02.BA250033 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
23012 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA250033 – Wiley Property Hearing Date: August 14, 2025 (continued from July 17, 2025) Supervisor District: 1 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: Rustin Genet, Quality Pool Construction, LLC Property Owners: David and Joanne Wiley Requests: Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed use-specific setback of 4’ for a private sports court from the lot lines of adjacent properties under separate ownership to the north and west where 20’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Article 702.2.8.a. 2) Proposed north (front yard) setback of 3’ where 20’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Article 702.4.1.a and 702.4.1.b Site Location: APN 304-87-056B @ 16832 E. Hazeltine Way in the Gilbert area Site Size: 20,587 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence / R-4 Open Violation: V2500288 Background: 1. January 4, 2021: The subject parcel and four sibling parcels were split from APN 304-87-056A in a minor land division per split control ID 189910. 2. October 20, 2022: The Certificate of Occupancy was issued for the single-family residence on the subject parcel per building permit B202102630. 3. December 7, 2022: Keishla Baez-Rivera and Tanner Shuck took possession of the subject parcel, per Warranty Deed 2022-0877814. 4. January 26, 2023: A building permit (B202216567) was issued for the swimming pool on the subject parcel. However, inspections were not completed, and the permit has since expired. 5. February 25, 2025: A code violation (V2500288) was opened on the subject parcel for construction of a basketball / pickleball court without an issued building permit. 6. May 8, 2025: The then-owners submitted the subject variance request. Page 2 of 8 7. May 29, 2025: The current owners, Joanne and David Wiley, took possession of the subject parcel, per Warranty Deed 2025-0310346. Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Uses: 8. On-site: R-4 / Single-family residence North: Stacey Road, then SF-15 (Gilbert) / Single-family residence South: R-4 / Single-family residence East: R-4 / Single-family residence West: R-4 / Single-family residence Variance Request: 9. The applicant and property owners are requesting a variance to Article 702.2.8.a of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance (MCZO) to permit a private pickleball / basketball court on Parcel 304- 87-056B with setbacks of 4’ from adjoining properties, where a minimum of 20’ is required in the R-4 zoning district. The court was built without permits and is the subject of an active code violation, per case V2500288. The owners are also requesting a variance to permit a 3’ front setback from the north property line, where a minimum of 20’ is required in the R-4 zoning district. The property is a through lot with legal access from both the north and the south. As such, the north and south lot lines are both front lot lines. Approval of the variance would allow the court to be permitted at its current location. Issuance of a building permit would remove the violation. Excerpt from Proposed Site Plan Page 3 of 8 Site Analysis: 10. The parcel is located within a lot-split area in the southernmost reaches of the Gilbert municipal planning area, just north and east of where Higley Road curves into Hunt Highway along the county line. Though the property is just northeast of Round Top hill (itself a satellite of the nearby Santan Mountains), the property itself is flat. There are no washes or floodplain near the property, which is rectangular in shape and meets all the intensity of use regulations of the underlying R-4 zoning district. The site, overall, is typical for a single-family residential property in unincorporated Maricopa County. It is accessible via Hazeltine Way, a 24’-wide ingress/egress easement. The centerline of the easement corresponds with the south property line, establishing the north half of the easement to correspond with the southernmost 12’ of the property. The existing residence just meets the required 20’ front setback from Hazeltine Way (a de facto 32’ setback from the south lot line). The property is bounded by Stacey Road along and opposite the north lot line. The Stacey Road right-of-way was recently transferred from MCDOT to the Town of Gilbert. 