03.BA250050 BOA Staff Report

Report to the Board of Adjustment
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case: 
BA250050 – Olson Sports Court 
Hearing Date:
September 18, 2025
Supervisor District:
1
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Applicant / Owner: 
Jay Olson
Requests:
Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning 
Ordinance to permit:
1)
Proposed use-specific setback of 5 feet for a private sports court from 
adjacent properties under separate ownership where 20 feet is the 
minimum permitted per MCZO 502.2.15.c.
Site Location:
APN 304-72-028H @ 21407 S. 145th St. in the Gilbert area
Site Size:
2.24 acres 
Current Use / Zoning:
Single-family Residence / Rural-43
Open Violation:
No Violation on Property
Background:
1.
July 19, 2017: A Certificate of Occupancy was issued for the single-family residence for parcel 304-
72-028E on the subject parcel, per B201504661.
2.
January 21, 2021: A building permit was applied for a sports court for new parcel 304-72-028G 
created from a lot split from parcel 304-72-028E; however, revisions were not submitted, and the 
permit has since expired. The applicant moved forward and built the sports court without an 
approved building permit.
3.
June 1, 2023: The subject parcel is split from parent parcel APN 304-72-028G in a minor land 
division.
4.
July 19, 2023: The current owner records new deed for subject parcel, 304-72-028H, via Warranty 
Deed recorded under docket number 2023-0375041
5.
July 10, 2025: The applicant applies for the subject variance request.

Page 2 of 8
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use:
6.
On-site:
Rural-43 RUPD / Single-family residence
North:
Rural-43 RUPD / Single-family residence
South:
Rural-43 RUPD / Single-family residence
East:
Rural-43 RUPD / Single-family residence
West:
Rural-43 RUPD / Single-family residence
Variance Requests:
7.
The applicant is requesting a variance to Article 502.2.15.c. of the Maricopa County Zoning 
Ordinance (MCZO) to permit a private tennis court on parcel 304-72-028H with a setback of 5’ 
from adjoining properties, where a minimum of 20’ is required in the Rural-43 zoning district. The 
court was built without permits, approval of the variance and subsequent issuance of a building 
permit would permit the court at the current location.
Excerpt from proposed site plan

Page 3 of 8
Sports Court Looking East
Site Analysis:
8.
The subject site is developed with as a single-family residence, the parcel is an irregular L shaped 
lot measuring 155 feet in width and 279 feet in depth for an overall area of 97,685 square feet. 
The property has been split from a parent parcel approximately two times. The site is flat, there 
are no washes or a floodplain near the property and it meets the intensity use regulations for the 
underlying Rural-43 zoning district. The site, overall, is typical for a single-family residential 
property in unincorporated Maricopa County. It is accessible via 145th Street, a 33’-wide 
ingress/egress easement.
9.
Although the single-family residence complies with the Rural-43 development regulations, the 
existing sports court was built out of compliance, 5’ from the east lot line. Private sports courts 
are subject a use-specific setback requirement. In all rural and residential zoning districts, 
including Rural-43, courts must be set back a minimum of 20’ from any adjoining property under 
separate ownership from the subject property. In 2021, the property owners build a private tennis 
court without the benefit of an approved building permit (permit was submitted for review, but not 
issued).
10.
If the requested variance is granted, the applicant/property owner will be responsible for obtaining 
an as-built permit for the court. If the variance is denied, the applicant/property owners will be 
responsible for removing the court.
Aerial photo of subject site

Page 4 of 8
Zoning District map with Rural-43 zoning

Page 5 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 (Note: changes to required standards are indicated in 
bold).
Standard
Rural-43   
Proposed with 
Variance
Min. Front Yard Setback 
40-feet
40-feet
Min. Rear Yard Setback
40-feet
40-feet
Min. Side Yard Setback 
30-feet
30-feet
Maximum Height 
30-feet
30-feet
Minimum Lot Area
43,560-sq. ft.
43,560-sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width
145-feet
145-feet
Lot Coverage
25%
25%
Private Tennis Court or Private Outdoor Recreational Structures
Min. Setback to adjoining property (East Property Line)
20 -feet
5-feet
Min. Height for court fences, walls, or recreational 
structures
14 - feet
14 - feet
           Note: Standards indicated in bold do not meet base zoning standards

