09. BA250039 BOA Report

Report to the Board of Adjustment
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case: 
BA250039 – Crowe Property 
Hearing Date:
July 17, 2025
Supervisor District:
4
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Applicant/Property Owner:
Zachary Crowe
Request:
Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning 
Ordinance to permit:
1)
Proposed front setback of 26’ where 40’ is the minimum permitted per 
MCZO Article 503.4.1.a 
Site Location:
503-32-076 @ 24812 W Patton Rd– Dale Ln Ave. and 248th Dr., in the 
Whittmann area
Site Size:
61,089 sq. ft. 
Current Use / Zoning:
Single-family residence / Rural-43
Open Violation:
No violation on property
Background:
1.
1996: Single-family residence was built under permit B1996009032. The final inspection was 
not completed and the permit expired.
2.
2001: Single-family residence received final inspection under B200106930.
3.
August 21, 2001: Subject property split from parent parcel. This unregulated land division 
created the non-conforming east side setback for the single-family residence.
4.
May 2009: Accessory structure built in the street side setback by this date as shown by 
historical aerials of the subject property. There is no record of permit for this building erected at 
a substandard west street-side setback.
5.
April 1, 2020: Current owner Zachary J. Crowe takes possession of the subject property.
6.
June 29, 2020: Current owner applies for B202006754 for a detached accessory structure, 
zoning plan review requests revisions based on existing structure not meeting setbacks. 
7.
August 13, 2020: Board of Adjustment approves request for reduced side setback of 10’ (east) 
and waived street-side setback (west) of 0’ to allow for existing structures in the street side and 
side yard setbacks. 
8.
January 20, 2021: B202006754 for detached metal garage is final-approved.

Page 2 of 8
9.
October 7, 2024: Current owner applies for residential addition permit BLDR2403428. Zoning plan 
review requests revisions as the addition is proposed within the front yard setback.
10.
May 20, 2025: Current owner applies for subject variance request. 
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use:
11.
On-site:
Rural-43 / Single-family residence
North:
Dale Ln. then Rural-43 / Patton Place Estates Subdivision
South:
Rural-43 / Vacant
East:
Rural-43 / Vacant
West:
248th Dr. then Rural-43 / Single-family residence
Variance Request:
12.
The applicant proposes a residential addition of 798 sf for a new owner’s suite that will include a 
relocated laundry room, addition of a walk in closet and en-suite bathroom. Zoning plan review 
noted the addition encroaches into the front yard setback. The 40’ front yard setback is required 
to be measured from the edge of the easement for Dale Ln. The easement is recorded within the 
first 25’ from the northern property line, for a total setback requirement of 65’ from the northern 
property line. The addition is proposed 51’ from the northern property line. The front yard setback 
would need to be reduced from 40’ to 26’ in order to accommodate the proposed addition. The 
addition would lie 26’ from the easement for Dale Ln. and encroach 14’ into the required front yard 
setback.
Excerpt from proposed site plan

Page 3 of 8
Photograph of subject site from Dale Ln
Photograph of subject site from 248th Dr (West looking East)
Site Analysis:
13.
The site was created from lot splits north of Patton Rd along 248th Dr. just to the south of Luke 
AFB APZ2 zone. Immediately to the north of the site is Patton Place Estates Unit 4 subdivision. 
The site is relatively flat with no notable physical features developed with a single-family 
residence, several accessory structures and perimeter fencing. The site was granted previous 
variances for a waiver to the street side setback off 248th Dr (west) for an existing detached 
accessory structure; and a reduced interior side setback (east) to 10’ for the residence’s apparent 
encroachment into the side yard. The previous lot split did not anticipate an interior side setback 
of 30’ for the existing residence to the new eastern property line, and variance to the standard 
was requested for zoning clearance for a future detached garage project. The variance was 
granted and memorialized the residence’s existing encroachment into the east side yard. The 
property lines have not been adjusted since the granting of these variances. The proposed 
addition to the residence would encroach into the required front yard to the north as stated. The 
lot is already developed, but an alternative exists for development within the site’s waived street 
side setback. Owner can enclose the attached garage and extend the residence up to 49’ to 248th