11. The streets along the north and south lot lines render the property a through lot, requiring that a 20’ front yard setback be measured from the north lot line as well as from Hazeltine Way. Even so, due to the south-facing orientation of the residence, the portion of the property north of the residence functions effectively like a rear yard. A wall separates the property from Stacey Road, and staff previously issued a building permit for a swimming pool north of the residence. Staff notes that accessory structures and uses may be placed in a rear yard if they each meet a minimum setback of 5’ from the rear lot line (or 3’ if fire-rated). However, accessory structures and uses cannot be placed in a front yard. Building permit records do not indicate a vehicular non- access easement (VNAE) along the north lot line. Furthermore, the wall along the north lot line features a gate, effectively allowing access to the property from Stacey Road. As such, a 20’ front yard setback must be observed from the north lot line. The swimming pool meets this setback, but as noted in paragraph 12 below, the court is only 4’ from the north lot line. Even if the Board approves a variance to the court-specific setback, the court will still encroach upon the front yard. Therefore, staff offers an additional variance, approval of which would establish a 3’ north property line front setback for APN 304-87-056B. 12. Regardless of the required yard setbacks, private sports courts are subject to a use-specific setback requirement. In all rural and residential zoning districts, including R-4, courts must be set back a minimum of 20’ from any adjoining property under separate ownership from the subject property. In 2023, the then-owners built a private pickleball and basketball court without benefit of a building permit (no permit was submitted for review, let alone issued). The court was built to a setback of only 5’ from the west lot line and 4’ from the north lot line, which would have been flagged during zoning plan review had the previous owners applied for a permit. 13. A code violation was opened on the property in February 2025 due to citizen complaint. The complaint referenced the court’s unpermitted construction and substandard setbacks from adjoining properties, as well as unpermitted lights that were too bright and unshielded. Site photographs taken by the Code Compliance division on March 17, 2025, confirmed the violation, although subsequent photographs taken on June 9, 2025, show that the lights have since been removed, as noted on the applicant’s site plan. Staff notes that, upon permitting, any accessory lighting provided for a sports court must be limited to a maximum height of 20’ and a minimum setback of 20’. Additionally, any fences or other structures related to a sports court must be limited to a maximum height of 12’ in the R-4 zoning district. Otherwise, fences or walls must be limited to a height of 8’ outside the principal building envelope. 14. On July 9, 2025, staff received a letter of opposition from the owner of the adjacent property to the west. It is this neighboring property from which the applicant is requesting the reduced court setback. In her letter, the neighbor states that the court’s proximity is causing noise disturbance Page 4 of 8 and creating an ongoing safety hazard as basketballs and pickleballs frequently cross into her property – incidents that have already resulted in property damage. The neighbor also alleges that the applicant was aware of the applicable regulations and nonetheless opted to build the court without benefit of a permit. 15. If the requested variance is granted, the applicant or property owners will be responsible for obtaining an as-built permit for the court. If the variance is denied, the applicant or owners will be responsible for removing the court. 2025 Aerial Image of the Subject Site 2025 Aerial Image of Surrounding Environs Page 5 of 8 March 17, 2025 Photograph Taken from Stacey Road June 9, 2025 Photograph Taken from Stacey Road Page 6 of 8 Eagle View of Subject Site Looking North (dated March 1, 2025) Zoning District Map (Subject Parcel Outlined in Red) Page 7 of 8 Zoning District Standards: 16. The following table is included to illustrate and contrast the standards for the underlying zoning district with those proposed by the owners (proposed changes to standards are indicated in bold). Standard R-4 Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Front Setback (residence to Hazeltine Way) 20-feet 20-feet Min. Front Setback (residence to north property line) 20-feet 3-feet Min. Interior Side Setback (residence to east property line) 5-feet 5-feet Min. Interior Side Setback (residence to west property line) 5-feet 5-feet Private Sports Court Setback from Adjoining Properties 20-feet 4-feet Maximum Height 40-feet 40-feet Minimum Lot Area 6,000-sq. ft. 20,587-sq. ft. Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit 2,000-sq. ft. 20,587-sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 60-feet 125-feet Lot Coverage 60% Approx. 