01.BA250045 BOA Staff Report

Report to the Board of Adjustment
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case: 
BA250045 – Lawhead Property
Hearing Date:
September 18, 2025
Supervisor District:
2
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Applicant: 
Randon Anderson
Property Owner:
Lawhead Holding, LLC
Request:
Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning 
Ordinance to permit:
1)
Proposed front yard setback of 10’ where 40’ is the minimum required per 
MCZO Article 503.4.1
Site Location:
APN 220-18-007A @ 10727 E. Quarterline Rd. in the east Mesa area
Site Size:
Approx. 29,244 sq. ft. 
Current Use / Zoning:
Vacant / Rural-43
Open Violation:
No violation on property
Background:
1.
Before 1969: Parcel 220-18-007 was created.
2.
September 20, 2002: MCDOT acquired the northernmost 30’ of APN 220-18-007 and dedicated it 
as right-of-way for Quarterline Road. Prior to this, Quarterline Road had been an access easement 
through the property. As a result of this government action, the remaining area of the parcel 
became APN 220-18-007A.
3.
June 11, 2018: The Planning & Development Department administratively approved a request to 
confirm the subject parcel’s LNC status with respect to lot area per case LU20180045.
4.
March 28, 2025: The current owner, Lawhead Holding, LLC, took possession of the subject parcel, 
per Warranty Deed 2025-0171311.
5.
June 6, 2025: The applicant submitted the subject variance request.

Page 2 of 8
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use:
6.
On-site:
Rural-43 / single-family residence
North:
Quarterline Road, then Rural-43 / single-family residences
South:
Rural-43 / single-family residence
East:
Rural-43 / single-family residence
West:
Rural-43 / single-family residence
Variance Request:
7.
The applicant is requesting a variance to Article 503.4.1 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance 
(MCZO) to permit a front yard setback of 10’ from the north lot line of Parcel 220-18-007A where 
40’ is the minimum required in the Rural-43 zoning district. The property is currently vacant, but 
the property owners are proposing to build a single-family residence.
Excerpt from Proposed Site Plan
Site Analysis:
8.
The property is located approximately 100’ west of the southwest corner of Quarterline Road and 
Signal Butte Road in the east Mesa area, approximately ¼ mile north of University Drive. The 
triangular shape and orientation of the property predates the MCZO. Although staff was unable 
to find documentation confirming when the original lot was created, a joint tenancy deed dated 
April 1, 1965, presents a legal description matching the current description of the property (plus 
30’ to the north, corresponding with the south half of Quarterline Road). The diagonal southeast 
lot line corresponds with a natural wash that predates development in the region. When the MCZO 
became effective in May 1969, the parcel became legally nonconforming due to substandard lot 
area, measuring less than the required 43,560 square feet.

Page 3 of 8
9.
The original parcel was designated APN 220-18-007, and its configuration remained unchanged 
until 2002, when MCDOT acquired the south half of the easement for Quarterline Road. This 
government action reduced the lot area further to 29,244 square feet. The remaining area of the 
parcel was redesignated APN 220-18-007A. The parcel has remained in the same configuration 
since. As the parcel was already LNC when MCDOT acquired the road, and the subsequent 
reduction of the lot area was the result of government action, the property is still considered LNC 
with respect to lot area. For this reason, the substandard lot area will not be part of this variance 
request and will not be an impediment to development of the property with or without variance. 
The Planning & Development Department administratively approved a request for LNC status in 
2018, per case LU20180045. A copy of the approval letter and approved staff report for this case 
have been attached to this report.
10.
The LNC status notwithstanding, the applicant notes that the unusual configuration of the parcel 
creates a tight building envelope that limits where a residence may be built. Expanding the 
building envelope by combining with an adjacent parcel would be infeasible, as both the adjacent 
parcels to the west and southeast have been developed already and are under separate 
ownership. Furthermore, the wash along the southeast lot line presents a natural barrier that 
would restrict expansion of the building envelope even if a lot combination were feasible. For 
these reasons, the applicant proposes reducing the required north setback from 40’ to 10’. As the 
applicant notes, this would effectively establish the proposed setback line 40’ from the original 
north property line as it existed prior to the right-of-way taking. Staff notes, however, that a front 
setback must be measured from the interior boundary of an access easement even when it is 
within the boundaries of a parcel. Therefore, the current front setback line has existed for as long 
as the original parcel coexisted with the easement for Quarterline Road. 
2025 Aerial Image of the Subject Site

Page 4 of 8
Aerial Image of the Subject Site Illustrating the Original Lot Lines and Right-of-Way Acquisition
2025 Aerial Image of Surrounding Environs

Page 5 of 8
Eagle View of Subject Site Looking North (dated March 1, 2025)
Zoning District Map (Subject Parcel Outlined in Red)