Page 4 of 8
Dr. There are no observable topographical or physical constraints and staff cannot identify a 
peculiar condition facing the property.
Aerial photo of subject site
Aerial image & surrounding environs

Page 5 of 8
Eagle view of subject site looking west into subject parcel (aerial image dated 1/14/2024).
Zoning District map

Page 6 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 (Note: changes to proposed standards are indicated in 
bold).
Standard
Rural-43  
Zoning 
District
Proposed with 
Variance
Min. Front Yard Setback (residence to north easement line) 
40-feet
26-feet
Min. Rear Yard Setback (south property line)
40-feet
n/a
Min. Side Yard Setback (structures to east property line)
10-feet
n/a
Min. Street Side Yard Setback (structures to west 
easement line)
0-feet
n/a
Maximum Height 
30-feet
n/a
Minimum Lot Area
43,560-sq. ft.
n/a
Minimum Lot Width
145-feet
n/a
Lot Coverage
25%
n/a
Note: Standards indicated in bold do not meet base zoning standards
 
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 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.  
“On my property there is a 25-foot easement and 40-foot set back on sides that have roads. The 
area I am requesting a variance is on the north side along W. Dale Ln. The addition I am attempting 
to build would be approximately 51 feet from the property line, 14 feet within the setback area. This 
addition would have no effect to Dale lane or any other surrounding access. Dale lane is a private 
drive with no regular traffic, also on the adjoining property on the north side is part of a housing 
development with a block wall going unbroken all along Dale Lane. Finally, this addition would not 
hinder any utility, county or state trucks from accessing the area and utility lines. If the existing 
fences were to be in the way of a utility truck, they could access the area from either side from 248 
or 247 Ave. The property in question is on a dead-end road (247th ave) with a development to the 
north and access from the east from 247th ave to Dale Lane and will not hinder any traffic that needs 
to access the area. “
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 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

Page 7 of 8
enforcement of the Zoning Regulations or Development Standards would impose a hardship on 
the property.
“Due to the shape of the house the area proposed is the only viable area to put the addition. Due to 
the extremely large easement and set back area it limits the building area on the property. approving 
this request will have zero effect on surrounding properties.”
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.
“Approving this request would reduce the setback area by 14 feet. The current easement and 
setback is total are is 65 feet and approving this request would reduce the total area to 51 feet. this 
would have no effect on surrounding properties and once complete the average passerby would 
not be able to notice a special approval was needed.”
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:
After reviewing the submission, Staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition of the property. The 
lot is already developed with a single-family residence and several accessory structures. 
Alternatives exist for development on the site without encroaching into the building setbacks. 
There are no observable topographical or physical constraints that prevent reasonable 
development of the property.
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:

Page 8 of 8
a)
Variance approval establishes a 26’ (north) setback line (measured from the edge of the 
25’ wide easement for Dale Ln) or 51’ from the northern property line for APN 304-71-084. 
Presented by:
Daniel Johnson, Planner
Reviewed by:
Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager 
Attachments:
Case Map (1 page)
Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (2 pages)
Site Plan (1 page)

/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
4
Gross Acres: 1 approx.
Generated June 25, 2025 10:58 AM
BA250039
Application Name:
Legal Description
Crowe Property
Applicant
Case Address
Zachary Crowe
24812 W PATTON RD
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:503-32-076
3016429952
zachary.j.crowe@gmail.com
WITTMANN, AZ 85361
Map scale 1:826
Supervisor District No.
have a permit started BLDR2403428 to add addition to my house.  the new addition goes into the setback
by approx 15 feet.  the addition is going on the dale lane side of my property.  the required easement is


	
	

		
	

 !"#$!%
&!'()*
+,-./*.
01234156378-97:375;1-<==83;763>5-+7;?16-
@ABACDE-
0FGHIFJKH<L9<0H<JMF--
+0N+F0KO-NPJF0-<QKRN0HS<KHNJ-
<++LHM<KHNJ-TN0U-
V
<LL-TFFG-<0F-IQF-<K-KHUF-NT-<++LHM<KHNJ-<JI-<0F-JNJW0FTQJI<XLF-
0FGHIFJKH<L-9<0H<JMF-0FYQFGK-
Z[!\!]^ _
`%!!ab!aZ!![(cd#\e_
]f(cg(h ijkl_

