Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates 12‑month moratorium on zoning waivers; asks staff to track waivers and propose ordinance changes
Summary
Councilmembers debated a possible one‑year moratorium on administrative zoning waivers for larger projects and directed staff to track waiver requests and return proposed code changes; views were mixed and no moratorium ordinance was adopted at the meeting.
Councilwoman Gail Earl introduced a request for discussion on a one‑year moratorium on zoning waivers after residents cited concerns about projects that appear to exceed adopted zoning standards. She asked what safeguards ensure projects remain within height and density limits.
John Wesley, director of planning and zoning, described the town’s current process: as zoning administrator he may interpret and apply code and sometimes makes limited adjustments when strict compliance is not feasible; larger or ambiguous cases may be referred to council or to the Board of Adjustment. He said the Mountainside development has returned plans to the applicant for modifications because it does not meet some code requirements, including building height and retaining-wall concerns.
Council members exchanged options. Vice Mayor Skillicorn and Councilman Rick Watts suggested limiting council review to larger commercial projects or to projects with defined thresholds (a suggested 10,000 square foot threshold was discussed). Several council members opposed a blanket moratorium; Councilwoman Larrabee said she was against a moratorium because it could create red tape and harm development.
Town Attorney cautioned that an ordinance written to target a single property could violate Arizona’s prohibition on special laws; staff recommended legally defensible, broadly applicable language. Councilman Watts suggested clarifying the zoning administrator’s discretionary limits (for example, quantifying tolerance percentages or defining a footprint standard) so that waivers either comply with a clear standard or are sent to council for review.
The council gave staff direction to return with an approach: staff will track waiver requests that would otherwise have been approved administratively, bring problematic items to council when appropriate, and present proposed ordinance amendments informed by the tracked waivers. No moratorium was adopted at the meeting; members asked for a staff proposal that could be considered along with public notice and legal review.