Page 6 of 8
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 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.  
“According to Article 501.2. under #15-C it states that a private tennis court or private outdoor 
recreational structure needs to be 20 feet from an adjoining property line. My property is surrounded 
by a solid 6' CMU wall and one can make the assumption that this setback designation is primarily 
to prevent negative visual impacts to neighboring properties. There is no clear definition of what 
consists of a "recreational outdoor structure" and can assume that that can be interpreted as visual 
structures that can be seen from a neighboring property. As shown on the site plan there are no 
visible structures within 20' of a property line. However plans examiners have interpreted a 
recreational structure as being the concrete slab portion. My property is flat and does have an 
irregular shape and there is an easement on the property to protect a 6" Town of Gilbert waterline 
located just to the South of the existing court and wouldn't allow me to have rotated the court in the 
other direction and making it easer to maintain a larger distance from the property line. The 
neighbor to the East of the property line and court maintains a row of mature Chinese Elm trees 
that completely block any view of the court and helps dampen any noise coming from the area.”
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 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.
“With the general high cost of land in the Phoenix area, open space is at a premium and maintaining 
a zoning ordinance that would in many cases prevent a low impact structure as a sports court from 
being built due to the lack of overall space by having to also respect a 20' setback is in my opinion 
unreasonable. When you look at other setbacks, with a pool being 3' which could have high diving 
platforms or other structures visible from a neighboring property or with what my neighbor has is a 
20' tall RV garage 5' off my North property line. Allowing those things which have a high visual 
impact on neighbors but not allowing a concrete slab doesn't sound reasonable and only creates 
an environment where people are forced to not file for permits.”
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.
“I believe the general intent of the zoning ordinance is to prevent excessive visual disturbances to 
a neighboring property by someone constructing large playground equipment, light poles, 
basketball hoops so close to the property lines that can either lead to excessive light extending over 
to other properties or playground balls ending up in someone else's yard. What I have would not 
lead to that as all light poles and basketball lhoop are almost double of what is the county's 20'

Page 7 of 8
limit. Combining with the solid block wall, mature trees, no visual signs of a basketball hoop or 
lights within 20' does not negatively represent the general intent of the zoning ordinance. I also 
discussed this with my neighbors beforehand and none objected to the project.”
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 is unable to identify a peculiar condition facing the property. Typical for most 
residential properties, the subject parcel is flat and not encumbered by floodplain.
•
Staff is unable to identify an undue hardship created by the enforcement of the MCZO. 
The development of a primary use (a single-family residence) on the property fulfills the 
general intent and purpose of the Rural-43 zoning district. Furthermore, the need for 
variance could have been avoided, had setback requirements been addressed with review 
of a building permit prior to development of the court.
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 minimum 5’ east setback for a private sports court for 
APN 304-72-028H.

Page 8 of 8
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 (3 pages)

/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
1
Gross Acres: 2 approx.
Generated September 4, 2025 2:03 PM
BA250050
Application Name:
Legal Description
Olson Sports Court
Applicant
Case Address
2S 6E 17
Jay Olson
21407 S 145TH ST
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:304-72-028H
4802211520
jay@capitalstainless.com
GILBERT, AZ 85298
Map scale 1:844
Supervisor District No.
Requesting a variance to allow a sports court setback of 5' from the allowed 20' off the property line.