+0N+F0KO-HJTN0U<KHNJ-
&cck!mnl_
o(fp[(!k![f c([!eqnl_ 
!'!&[_

^ (r_
pa(fZ[!\!_
[!_
sn$!\_
](a_
&t
#([fh ijkl_
 jc!u!!h(ik!(\\f![(jfl_
v$! jw[\\en!$!(((*xa($!ff!cf\yz
h

<++LHM<JK-HJTN0U<KHNJ-
h(i_
g([_
&cc_
g!e_
(_
b!\_
#${_
r(%{_
`|i(!f&cc_

+0N+F0KO-NPJF0-HJTN0U<KHNJ-
h(i_
g([_
&cc_
g!e_
(_
b!\_
#${_
r(%{_
`|i(!f&cc_

+0N+F0KO-NPJF0-<JI-<++LHM<JK-<QKRN0HS<KHNJ-

v}=:>=1:6~->51:€

( $!'}7==83;7562-57‚1€
!f$!(\\f![(!(ffi(f(!a$!^ n!$ƒ(![\(g e„e!a!a$!i($\\env$je(a
(j!cje(e(c(ff[c!!$(i(ej(!acje$ƒ(![\(g e„(c \u!
ƒ(![\(g e#f(!a(cb!a
gii!!
ƒ(![\(g e#f(!a(cZuf\iZ\(i(((\\f![(jf
(\((e(\\u(f$!^ 
![f c!a
[c!!
cuf\i(ai
(cq(e$^ !i$(i(e[ ij$n!([$ ie\\e
+0N+NGHKHNJ-D…†-P<H9F0-‡-ˆ‰Š‹ŒŽ‘’Ž‰“--
-
s$\\en([mnfca$($(\\u(fj!a a$je$!(\\f![(!i(e[( (c [!!$%!!a!a$ 

c!u!c
ff\$\!u(\\e$(!$ jw[$!(\\f![(!s$\\en $([mnfca$(!!$
\\enn$$(^ c$([! a$je$!f!a$!(\\f![(!s$
n!$ ffmnfca(ff!a$a(c
$\\en\  (&]””/|/$ a$)
$\\enc$jen(!u(e(c(ff[f(!ic!i! !!
u(f $\\en!$a(c(e([!(mjeƒ(![\(g e( f$!f!a$!(\\f![(!
+:>=1:6~-N51:-G3•576–:1,-
I761,-

