Florence staff catalog PUDs, warn many carry vested rights and long time horizons

Town of Florence planning staff and a land‑use consultant presented a consolidated view of Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) and related development agreements at a joint work session, emphasizing that many historical entitlements include long‑running terms and vested‑rights language that constrain the town’s options when large tracts are developed.

“Every parcel of property in the town of Florence has an entitlement. It’s basically what the zoning classification that sits on that land allows to happen on the land,” said Larry Harmer, a land‑use consultant, during a presentation on PUDs, entitlements and vested rights. Harmer and community development staff outlined the difference between a zoning entitlement (the PUD itself) and a vested right created by a signed development agreement.

Staff said the town currently has 19 approved PUDs that are residentially oriented, three of them approved recently (Attaway Crossing, Florence 287 and CD Farms). The combined gross acreage for these PUDs is roughly 23,000 acres and staff presented a cumulative theoretical dwelling‑unit total of about 95,000 units; staff calculated average gross density at roughly 4.3 dwelling units per acre and used a 2020 census‑based household factor of 2.35 persons per household when illustrating potential population impacts on paper.

The staff caution: 12 of the town’s PUDs contain development agreements that grant vested rights, many executed a decade or more ago. Harmer said vesting can be fact‑dependent; courts in Arizona have treated vested rights differently depending on whether a developer had progressed to vertical construction or had made substantial financial commitments (including engineering and design) before regulatory changes.

Some earlier agreements include time‑limited obligations from the town that have either expired or are set to expire; staff noted four development agreements had recently lapsed, restoring some discretion to the town. Harmer warned, however, that expiration of a development agreement does not automatically remove the PUD zoning: “If the development agreement expires, the PUD is still in place,” he said.

Commissioners and council members asked about remedies and whether future development agreements should include shorter or more conditional terms. Town legal staff and planning staff said the town can negotiate durations and conditions with new applicants and that council approval remains the mechanism for any development agreement; staff said they do not recommend unilateral town‑side changes to existing contracts but noted statutory changes and expired agreements affect the town’s leverage.

Planning commissioners urged staff to assemble a concise, publicly available “development guide” and checklist for applicants that documents preferred cross‑sections, utility alignments, trail connections and park dedications to reduce rework and speed review. Staff said they will prepare follow‑up materials and recommended regular reporting on active construction and pipeline projects so council and the public can see which PUD parcels are actually under development versus entitled but inactive.

Ending: Staff said they will provide a more detailed inventory and recommended action list so council and planning commissioners can evaluate which agreements have expired, which remain vested and where the town can leverage code or negotiated conditions to align future development with infrastructure priorities.