02. BA250002 BOA Report

Report to the Board of Adjustment
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case: 
BA250002 – Thomson Property 
Hearing Date:
July 17, 2025 *(Continued from June 19, 2025)
Supervisor District:
2
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(*denotes changes from the June 19th report)
Applicant/Owner: 
Anthony Thomson
Request:
Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning 
Ordinance to permit:
1)
Proposed rear yard coverage of 64% where 30% is the maximum 
permitted per MCZO Article 1106.2
Site Location:
APN 220-65-003U @ 52 N Meridian Rd. – Apache Trl. and Meridian Rd., in 
the Apache Junction area
Site Size:
35,251sq. ft. 
Current Use / Zoning:
Single-family residence / R-5
Open Violation:
N/A
Background:
1.
Circa 1988: The subject property has existed since at least 1988 as per recorded deed 
MCR1988505653.
2.
December 14, 2023: Subject property conveyed to current property owner as per recorded deed 
MCR 20230640805.
3.
* June 19, 2025 – The BOA continued BA250002  to give the applicant more time to determine 
other options of moving the building eastward and/or reducing the size of the building.  Since that 
meeting the applicant has discussed options with staff, however, would like the Board to consider 
the request as it was submitted at the June 19 meeting.
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use:
4.
On-site:
R-5 / Single-family residence
North:
RM-2 (Apache Junction) / Multi-family apartments 
South:
C-3 / Commercial Retail Center
East:
Meridian Dr. then MHP (Apache Junction)/ Mobile home park
West:
MHP (Apache Junction)/ Mobile home park

Page 2 of 9
Variance Request:
5.
The applicant proposes to exceed the maximum allowed coverage (aggregate area under roof) 
within the required rear yard.  The request is related to a proposed 7,200 sq. ft. detached 
accessory structure to be in the western portion of the property.    The proposed structure is 
shown at 5’ from the rear lot line and 15’ from each the north and south interior lot lines.  The 
application asserts this large shop will be used for typical residential accessory purposes and not 
for commercial uses.  The R-5 zoning district allows for residential accessory structures if they 
are properly permitted.  Staff notes granting of the requested variance would not allow for 
commercial uses on the property beyond what is permitted in the R-5 zoning district that include 
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial uses
6.
MCZO Art. 1106.2 allows for a maximum of 30% of the required rear yard setback to be covered 
by detached accessory structures.  This area constitutes the portion of the property between the 
rear lot line and the western edge of the lot’s principle building envelope, which is the western 25 
feet of the property.  Below are two images of the proposed site plan.  The first is as submitted 
by the applicant showing the proposed location of the desired accessory structure.  The second 
is of the same site plan, but with the rear yard graphically delineated to demonstrate the area of 
the rear yard that would be encumbered by the proposed structure.
Excerpt from proposed site plan

Page 3 of 9
Graphical depiction of proposed rear yard coverage

Page 4 of 9
Applicant provided photo of southwest corner of property taken southwest corner of existing 
residence
Applicant provided photo of western portion of property taken from western portion of existing 
residence

Page 5 of 9
Google Street View Image Meridian Rd. facing west
Site Analysis:
7.
The subject property is of a normal rectangular shape and significantly exceeds minimum zoning 
requirements for lot area and width.  The site itself is relatively flat and devoid of unusual 
geographic features that would inhibit normal development of the site.
8.
Staff notes that the applicant has not yet submitted for a building permit for the proposed 
structure.  A smaller structure that can locate further east of the rear property line may eliminate 
the need for a variance on the property.  It should also be noted that while the property is not 
subject to an active code violation, photographs submitted by the applicant, aerial imagery, and 
other images of the site seem to indicate commercial/industrial uses may be present on the site 
or at least the presence of vehicles non-accessory to a single-family residence.  Additionally, the 
applicant and property owner’s phone contact information corelates with the business phone 
number for Aztec Environmental Services, LLC, a power sweeping and dust control business.  If 
future construction is intended to support a commercial business, it may be more appropriate for 
the property to seek higher intensity zoning that would allow for more intense commercial uses 
and have reduced setback requirements for the placement of the proposed structure without the 
need for variance.  
Aerial photo of subject site

