06.BA250053 BOA Staff Report

Report to the Board of Adjustment
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case: 
BA250053 – Cohen/Wagner Property
Hearing Date:
September 18, 2025
Supervisor District:
1
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Applicant: 
Devin Bell
Property Owners:
Kristie Cohen & Calli Leilani Wagner
Request:
Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning 
Ordinance to permit:
1)
Proposed front yard setback of 30’ where 40’ is the minimum required per 
MCZO Article 503.4.1
Site Location:
APN 304-90-072D @ 26510 S. 193rd Way in the Queen Creek area
Site Size:
Approx. 43,570 sq. ft. 
Current Use / Zoning:
Single-family residence / Rural-43
Open Violation:
No violation on property
Background:
1.
June 27, 2023: The subject parcel, APN 304-90-072D, was split from its parent parcel, APN 304-
90-072.
2.
July 9, 2024: Maricopa County issued the Certificate of Occupancy for the single-family residence 
on the property per building permit B202308117.
3.
August 29, 2024: The current owners, Kristie Cohen and Calli Leilani Wagner, took possession of the 
subject parcel, per Warranty Deed 2024-0461296.
4.
July 23, 2025: The applicant submitted the subject variance request.

Page 2 of 8
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use:
5.
On-site:
Rural-43 / single-family residence
North:
Rural-43 / single-family residence
South:
Rural-43 / single-family residence
East:
Rural-43 / single-family residence
West:
Rural-43 / single-family residence
Variance Request:
6.
The applicant is requesting a variance to Article 503.4.1 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance 
(MCZO) to permit a reduced front yard setback on Parcel 304-90-072D. A single-family residence 
was built on the property in 2024. The owners are now proposing to build a detached accessory 
building in the setback areas along the north and west lot lines. Detached accessory structures 
are allowed by right within rear yards and interior side yards so long as they observe a minimum 
setback of 3’ from respective lot lines and the total coverage of all accessory structures does not 
exceed 30% of any rear or interior side yard. Detached accessory structures, however, cannot be 
built in front yards or street side yards.
Excerpt from Proposed Site Plan

Page 3 of 8
Site Analysis:
7.
The property is located in a lot split area approximately ¼ mile north and east of Sossaman Road 
and Hunt Highway in the Queen Creek area. The unregulated lot split, processed in 2023, resulted 
in five parcels oriented around an ingress/egress easement for 193rd Way. These include two flag 
lots and a “baseball diamond” lot at the end of the cul-de-sac. The subject parcel is the westerly 
of the two flag lots. Its panhandle, or “flagpole,” corresponds with the west half of the approximate 
north half of 193rd Way. As a result of this orientation, the subject property’s flagpole provides 
access to the residence on the adjacent property to the north. As the easement continues south 
from the flagpole, it provides access to the residence on the subject property itself. Based on the 
orientation of the parcels, it appears that the flag lots were a means of allowing the developer to 
create up to five parcels, each measuring at least one gross acre, from the original parent parcel. 
Without the flagpoles, the subject parcel and its neighbor to the east would each be less than the 
one acre required in the Rural-43 zoning district.
8.
With 193rd Way providing driveway access to the residence, the east lot line functions effectively 
as the front of the property. However, due to the flagpole, the property has legal access from 
Happy Road as well (Happy Road is a quarter-section line road whose intersection with 193rd Way 
forms the entrance to the community). This means that both the north and east lot lines have 
street frontage. Furthermore, Chapter 2 of the MCZO defines a front lot line as the shortest lot 
line with legal access. The property has two north lot lines: one along the “tip” of the flagpole and 
one along the “flag” portion of the lot. Even so, since the north lot lines put together are still shorter 
than the east, one interpretation to make from the lot’s orientation is that the north serves as the 
front whereas the east serves as the street side. The zoning clearance for the existing residence 
was approved based on this interpretation: the residence is setback 30’ from 193rd Way, greater 
than the 20’ required for a street side but less than the 40’ required for a front. Put simply, the east 
was understood to be the street side – and the north was understood to be the front – when the 
residence was permitted. With this understanding, allowing a detached accessory building 
proximate to the north lot line would require a front setback reduction from 40’ to no more than 
8’. This was the applicant’s original request.
9.
An alternate interpretation, however, may be derived from the fact that the entire flagpole is within 
the easement (193rd Way) that extends the length of the east lot line. For this reason, the 
unencumbered area of the lot has no direct access to Happy Road to the north. Therefore, staff’s 
alternate interpretation is that the east setback from 193rd Way is, in fact, the true front yard. This 
interpretation would also establish a rear yard to the west and side yards to the north and south, 
respectively. Furthermore, a detached accessory building could be permitted in the north yard 
without need for variance. Since the unencumbered area of the lot has no frontage along Happy 
Road, the north yard would be considered an interior side yard rather than a street side yard. Upon 
reviewing this request and the facts of the case, staff believes this interpretation of the property’s 
established setbacks is most appropriate. With this interpretation, however, variance would still 
be necessary to negate the existing residence’s nonconformance to the required front setback of 
40’. Specifically, a variance to establish a front setback of 30’ from 193rd Way would be necessary.