22.7% 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.” 17. 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. “We are requesting a private sports court to be set back 4’ from adjoining properties where 20’ is the minimum required per MCZO 702.2.8.a.” 18. 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 private court is built (and it is well done.) The whole back yard is very well put together. The asthetics of the back yard would be hindered, as well as the cost to remove.” 19. 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 variance would not cause a negative impact as the neighbors have no objections to this court. The court will be used with respect to the games, friends, family and neighborhood and Page 8 of 8 negative actions by the participants will not be tolerated. The court would be used as a means of family fitness and cohesiveness.” Findings: 20. 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. To approve the variance, the Board must make findings and articulate them in motion memorializing the above. 21. 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 R-4 zoning district. Furthermore, the code violation could have been avoided, and the need for variance negated, had setback requirements been addressed with review of a building permit prior to development of the court. 22. 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 4’ setback for a private sports court for APN 304-87-056B. b) Variance approval establishes a 3’ north property line front setback for APN 304-87-056B. 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) Letter of Opposition (2 pages) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 1 Gross Acres: 0 approx. Generated June 25, 2025 11:21 AM BA250033 Application Name: Legal Description Shuck Variance Sport Court Applicant Case Address 2S 6E 35 Rustin Genet 16832 E HAZELTINE WAY Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:304-87-056B (480) 888-5135 rustin@qualitypoolconstruction.com QUEEN CREEK, AZ 85142 Map scale 1:409 Supervisor District No. Variance for Code Compliance sports court SITE PLAN NOTES. COUNTY 1. 0000 IS THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION,OR EQUAL TO 000'-0". 2.ALL FOOTINGS WILL EXTEND 12" MIN. INTO THE NATURAL GRADE FOR A SINGLE STORY STRUCTURE,& 18" MIN. FOR 2-STORY STRUCTURE. 3.SLOPE ALL FINISHED GRADES AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE. 4.THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR WILL VERIFY ALL LOCATIONS,OR APPROXIMENTS. 5.REVEGETATE ALL CUT AND FILL AREA'S. 6.PROVIDE RIPRAP AT ALL SLOPE'S GREATER THAN 3' TO 1', 50% PLANT,50 % ROCK. 7.ALL NATURAL VEGETATION MUST BE PRESEVED EXCEPT WHAT IS CONTAINED WITH'IN THE BUILDABLE AREA,ANY ALTERATION TO THE EXCITING LANDSCAPE WILL BE PERMITTED WITH-IN THE BUILDING ENVELOPE ONLY. 8.FUTURE CONSTRUCTION TO INCLUDE,PATIO WALL'S LANDSCAPING & ANY ALTERATION'S WILL BE CONTAINED WITHEN THE BUILDING ENVELOPE,& SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL BY THE H.O.A. OR BUILDING OFFICIALS. 9.REPAIRS TO SITE CAUSED BY CONSTRUCTION. (A.) REPAIR EXCAVATION DAMAGE AND GRADING DAMAGE. (B.)ALL VEGETATION DESTROYED OUTSIDE THE IMMEDIATE BUILDING PAD WILL BE RESTORED. (C.)PIRPAP OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED EXSPOSED SLOPES/ 50 % PLANT,50 % ROCK. (D.)REPLANT/REVEGETATE, USING PLANTING MATERIAL NATIVE TO THIS SITE. 10.STANDARD SUBDIVISION MAILBOX , & POST LIGHTS MUT BE INSTALLED PER THE H.O.A. AND COUNTY DESIGN GUIDE LINES. 11. EXTERIOR LIGHTING WILL MEET THE H.O.A. COUNTY DESIGN GUIDE LINES. 12. PROVIDE, GATES & WALLS TO MECHANICL YARDS,TRASH ENCLOSURE IS LOCATED INSIDE OF GARAGES. 13. PAINTED OR COATED FINISHES ARE REQUIRED FOR THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS, (A.) EXPOSED UTILITY DEVISES,SUCH AS,(METERS,PIPES,OUTLETS ETC.) (B.)ANY EXPOSED SHEET METAL. (C.) ALL BUILT UP ROOFS,THAT ARE NOT WHITE OR OF A REFLECTIVE COLOR,MUST SUBMIT COLOR FOR APPROVAL BY THE H.O.A. OR THE COUNTY BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO USE. MARICOPA NORTH DEVELOPED AREA CALCS. TOTAL LOT AREA: 20,587 SQ.FT. BUILDING AREA: 4,672 SQ.FT. COVERAGE: 22.7% LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PROPERTY LINE EXSTING CONTOUR NEW CONTOUR CONSTRUCTION BARRIER MINIMUM SETBACK LIMITS OF GRADING CENTER LINE STREET ELECTRIC SERVICE GAS SERVICE SEWER SERVICE WATER SERVICE LEGEND LIGHT POLES, LIGHT POLES WILL BE REMOVED. VIOLATION: INSTALLED A BASKETBALL/PICKLE BALL COURT, WITH DESCRIPTION OF WORK C/L EXISTING STRUCT. SITE PLAN DRAWN BY: SCALE: SHEET# PAGE # JOB #: DATE: 0519.25-8 1 1 1" = 20' 05/27/25 16832 W. HAZELTINE WAY. CHECKED BY: SITE PLAN THE WILEY RESIDENCE REVISIONS BY: SCALE OF DRAWING @ 1" = 20' SIDE SET BACK 5'-0" PARCEL # VICINITY MAP 16832 E. HAZELTINE DR. NOT TO SCALE QUEEN CREEK AZ. 85142 S.KOLLO DRAWN BY: 125.60' 163.91' S89d 58' 27" E N0d 00' 32" W R4 SIDE SET BACK 5'-0" R.Y. SET BACK 25'-0" E E. HAZELTINE WAY HUNT HWY HAZELTINE WAY E. PALM BEACH DR. DAVID WILEY 16832 W. HAZELTINE WAY QUEEN CREEK AZ. 85142 PARCEL #304-87-56B LOT SIZE: 20,587 ZONING R4 S W MOUNTAINVIEW DRAFTING & DESIGN LLC. SCOTT KOLLO 520-258-9686 CUSTOM HOMES, STANDARD PLANS, ADU's, ADDITIONS, REMODELS, VIOLATION PROJECTS. 