Planning & Development Department 
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 
P: 602.506.3301 
Residential Variance Application Packet 
12/2/24 
RESIDENTIAL VARIANCE  
PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION 
APPLICATION FORM 
 
ALL FEES ARE DUE AT TIME OF APPLICATION AND ARE NON-REFUNDABLE 
RESIDENTIAL VARIANCE REQUEST 
Description of Request: 
Existing Zoning District and Use of Property: 
Related Case Number(s): 
PROPERTY INFORMATION 
Address (if known): 
General Location (include nearest city/town): 
 
Size in Acres: 
 
Square Feet: 
Legal Description: 
Section: 
Township: 
Range: 
Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): 
Subdivision Name (if applicable): 
Is this subject property within an area of 15% or greater hillside slopes? Yes  
  No  
APPLICANT INFORMATION 
Name: 
Contact: 
Address: 
City: 
State: 
Zip: 
Phone #: 
Fax #: 
E-mail Address: 
PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION 
Name: 
Contact: 
Address: 
City: 
State: 
Zip: 
Phone #: 
Fax #: 
E-mail Address: 
PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT AUTHORIZATION  
I (property owner) 
 
authorize (applicant’s name) 
to file this application on all matters relating to this request with Maricopa County. By signing this form as the property owner I hereby agree to 
abide by any and all conditions that may be assigned by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County Planning and Zoning 
Commission, or Maricopa County Planning and Development Department staff as applicable, as part of any approval of this request, including 
conditions, development agreements, and/or any other requirement that may encumber or otherwise affect the use of my property. 
PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER – SIGNATURE REQUIRED  
The property owner acknowledges that the approval being sought by this application may cause a reduction in the existing rights to use, 
divide, sell or possess the private property that is the subject of this application.  The property owner further acknowledges that it is the 
property owner who has requested the action sought by the filing of this application.  Therefore, with full knowledge of all rights granted to 
the property owner pursuant to A.R.S.§1§12-1132 through 1138, the property owner does hereby waive any and all claims for diminution in 
value of the property with regard to any action taken by Maricopa County as result of the filing of this application. 
Property Owner Signature: 
Date: 
INSPECTIONS 
By submitting this application, I am inviting County staff to conduct all site inspections they deem necessary. 
VERIFICATION OF APPLICATION INFORMATION  –  SIGNATURE REQUIRED  
I certify that the statements in this application and support material are true. Any approvals or permits granted by Maricopa County in reliance 
upon the truthfulness of these statements may be revoked or rescinded.  
Owner or Authorized Agent Signature: 
Date: 
ARS § 1605 TIMEFRAME EXTENSION  
I authorize a 50% timeframe extension for the review of my application as adopted by the Board of Supervisors per ARS § 1605 and as 
amended. 
 
Property Owner Signature: _________________________________________________________   Date: 
  ______________________________ 
To request the setback of a sports court concrete slab to start 5' away instead of 20' away from property line. 
21407 S. 145th St  Gilbert, AZ  85298
Gilbert
2.00
97,685.00
17
2S
6E
304-72-028H
I
Jay Olson
Jay Olson
21407 S. 145th St  Gilbert, AZ  85298
GIlbert
AZ
85298
(480) 221-1520
jay@capitalstainless.com
Jay Olson
21407 S. 145th St  Gilbert, AZ  85298
Gilbert
AZ
85298
(480) 221-1520
jay@capitalstainless.com
JAY T OLSON AND ASHLEY OLSON TRU
Jay Olson
Jay Olson
Digitally signed by Jay Olson 
Date: 2025.07.09 15:28:37 -07'00'
07/09/2025
Jay Olson
Digitally signed by Jay Olson 
Date: 2025.07.09 15:28:46 -07'00'
RU-43  Residential
07/09/2025

Planning & Development Department 
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 
P: 602.506.3301 
Variance Application 
Packet 12/1/23 
 
 
 