Page 6 of 9
Aerial image & surrounding environs 
 
Eagle Eye View of Site Facing North

Page 7 of 9
Zoning District map
Zoning District Standards:
9.
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 proposed standards are indicated in 
bold).
Standard
Rural-43  
Zoning 
District
Proposed with 
Variance
Min. Front Yard Setback (residence to east property line) 
20-feet
n/a
Min. Rear Yard Setback (west property line)
25-feet
n/a
Min. Side Yard Setback (residence to south and north 
property lines)
5-feet
n/a
Maximum Height 
40-feet
n/a
Minimum Lot Area
6,000-sq. ft.
36,750-sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width
60-feet
150-feet
Lot Coverage
60%
26.66%
Rear Yard Coverage
30%
64%
Note: Standards indicated in bold do not meet base zoning standards

Page 8 of 9
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.  
“Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit an 
increase in allowed coverage of rear yard setbacks area with accessory structures per MCZO 
1106.2.  Requesting maximum lot coverage be increased by 18% to accommodate proposed 
accessory structure.  
The property currently boarders C-3 Commercial on 2 sides, and high-density multi-family 
complexes on the other two sides.  The accessory building would not propose a detriment to the 
public or have a negative impact as there are currently large buildings and structures surrounding 
the 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.
“The current lot coverage restrictions will not allow for the size accessory structure I would like to 
build on my property.
I have a personal workshop which includes tools that require large amounts of space.  I also need 
to be able to store personal vehicles and belongings inside and out of our damaging sun and 
weather which would cause expensive damages.”
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.
“Property currently boarder C-3 commercial district..”
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.

Page 9 of 9
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:
•
After reviewing the submission, Staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition of the 
property that warrants relief from ordinance requirements.  The property is of a regular 
rectangular shape, exceeds minimum zoning district standards, and is devoid of any 
unusual or remarkable geographical features that would inhibit reasonable 
use/development of the property.
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 maximum allowed rear yard coverage of 64% for APN 
220-65-003U. 
Presented by:
Joseph Mueller
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
2
Gross Acres: 1 approx.
Generated April 24, 2025 11:22 PM
BA250002
Application Name:
Legal Description
MERIDIAN WORKSHOP
Applicant
Case Address
1N 7E 24
ANTHONY/MARY THOMPSON
52 N MERIDIAN DR
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:220-65-003U
4805604697
anthony@aztecenv.com
APACHE JUNCTION, AZ 85120
Map scale 1:580
Supervisor District No.
CHANGE SETBACKS TO BUILD STEEL BUILDING PER SITE PLAN

Planning & Development Department 
VARIANCE / APPEAL/ INTEPRETATION APPLICATION 
ALL FEES ARE DUE AT TIME OF APPLICATION AND ARE NON-REFUNDABLE 
501 North 44th St, Suite 200  Phoenix AZ  85008  (602) 506-3301 
Variance Application 
Internet: www.maricopa.gov/planning 
1/23/2014 
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 
Appeal 
Interpretation 
  BA Blanket Variance 
Is this subject property within an area of 15% or greater hillside slopes? 
 Yes 
 No 
REQUEST 
Description of Request:    
Use of Property:    
Existing Zoning District:   
Related Case Number/s: 
PROPERTY INFORMATION 
Address (if known):  
General location 
(include nearest city/town): 
Size in Acres:   
Square Feet: 
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 
Legal Description   Section:  
Township: 
Range: 
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 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 
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, pursuant to A.R.S.§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 
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. 
Property Owner 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:  
Requesting a variance to total lot coverage to be able to build an accessory building
 Residential with peronal work shop
 R5
 52 N Meridian Rd, Apache Junction,AZ  85208
Meridian Rd and Apache Trail, Apache Junction, AZ
 .843
 36750
220-65-003U
  24
 1N
 7E
 N/A
 Anthony Thomson
 Anthony Thomson
 PO Box 52285
 Mesa
 AZ 
 85208
 480-560-4697
 N/A
 anthony@aztecenv.com
 Anthony / Mary Thomson
Anthony Thomson
 PO Box 52285
 Mesa
 AZ 
 85208
 480-560-4697
 N/A
 Anthony@aztecenv.com
 Anthony Thomson
 Anthony Thomson
3/22/25
 3/22/25
SAVE
PRINT
RESET


	
	

		
	