163.91' S0d 00' 32" W 125.60' S89d 58' 27" E C/L E. STACEY RD. 25' 25' F.Y. SET BACK 20'-0" *NOTE: BASKETBALL/PICKLE BALL COURT OVERHEAD LIGHTS SHALL BE REMOVED AND ALL ELECTRIC WILL BE ABANDONED BACK TO THE ELECTRICAL PANEL. BASKETBALL/PICKLE BALL COURT POOL DECK EXISTING GARAGE EXISTING C/PATIO EXISTING C/PATIO DRIVEWAY EXISTING CMU WALL EXISTING CMU WALL EXISTING CMU WALL EXISTING CMU WALL EXISTING CMU WALL EXISTING CMU WALL 36'-9" 5'-0" 4'-0" DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. BUILDING AREA CALCS. LIVABLE: 2,821 SQ. FT. GARAGE: 974 SQ. FT. TOTAL: 4,672 SQ. FT. C/ENTRY: 408 SQ. FT. C/PATIO: 469 SQ. FT. NON-LIVABLE: 1,851 SQ. FT. 10'-0" MIN. 5'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" EASEMENT & P.U.E EASEMENT & P.U.E STACEY RD. S. HIGLEY RD. 304-87-056B 20'-0" 07/02/25 SK Written Comment – Variance Case BA250033 Submitted by: Anterre Beebe (Adjacent Property Owner) Dear Board Members, Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this variance request. I live immediately west of the property seeking a variance for a sport court, court lights, and basketball hoop that were built without permits--just 58 inches from our shared fence line, well short of the required 20-foot setback. (See Photo 1) This extreme proximity has created an ongoing safety hazard for my family. Basketballs and high- speed pickleballs frequently fly over the fence into our yard. It’s not a matter of if someone gets hurt, it’s when. I can easily picture my teenage daughter sunbathing by the pool when a basketball launches over and hits her. Or our dog getting sick after chewing on a stray pickleball. These are real concerns, not hypotheticals. (See Photo 2) The court has also caused property damage. We’ve had basketballs hit our dining room and bedroom windows, and pickleballs get pulled into our pool filtration system. Balls have smashed into landscaping and outdoor furniture by the pool. While the damage has been relatively minor so far, it’s only a matter of time until it’s not. The issue isn’t the player skill level, it’s how close the court is to our home. (See Photos 3 and 4) There’s also the issue of noise and disturbance. Basketballs hitting the backboard or bouncing off concrete are loud, but pickleball is something else entirely. Its sharp, repetitive pops are jarring and carry through my entire home. As pickleball grows in popularity, so do noise complaints--because people quickly realize how disruptive it is. A quick Google search shows that typical pickleball courts generate noise in the 60–70 decibel range, which exceeds many residential noise standards. It’s just not compatible with the quiet nature of a residential backyard. Additionally, the light spillover from the court lights is extreme and literally illuminates our dining room, living room, primary bedroom and daughter’s bedroom. Finally, I want to point out that the contractor who built the court knew the permitting regulations. He applied for a pool permit at the same time, yet skipped permits for the court and lighting presumably because he knew they wouldn’t be approved. Whether it was deliberate or careless, it shouldn’t be rewarded. Granting a variance after the fact sends a troubling message: that the zoning code can be ignored if you push the issue far enough. It invites others to build whatever they want, wherever they want, and hope no one challenges it. I respectfully urge the Board to deny this variance. My family shouldn’t have to sacrifice our safety, peace, and property value so someone else can have a full-size, recreational, park-like setup in a space that simply can’t accommodate it and doesn’t meet the size requirements for such use. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Anterre Beebe Supporting Photos Photo #1 Photo #2 58-inch setback shown from our side of the fence using a measuring tape. View of basketball hoop and court directly adjacent to our poolside lounge area. Photo #3 Photo #4 Court and proximity as viewed from our backyard, showing full hoop height and visual intrusion. Photo posted to public Instagram showing court and basketball hoop’s distance from fence line, taken from inside the neighboring property.