Page 6 of 8
Zoning District Standards:
11.
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
Rural-43  
Zoning 
District
Proposed with 
Variance
Min. Front Setback (residence to north lot line)
40-feet
10-feet
Min. Rear Setback
40-feet
40-feet
Min. Interior Side Setback (residence to southeast lot line)
30-feet
30-feet
Min. Interior Side Setback (residence to west lot line)
30-feet
30-feet
Maximum Height
30-feet
30-feet
Minimum Lot Area (*LNC)
43,560-sq. ft.
29,244-sq. ft.*
Lot Coverage
25%
≈14%
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.”
12.
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 facing the property are the 30 ft easement running across the north side 
of the property, which is the front of the property, and the triangle shape of the property. Per the 
zoning regulations of RU-43 there must be a 40 ft setback from the front property line to the 
residential home. However with the 30 ft easement and the 40 ft setback starting at the interior line 
of the easement it places the residential home 70 ft from the center of the road making it very 
difficult to adhere to. Due to the triangle shape of the property it creates a pinch point on the 
Northeast corner of the lot that already forces the home back, but with the easement it forces it 
back even further than necessary.”
13.
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.
“The unnecessary hardship the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance creates is because of the front 
30 ft easement and the 40 ft setback starting at the interior line of the easement it sets the home 
70 ft back rather then the standard 40 ft. This issue is not self created as the easement was taken 
a long time ago by ADOT for the road and power.”

Page 7 of 8
14.
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.
“Granting the requested 30 ft variance in the front (leaving a 10 ft setback from the interior 
easement line) will not cause any negative impact as it will still leave a standard 40 ft setback from 
the center of the road. Which will in turn make the property much more usable to build a home as 
this is the intended purpose.”
Findings: 
15.
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.  
16.
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 identifies a peculiar condition facing the property. The property is legally 
nonconforming with respect to lot area, which was rendered substandard when the MCZO 
was adopted and the Rural-43 zoning district was established in 1969. This, together with 
the triangular orientation of the lot, which also predates the establishment of the MCZO, 
establishes a building envelope that is smaller than what is typical for the underlying Rural-
43 zoning district.
•
Staff is unable to identify an undue hardship created by the enforcement of the MCZO. 
The development of a single-family residence on the property would fulfill the general 
intent and purpose of the Rural-43 zoning district. This may be possible without variance. 
Despite its reduced size, a residence could be built within the existing building envelope. 
Relocating the proposed residence (without altering its proposed dimensions, per the 
provided floor plan) approximately 30’ south and 39’ west would place it just within the 
existing building envelope. For this reason, staff is unable to identify an undue hardship 
created by the enforcement of the MCZO.

Page 8 of 8
17.
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 north front setback line of 10’ for APN 220-18-007A.
Presented by:
Nick Schlimm, Planner
Reviewed by:
Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager 
Attachments:
Case Map (1 page)
Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages)
Site Plan (2 pages)
LU20180045 Approved Staff Report (15 pages)
LU20180045 Approval Letter (1 page)
Easement and Agreement for Highway Purposes (4 pages)

/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
2
Gross Acres: 1 approx.
Generated September 4, 2025 10:33 AM
BA250045
Application Name:
Legal Description
House
Applicant
Case Address
1N 7E 14
Randon Anderson
10727 E QUARTERLINE RD
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:220-18-007A
(435) 660-6128
randonl2020@gmail.com
MESA, AZ 85207
Map scale 1:668
Supervisor District No.
I am requesting a 30' variance to the front setback due to the shape of the property and the 30' easement
running through the front.

60110MU
60110MU
60110MU
60110MU
3060SH
3060SH
71036FX
5036FX
5036FX
5036FX
7016FX
3060SH
4020LS
4020LS
4014FX
8030TS
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
0808FX
8'
5'-8"
28'-4"
31'
73'
4'
3'-4"
29'-4"
26'-10"
2'-11"
12'-3"
71'-4"
4'
10'
6'-9"
11'-7"
2'
13'-7"
2'
2'
14'
12'
24'
12'
62'
22'-6"
6'-6"
29'
11'-8"
24'
35'-8"
2614 SQ FT
35'-1" X 25'-6"
14'-0" X 12'-0"
18'-4" X 15'-5"
4'-0" X 
14'-0" X 12'-0"
5'-4" X 5'-5"
33'-9" X 9'-9"
15'-10" X 11'-1"
12'-3" X 6'-4"
LIVING AREA
GARAGE
SHOW
BEDROOM 2
BEDROOM 3
SHOWER
PATIO
OUTDOOR DINING
PORCH

N
245'
N0° 3' 40"E
310'
N89° 59' 44"E
395.32'
S5 1° 4 2' 22"W
215'
N0° 3' 40"E
19.83'
N90°E
2614 SQ FT
35'-1" X 25'-6 "
14'-0" X 12'-0 "
18'-4" X 15'-5 "
4'-0" X 
14'-0" X 12'-0 "
5'-4" X 5'-5"
33'-9" X 9'-9"
15'-10 " X 11 '-1"
12'-3" X 6'-4"
LIVING AREA
GARAGE
SHOW
BEDROOM 2
BEDROOM 3
SHOWER
PATIO
OUTDOOR DINING
PORCH
30'
30'
40'
9.99'
55.79'
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1" = 20'