VARIANCE SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE
ARS §11-816 B.2 
The Board of Adjustment may allow a variance from the terms of the ordinance when, owing to peculiar 
conditions, a strict interpretation would work an unnecessary hardship, if in granting such variance the 
general intent and purposes of the zoning ordinance will be preserved. 
1.
Please discuss and explain what is/are the peculiar condition(s) facing the property and include reference to the
Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulation(s) or Development Standard(s) to be varied.  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 Regulation(s) or Development Standard(s) would impose
a hardship on the property.
2.
Please explain the unnecessary hardship the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance creates because of a peculiar
condition/the peculiar conditions on site. Please discuss and explain that the peculiar condition of the property is
not self-created in the line of title.
According to Article 501.2. under #15-C it states that a private tennis court or private outdoor recreational 
structure needs to be 20 feet from an adjoining property line.  My property is surrounded by a solid 6' CMU 
wall and one can make the assumption that this setback designation is primarily to prevent negative visual 
impacts to neighboring properties.  There is no clear definition of what consists of a "recreational outdoor 
structure" and can assume that that can be interpreted as visual structures that can be seen from a 
neighboring property.  As shown on the site plan there are no visible structures within 20' of a property 
line.  However plans examiners have interpreted a recreational structure as being the concrete slab 
portion.  My property is flat and does have an irregular shape and there is an easement on the property to 
protect a 6" Town of Gilbert waterline located just to the South of the existing court and wouldn't allow me 
to have rotated the court in the other direction and making it easer to maintain a larger distance from the 
property line.  The neighbor to the East of the property line and court maintains a row of mature Chinese 
Elm trees that completely block any view of the court and helps dampen any noise coming from the area. 
With the general high cost of land in the Phoenix area, open space is at a premium and 
maintaining a zoning ordinance that would in many cases prevent a low impact structure as 
a sports court from being built due to the lack of overall space by having to also respect a 
20' setback is in my opinion unreasonable.  When you look at other setbacks, with a pool 
being 3' which could have high diving platforms or other structures visible from a 
neighboring property or with what my neighbor has is a 20' tall RV garage 5' off my North 
property line.  Allowing those things which have a high visual impact on neighbors but not 
allowing a concrete slab doesn't sound reasonable and only creates an environment where 
people are forced to not file for permits.

Planning & Development Department 
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 
P: 602.506.3301 
Variance Application 
Packet 12/1/23 
 
 
 
3.
Please discuss and explain how the granting of the requested variance would not cause a negative impact on
the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
*Additional sheets may be attached.
** DO NOT USE THIS FORM IF YOU ARE SUBMITTING AN INTERPRETATION 
I believe the general intent of the zoning ordinance is to prevent excessive visual 
disturbances to a neighboring property by someone constructing large playground 
equipment, light poles, basketball hoops so close to the property lines that can either 
lead to excessive light extending over to other properties or playground balls ending up in 
someone else's yard.  What I have would not lead to that as all light poles and basketball 
hoop are almost double of what is the county's 20' limit.  Combining with the solid block 
wall, mature trees, no visual signs of a basketball hoop or lights within 20' does not 
negatively represent the general intent of the zoning ordinance. 
I also discussed this with my neighbors beforehand and none objected to the project.

35’x65’ 
Concrete pad 
Concrete pad 
Jay Olson   21407 S. 145th St  
Gilbert, AZ  85297  480-221-1520   
APN:  304-72-028H
NORTH 
34’ 
38’
38’ 
72’ 
5’ 
DOCKET 10823-144 MCR  33-foot wide 
road, utility and irrigation easement 
DOCKET 10823-144 MCR  25-foot wide 
public utility and irrigation easement 
Existing 245’ of 6’ tall CMU block wall 
Existing 155’ of 6’ tall CMU block wall 
Electrical path: 
1-1/4” Sch 40 PVC conduit
2’ below grade
Light pole electrical 
3/4” Sch 40 PVC conduit 
Below concrete 
Scale    1”= 60’ 
Lot coverage 
Concrete slab  
 2,275SF 
Total  
    97,685 SF 
Existing 4’ tall chain link fence

Concrete pad 
Jay Olson   21407 S. 145th St  Gilbert, AZ  85297  480-221-1520   APN:  304-72-028G 
65’ 
35’ 
•
Medium broom finish.
•
No curing compound.
•
1” drop per 10’ for drainage.
•
8”x12” perimeter beam
•
Post tension (see attached drawing)
•
Concrete to have Fiber mesh.
•
4” compacted ABC
20’ light poles with dual head 
LED light fixture, 120v 
Existing 4’ chain link fencing

Concrete 
pad 
20’ light poles with dual head 
LED light fixture 
Concrete pad 
 
 
 
                               Jay Olson   21407 S. 145th St  Gilbert, AZ  85297  480-221-1520   APN:  304-72-028G 
NORTH