248 
 
APN(s): 
303-65-0155 
 
 
PND Engineering: Has no comments or objections on the variance request.  
Please ensure the site plan used for the building permit approval shows the property lines 
accurately. A survey may be needed to justify/clarify the true location of the property lines.  
 
 
 
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. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Revised 3/1/23 
Page 1 of 1