HJG+FMKHNJG-
„e ji!!a$!(\\f![(!
v(i!u!!ag e([c [(ff!!\[!$eci[(e
9F0HTHM<KHNJ-NT-<++LHM<KHNJ-HJTN0U<KHNJ--‡--ˆ‰Š‹ŒŽ‘’Ž‰“--
v[!e$($(i!$!(\\f![(!(c \\i(!(f( &e(\\u(f\i!a(cjeƒ(![\(g e!f!([
 \$ $ f$(ii(ejumc[!cc
N51:->:-<–6—>:3˜14-<•156-G3•576–:1,-
I761,-
<0G-™-š›…œ-KHUFT0<UF-FKFJGHNJ-
v( $!'(œ…ž-63‚1Ÿ:7‚1-1 61523>5$u!nie(\\f![(!((c\cje$„(c \u!\&]”.*(c(
(icc
-
+:>=1:6~-N51:-G3•576–:1,-¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡Z(_
¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢
£¤¥¦¤§¨©ª«¬ª­®¦¯°ª±¦«²¦§ª«²©ª³©«­¤¨´µª©°¶©ª¬·ª¤°°¦«¬§ª±¦¯¯ª­©ª¸¹º
ª·¥¬»ª¼¥¬¼©¥«½ª¯¦§©
£¾¿ÀÁÂÃÄÂÁÅ
ÁÂŹÁªÆǪȤ««¬§ªÀ°ÇªÆ¦««»¤§§ªÉʪŸÄ˹
Ʀ««»¤§§ªÉʪ
¹Ç¸Ã
˹µÃÅÌÇÃÃ
¸ÃÄÍÄÁÍÃÎË
Ï
ʤ¨²¤¥½ªÐªÑ¥¬±©
ÄùÍËÂÁÍÌ̸Á
ÁÂŹÁªÆǪȤ««¬§ªÀ°
Ʀ««»¤§§ª
ÉÊ
ŸÄ˹
ÒÄùӪËÂÁÍÌ̸Á
Ô¤¨²¤¥½ÇÕǨ¥¬±©Ö¶»¤¦¯Ç¨¬»
ʤ¨²¤¥½ªÐªÑ¥¬±©
ÁÂŹÁªÆǪȤ««¬§ªÀ°
Ʀ««»¤§§
Éʪ
ŸÄ˹
ÒÄùӪËÂÁÍÌ̸Á
Ô¤¨²¤¥½ÇÕǨ¥¬±©Ö¶»¤¦¯Ç¨¬»
ʤ¨²¤¥½ªÐªÑ¥¬±©
ʤ¨²¤¥½ªÐªÑ¥¬±©
×ØÙÚØÛÜÝÞÝßÛàáâ
ãäåäæØççÜÝèäåéâêÝëÜÝ×ØÙÚØÛÜÝÞÝßÛàáâÝ
ãØæâìÝíîíïðîïðñòÝíîìñóìôõÝöîó÷
îî÷
îïøñòøíîíï
×ØÙÚØÛÜÝÞÝßÛàáâ
ãäåäæØççÜÝèäåéâêÝëÜÝ×ØÙÚØÛÜÝÞÝßÛàáâÝ
ãØæâìÝíîíïðîïðñòÝíîìñõìñïÝöîó÷
îî÷
×ØÙÚØÛÜÝÞÝßÛàáâ
ãäåäæØççÜÝèäåéâêÝëÜÝ×ØÙÚØÛÜÝÞÝßÛàáâÝ
ãØæâìÝíîíïðîïðñòÝíîìñõìíõÝöîó÷
îî÷
ÀùÍÂĵª¥©³¦°©§«¤¯ª®³©µª¼¥¦»¤¥½ª²¬»©
îïøñòøíîíï
îïøñòøíîíï
BA250039 RCVD


	
	

		
	
