07. BA250033 BOA Staff Report

Report to the Board of Adjustment
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case: 
BA250033 – Wiley Property 
Hearing Date:
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 
adjacent properties 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.a and 702.4.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 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: The building permit was issued for the swimming pool on the subject parcel, 
per B202216567. The permit included the pool and spa with equipment and a 400K BTU natural 
gas heater with a gas line connected to two 120-gallon propane tanks. 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 Use:
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 a setback of 4’ from adjoining properties, where a minimum of 20’ is required in the 
R-4 zoning district. The owner is 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 two fronts along the southern and northern property lines. The court was built 
without permits and is the subject of an active code violation, per case V2500288. Approval of 
the variance and subsequent issuance of a building permit would permit the court at the current 
location and 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 (de facto 32’ setback from the south 
lot line). The property is bounded by Stacey Road to the north, the right-of-way of which was 
recently transferred from MCDOT to the Town of Gilbert.
11.
Normally, the streets along the north and south lot lines would render the property a through-lot, 
requiring that a 20’ front yard setback be measured from the north lot line as well. The swimming 
pools on the subject property and both neighboring properties (all of which were subject to issued 
building permits) would imply that a vehicular non-access easement (VNAE) was recorded along 
the north lot lines, thereby requiring a rear yard setback of 25’. Whereas accessory structures and 
uses cannot be in placed in a front yard, they may be placed in a rear yard if they meet a minimum 
setback of 5’ from the rear lot line (or 3’ if fire-rated). However, building permit records do not 
show a VNAE along the north lot line of either the subject parcel or its neighbor to the east. An 
easement was recorded on the property to the west exclusive to that property. Furthermore, each 
property features an access gate within the wall along the north lot line. Currently, neither staff 
nor the applicant is aware of a VNAE along the north lot line. As such, a 20’ front yard setback 
must be observed from the north lot line. The swimming pool on the subject property meets the 
required north front setback, but as  noted in paragraph 12 below, the court as built is only 4’ from 
the north lot line. Staff recommends approval of the variance to include the approval of a 3’ north 
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 a permit been submitted. Nevertheless, 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.
13.
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.

Page 4 of 8
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:
14.
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
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%
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.”
15.
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.”
16.
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.”
17.
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: 
18.
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.  
19.
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.
20.
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)

/
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