 !"#$!%&!'()*
+,./*.
012345689:;9<=>
?@@A;=9B;C<+9=D>B
EFGFHIJ



8?LM?NOPQR++SPTPNU?SVRPQUMWNN?MLP
?LQXYYZ[Y\]^_
`abdefgheijhk
lmnobpnofqfrresftfgufpvbigeonabnbgomeinabeghupfpvbsabpw
esupxneybvlrufg
vephunuepmw
fmnguvnupnbgygbnfnuepselrhsegzfplppbvbmmfgqafghmauyw
uiupxgfpnupxmlvatfgufpvbnab
xbpbgfrupnbpnfphylgyembmeinab{epupxeghupfpvbsurr|bygbmbgtbh}
 #~(!€ (%~(!‚$(!ƒ($€ ~!(€!!„…(€!†$‡(!€~ €$
ˆ(!€(‰ ‡Š!†‹!(€Œ† ~(!„…Ž~((„…Ž(!‘%~(!$
 $
‡‚!$$Ž(!(€’ “!‡(
%~(!(~~€ ~!(
€!!‡ ‡!
†(
$~~‚!†((”~(‚$(~~‚
!† ~($(~€(!‚($Ž†(!(
(€‘%~(!$‚€$Š!†Œ† ~(!„…Ž~((„…‚ ~!
($($!$‡
/ #~(%~(!$ €(‡$($!$ˆ(!€(‰ ‡Š!†‹!(€€(€( (€ ~!(
€!!ƒ$€ ~!(€!!!#~(!€ (%~(!$($€ ~!(€!!$‡!
~•€(!$~!!~
——¥›¤—š—› ¡¢£š›¦ —¢¤¡ž—¥¥™—›¦›¤—šœ­—¦©«—›¡ª ™œª¥œžœ®¦™ª¥ªœ£—›¦ ™œª¥¯
Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance 
to permit an increase in allowed coverage of rear yard setbacks area with accessory 
structures per MCZO 1106.2.  Requesting maximum lot coverage be increased by 18%
to accomodate proposed accessory structure.
The current lot coverage restrictions will not allow for the size accessory stucture I
would like to build on my property.
I have a personal workshop which include tools that require large amounts of 
space.  I also need to be able to store personal vehicles and belongings inside
and out of our damaging sun and inclimate weather which would cause expensive
damages.
The property currently borders C3 commercial on 2 sides, and high density
multi-family complexes on the other two sides. The accessory building would not
propose a detriment to the public or have a negative impact as there are 
currently large buildings and structures surrounding the property.


	
	

		
	
 !"#$!%&!'()*
+,./*.
012345689:;9<=>
?@@A;=9B;C<+9=D>B
EFGHFIJ



 #L(M!N (M%OL(!$P$Q(!Q$R MS(!(NP LMN( (Q(!S!TO(N
$Q(L!(MO O$U!QVM!(N
W&MM!!(L$T(XY((N$M
Z[\Z][^`a[[]bcd^e\[f][g`h`\ii][`jkdfjgc[j`cl

83' 0"
62' 0"
62' 0"
150' 0"
245' 0"
150' 0"
245' 0"
120' 0"
60' 0"
120' 0"
60' 0"
26' 0"
83' 0"
26' 0"
83' 0"
10' 0"
44' 0"
10' 0"
150' 0"
EXISTING STRUCTURE
18' 6 1/4"
2' 1/8"
23' 0"
15' 0"
5' 0"
15' 0"
14' 1 1/4"
PROPOSED ACCESSORY BUILDING
120ft X 60ft
41' 1"
Parcel:  220-65-003U
Owner Information:
THOMSON ANTHONY/MARY C
Property Address:
52 N Meridian Rd
Apache Junction, AZ 85120
Jurisdiction:
MARICOPA COUNTY
Zoning:
R-5
Lot Size: (sq ft):  36,750
LOT COVERAGE
LOT AREA: 36.750 S.F.
EXISTING STRUCTURE: 2,598 S.F.
PROPOSED ACCESSORY FOR VARIANCE: 7,200 S.F.
TOTAL UNDER ROOF: 9,798 S.F.
26.66% COVERAGE
Meridian Rd
ENTRANCE GATE
28' 1/4"
5' 0"
78' 11 3/8"