 !"#$!%&!'()*
+,-./*.
012341563789:;<=;>?@-ABBC=?;D=E>-+;?F@D-
GHIHJKL-
M
M
M
0NOPQNRSPTU9:AVWAXYZ-[\++]Z^ZX_A]-`\Z[_WaXXAWVZ
AV[-bccdecf-ghi
jklmnopqrmosmtru
vwxylzxmyp{mp||o}mpm~pqpz€lmsqoymxklmxlqywmosmxklmoqrzpz€lm}klz
mo}z‚mxomƒl€v|pqm
€ozrxozw
mpmwxq€xmzxlqƒqlxpxozm}ov|rm}oq„mpzmvzzl€lwwpq{mkpqrwkƒ
msmzm‚qpzxz‚mwv€km~pqpz€lmxklm
‚lzlqp|mzxlzxmpzrmƒvqƒowlwmosmxklm…ozz‚moqrzpz€lm}||m†lmƒqlwlq~lr‡m
 #ˆ(‰!Š (‰%‹ˆ(!Œ$(!($‹Š ˆ!(Š‰!!Ž(Š!$‹‹‘(‰!Šˆ ‰Š$
’(!Š‹(“ ‘”!•‰!(Š– ˆ(!Ž—˜ˆ‹™(‰(‰Žš˜(!‰›%‹ˆ(!$‹‹‰
 $
‹‹‘Œ!$$˜(!(Šœ ‰!‘(‰
%‹ˆ(!(ˆˆ‹Š ˆ!(
Š‰!!‘ ‹‹‘!
(‰
$ˆˆŒ!((žˆ‹(Œ$(ˆˆŒ
! ˆ($(‹ˆŠ(!Œ($˜(!(‰
(™Š›%‹ˆ(!$ŒŠ™$”!– ˆ(!Ž—˜ˆ‹™(‰(‰ŽŒ ˆ‰!™‹
($(‰$!‹$‹‹‘
/ #ˆ(%‹ˆ(!$ Š(‘$(‰$!‹$’(!Š‹(“ ‘”!•‰!(ŠŠ(šŠ( (‹Š ˆ!(
Š‰!!$‹Š ˆ!(Š‰!!!#ˆ(‰!Š (‰%‹ˆ(!$($‹Š ˆ!(Š‰!!$‹‹‘!
ˆŸŠ(‰!$ˆ!!ˆ
 ¡¢£¤¢¥¦§¥¨¦©¤¢©ª¨¦¨¢«¬¢­¢®¯°±§§©¢¨­¬¨£¨¡©¢­¡²¢³´°±§§©¢¬¨©¢µ­¶·¢§¡¢¬«²¨¬¢©ª­©¢ª­¸¨¢¦§­²¬¹¢¢ºª¨¢­¦¨­¢»¢­£¢¦¨¼½¨¬©«¡¾¢­¢¸­¦«­¡¶¨¢«¬¢§¡¢©ª¨¢¡§¦©ª¢¬«²¨¢
­¿§¡¾¢À¹¢Á­¿¨¢Â¡¹¢¢ºª¨¢­²²«©«§¡¢»¢­£¢­©©¨£¥©«¡¾¢©§¢µ½«¿²¢Ã§½¿²¢µ¨¢­¥¥¦§Ä«£­©¨¿¤¢¯Å¢±¨¨©¢±¦§£¢©ª¨¢¥¦§¥¨¦©¤¢¿«¡¨Æ¢Å³¢±¨¨©¢Ã«©ª«¡¢©ª¨¢¬¨©µ­¶·¢­¦¨­¹¢¢
ºª«¬¢­²²«©«§¡¢Ã§½¿²¢ª­¸¨¢¡§¢¨±±¨¶©¢©§¢Á­¿¨¢¿­¡¨¢§¦¢­¡¤¢§©ª¨¦¢¬½¦¦§½¡²«¡¾¢­¶¶¨¬¬¹¢¢Á­¿¨¢¿­¡¨¢«¬¢­¢¥¦«¸­©¨¢²¦«¸¨¢Ã«©ª¢¡§¢¦¨¾½¿­¦¢©¦­±±«¶Æ¢­¿¬§¢§¡¢©ª¨¢
­²Ç§«¡«¡¾¢¥¦§¥¨¦©¤¢§¡¢©ª¨¢¡§¦©ª¢¬«²¨¢«¬¢¥­¦©¢§±¢­¢ª§½¬«¡¾¢²¨¸¨¿§¥£¨¡©¢Ã«©ª¢­¢µ¿§¶·¢Ã­¿¿¢¾§«¡¾¢½¡µ¦§·¨¡¢­¿¿¢­¿§¡¾¢Á­¿¨¢Â­¡¨¹¢¢È«¡­¿¿¤Æ¢©ª«¬¢­²²«©«§¡¢
罿²¢¡§©¢ª«¡²¨¦¢­¡¤¢½©«¿«©¤Æ¢¶§½¡©¤¢§¦¢¬©­©¨¢©¦½¶·¬¢±¦§£¢­¶¶¨¬¬«¡¾¢©ª¨¢­¦¨­¢­¡²¢½©«¿«©¤¢¿«¡¨¬¹¢¢»±¢©ª¨¢¨Ä«¬©«¡¾¢±¨¡¶¨¬¢Ã¨¦¨¢©§¢µ¨¢«¡¢©ª¨¢Ã­¤¢§±¢­¢½©«¿«©¤¢
©¦½¶·Æ¢©ª¨¤¢¶§½¿²¢­¶¶¨¬¬¢©ª¨¢­¦¨­¢±¦§£¢¨«©ª¨¦¢¬«²¨¢±¦§£¢®³É¢§¦¢®³Ê¢Ë¸¨¹¢¢ºª¨¢¥¦§¥¨¦©¤¢«¡¢¼½¨¬©«§¡¢«¬¢§¡¢­¢²¨­²°¨¡²¢¦§­²¢Ì®³Ê©ª¢­¸¨Í¢Ã«©ª¢­¢
²¨¸¨¿§¥£¨¡©¢©§¢©ª¨¢¡§¦©ª¢­¡²¢­¶¶¨¬¬¢±¦§£¢©ª¨¢¨­¬©¢±¦§£¢®³Ê©ª¢­¸¨¢©§¢Á­¿¨¢Â­¡¨¢­¡²¢Ã«¿¿¢¡§©¢ª«¡²¨¦¢­¡¤¢©¦­±±«¶¢©ª­©¢¡¨¨²¬¢©§¢­¶¶¨¬¬¢©ª¨¢­¦¨­¹¢¢
Á½¨¢©§¢©ª¨¢¬ª­¥¨¢§±¢©ª¨¢ª§½¬¨¢©ª¨¢­¦¨­¢¥¦§¥§¬¨²¢«¬¢©ª¨¢§¡¿¤¢¸«­µ¿¨¢­¦¨­¢©§¢¥½©¢©ª¨¢­²²«©«§¡¹¢Á½¨¢©§¢©ª¨¢¨Ä©¦¨£¨¿¤¢¿­¦¾¨¢¨­¬¨£¨¡©¢­¡²¢¬¨©¢µ­¶·¢­¦¨­¢
«©¢¿«£«©¬¢©ª¨¢µ½«¿²«¡¾¢­¦¨­¢§¡¢©ª¨¢¥¦§¥¨¦©¤¹¢¢­¥¥¦§¸«¡¾¢©ª«¬¢¦¨¼½¨¬©¢Ã«¿¿¢ª­¸¨¢Î¨¦§¢¨±±¨¶©¢§¡¢¬½¦¦§½¡²«¡¾¢¥¦§¥¨¦©«¨¬¹¢¢¢
BA250039 RCVD 6/10/25