Page 4 of 8
2025 Aerial Image of Subject Site
2025 Aerial Image of the Subject Site (Red) and its Sister Parcels (Blue)

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:
10.
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 193rd Way) 
40-feet
30-feet
Min. Rear Setback (residence to west lot line)
40-feet
40-feet
Min. Interior Side Setback (residence to north lot line)
30-feet
30-feet
Min. Interior Side Setback (residence to south lot line)
20-feet
20-feet
Maximum Height 
30-feet
30-feet
Minimum Lot Area
43,560-sq. ft.
43,570-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.”
11.
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 property is a corner flag lot with a 10-foot access strip on E. Happy Rd, which is defined by 
MCZO Chapter 2 as the front lot line, and a 281.56-foot frontage on S. 193rd Way. The required 40-
foot front setback (MCZO Article 503.4.1) from the 10-foot access leg pushes development into 
impractical areas of the lot. This configuration, along with the lot’s irregular shape and detached 
buildable area, imposes a hardship by restricting usable space for an accessory structure. There 
are no slopes, washes, or vegetation issues, but the narrow access and orientation make 
enforcement unreasonable.”
12.
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 hardship arises from the zoning ordinance's front lot line definition, not from any action by the 
owner. The corner flag lot layout was established in the recorded plat and is a result of historical 
parcel configuration. The 10-foot frontage was never intended for development, only access. Thus, 
the hardship is not self-created, but was created by the developer/builder during lot division and is 
a product of how the ordinance applies to an atypical lot shape.”
13.
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

Page 7 of 8
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 variance will not negatively impact the zoning ordinance’s purpose. The proposed 
accessory structure will meet all other setback requirements, maintain neighborhood character, 
and not affect traffic visibility or adjacent properties. The variance supports logical use of the 
parcel, aligning with the ordinance’s intent to allow reasonable development while preserving public 
safety and aesthetics.”
Findings: 
14.
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.  
15.
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 orientation of the subject parcel as a “flag lot” establishes a lot width (the distance 
between the side lot lines) that is longer than the lot depth (the distance between the front 
and rear lot lines). These dimensions, in turn, establish a narrow building envelope within 
which primary structures may be permitted. As such, the orientation of the parcel and its 
consequences may be construed as peculiar conditions.
•
The hardships created by these conditions, however, were created in the line of title due 
to poor lot splitting practice with an unregulated land division on the part of the developer. 
For this reason, staff is unable to identify an unnecessary hardship created by the 
enforcement of the MCZO.
•
The existing single-family residence appears to have been granted zoning clearance 
based on a misinterpretation of the setback requirements for flag lots as determined by 
the locations of streets (including ingress/egress easements). Consequently, the existing 
residence is nonconforming to the established front setback of 40’ from 193rd Way. 
Without variance, the property will remain in violation of MCZO Article 503.4.1.

Page 8 of 8
16.
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 an east front setback line of 30’ as measured from the 193rd 
Way street line for APN 304-90-072D.
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 (1 page)

/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
1
Gross Acres: 1 approx.
Generated September 4, 2025 2:26 PM
BA250053
Application Name:
Legal Description
Applicant
Case Address
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:
Map scale 1:1,326
Supervisor District No.

Planning & Development Department 
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 
P: 602.506.3301 
Variance Application 
Packet 12/1/23 
VARIANCE / INTERPRETATION  
APPLICATION 
ALL FEES ARE DUE AT TIME OF APPLICATION AND ARE NON-REFUNDABLE 
 
Is this Design Build? 
 Yes 
 No 
Is this Residential? 
 Yes 
 No 
Please select the type of Board of Adjustment application from the checkboxes below. 
 Residential Variance 
 Non-residential Variance 
 Interpretation 
 BA Blanket Variance 
Is this subject property within an area of 15% or greater hillside slopes? Yes 
  No  
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): 
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: 
  ______________________________ 
I
Acessory Building to be inside of 40'  front yard setback
26510 S 193rd Way, Queen Creek, AZ 85142
Queen Creek
1.0046
43,760.376
32
2 South
7 East
304-90-072D
Southwest Building Solutions
Chris GIlbert
1929 Lone Cactus DR Ste 6
Phoenix
AZ
85207
602-526-0247
chris@southwestbuildings.com
Kristie Cohen and Calli Leilani Wagner
Kristie Cohen
26510 S 193rd Way
Queen Creek
AZ
85142
(714) 348-3635
Kristie Cohen
Southwest Building Solutions
7/23/2025
07 / 24 / 2025
07 / 24 / 2025
Doc ID: 91c3b54dd4b1a2f7a26d2593745bdfa06823f4e2

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.
The property is a corner flag lot with a 10-foot access strip on E. Happy Rd, which is 
defined by MCZO Chapter 2 as the front lot line, and a 281.56-foot frontage on S. 193rd 
Way. The required 40-foot front setback (MCZO Article 503.4.1) from the 10-foot access leg 
pushes development into impractical areas of the lot. This configuration, along with the lot’s 
irregular shape and detached buildable area, imposes a hardship by restricting usable 
space for an accessory structure. There are no slopes, washes, or vegetation issues, but 
the narrow access and orientation make enforcement unreasonable.
The hardship arises from the zoning ordinance's front lot line definition, not from any action 
by the owner. The corner flag lot layout was established in the recorded plat and is a result 
of historical parcel configuration. The 10-foot frontage was never intended for development, 
only access. Thus, the hardship is not self-created, but was created by the 
developer/builder during lot division and is a product of how the ordinance applies to an 
atypical lot shape.

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 
Granting the variance will not negatively impact the zoning ordinance’s purpose. The 
proposed accessory structure will meet all other setback requirements, maintain 
neighborhood character, and not affect traffic visibility or adjacent properties. The 
variance supports logical use of the parcel, aligning with the ordinance’s intent to allow 
reasonable development while preserving public safety and aesthetics.