	
	

		
	
 !"#$!%&!'()*
+,-./*.
0
0
0
 #1(2!3 (2%41(!$5$6(!6$7 28(!(35 123( (6(!8!94(3
$6(1!(24 4$:!6;2!(3
<&22!!(1$9(=>((3$2
??-@A-BAC-DEF-CGHE-IAJK-HI-LAD-MJF-EDNKHCCHBO-MB-HBCFJ+JFCMCHAB-
PQRSTQUVSWXYZ[\][^_`-Maab]_[c]d^-+[_e`c-
fghigjk-
lmmnopqrstuvqwtnxyzxwut{oz|}tnx}z~xtuvxtwxu€~t€nx€t‚tƒ„t…xxu†tt‡vxt~znnxrutx€wxˆxrut€r}twxu€~tqwtuou€|t€nxtqwt‰Št…xxut€r}t€mmnopqrstuvqwt
nxyzxwut{oz|}tnx}z~xtuvxtuou€|t€nx€tuotŠƒt…xxu†ttuvqwt{oz|}tv€pxtrotx……x~utortwznnozr}qrstmnomxnuqxwt€r}tor~xt~oˆm|xuxtuvxt€pxn€sxtm€wwxn‚t
{oz|}troutxt€|xtuotrouq~xt€twmx~q€|t€mmnop€|t{€wtrxx}x}†ttt

A
B
C
E
D
Phoenix Drafting, LLC
A
C
Phoenix Drafting, LLC
B
D
E
Septic system must be shown on
site plan and a septic permit must
be obtained prior to building
permit issuance
51'-0"
Roadway easements are in addition to
regular building setbacks. The dwelling
needs to be a total of 65' away from the
property line, as there is a 25' roadway
easement and a separate 40' front
setback.
Aerial imagery shows an approximately
8'x40' shipping container on the property.
Please include all existing structures on the
site plan, with dimensions as well as
measurements from other buildings and
setbacks.
Our records do not show any permits for the approximately 320 sq ft storage structure on the
northeast portion of the parcel. Structures over 200 sf must be permitted. Go to Maricopa County
Permit Center (https://maricopacountyaz-energovweb.tylerhost.net/apps/selfservice#/home) to apply
for a permit or contact the Planning and Development Department if you have any further questions
or concerns.  (IBC/IRC R105; MCZO 1504.5; Local Additions and Addenda Section 2.F.114)
Please change all verbiage throughout from
"proposed" to "new". Plans with items labeled
as "future", "proposed", "not for construction",
etc., will not be considered for permitting.
All existing and new fencing must be
shown and labeled with the height,
material, and linear length on the site plan.
Aerial imagery and/or previous permitting
show fencing in front of the residence as
well as around the back of the residence.
26'-0"
40'-0"
Front
Setback
BA250039 RCVD 6/10/25