Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

MCZO Update Draft #1

Maricopa County is pleased to share with you the first review draft of the updated Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance, a key milestone in our collective effort to modernize and clarify development regulations across the County.

How to Submit Comments: Please share your comments via the online document below. This document allows the public to review and comment in a single document, so not only are you able to share your comments, but you can also review and respond to comments shared by other members of the public.

Option 1 - Adding a Comment. To add a comment on the draft Zoning Ordinance, simply click on the specific location in the document you would like to comment on. A comment box will open, allowing you to type your comment or question related to the location of your choice. Once you provide your name, email address and identify the type of comment you are posting (e.g. comment, question, answer, typo), click "Post Comment". To assist in the review process, please DO NOT include multiple comments under one post. Each comment should have its own post and be placed in the document where it applies.

Option 2 - Responding to a Comment. To view and respond to comments made by other participants, simply click on any existing yellow bubble as you scroll through the document. A comment box will open that shows the comment, you may then simply up or down vote a comment, or provide a detailed follow-up response.

Additional Instructions: To reference these instruction while you review the plan, click on the “i” Instructions pin located on the left sidebar below.

Comment Period: Comments on Public Review Draft #1 will be taken through October 17, 2025.

Comments

Cancel

Commenting is closed for this document.

Jason Burwen Oct 17 2025 at 6:11PM on page 175

Comment

The proposed setback requirements are in conflict with the rigorous, risk-informed methods established in the National Fire Protection Association 855 Standard for the Installation of Stationary Energy Storage Systems. Conflicting local requirements could cause unintended confusion and may not achieve the intended result of enhanced safety for Maricopa County residents. We recommend the ordinance remain consistent with the NFPA 855 standard and its methods for ensuring public safety, including in equipment setback and spacing.

In addition, any new ordinance should clearly grandfather projects with existing permit actions, ensuring they remain subject to the prior setback standards. This is important to preserve fairness and regulatory certainty for projects already well advanced in local permitting and to ensure Maricopa County continues to be viewed as a reliable and predictable jurisdiction for investment in critical energy infrastructure.

Sarah Sawyer Oct 17 2025 at 4:29PM on page 389

Comment

We suggest the following revision to this provision, to correct the grammar of the provision:

Section 1403.3.1.J: General provisions applicable to digital billboards:
1. Digital billboards shall be permitted if:
i. Located fewer than 3 miles from the boundary of an incorporated city or town; or
ii. If within 300 feet of and oriented towards an existing freeway’s main travel lanes as classified by Maricopa County as of December 15, 2021.

Sarah Sawyer Oct 17 2025 at 4:27PM on page 349

Comment

Suggesting a revision to this provision to increase clarity on what can be sought with an SUP:

1301.1.21. Billboard(s) subject to the following*
1. The billboard(s) is a lawfully existing structure made legal-nonconforming as of December 15, 2021 with regard to the requirements of Chapter 14 of this Ordinance.
a. The billboard is located in a C-2, C-3, IND-2 or IND-3 zoning district.
b. The billboard may be modified or converted to digital display with a Special Use Permit. A Special Use Permit may be obtained to vary the following development standards for digital billboards:
i. The distance of radial separation between billboards located 3 miles or greater from the boundary of any incorporated city or town, pursuant to Section1403.3.1.A.1.a.
ii. The distance of radial separation between billboards located fewer than 3 miles from the boundary of any incorporated city or town, pursuant to Section 1403.3.1.A.1.b.
iii. The distance from a residential zoning district boundary or a parcel boundary of a residential use in a rural zoning district, pursuant to Section 1403.3.1.B.1.
iv. The distance of a digital or illuminated billboard from a residential zoning district boundary or a parcel boundary of a residential use in a rural zoning district, pursuant to Section 1403.3.1.B.2.
v. The distance from a park, school, or roadside rest area, pursuant to Section 1403.3.1.B.3.
vi. The distance of a digital billboard from an existing billboard, pursuant to Section 1403.3.1.J.1.ii.
vii. The distance of a digital billboard from the boundary of an incorporated city or town, pursuant to section 1403.3.1.J.1.i.
viii. The distance of a digital billboard from an existing freeway’s main travel lanes, pursuant to section 1403.3.1.J.1.ii.
c. If illuminated the billboard shall be digital or lighting shall be mounted at the top of the sign face so that it is directed downward and shielded so that it is only illuminating the sign face in conformance with Article 1112.3.2.
d. The Special Use Permit may be approved without an expiration date or validity period.

Susan Brenton Oct 17 2025 at 1:37PM on page 34

Question

Why not use the same definition for Mobile Home/Manufactured Home Park as the state uses in the Mobile Home Parks Landlord Tenant Act: a mobile home park is any parcel of land that contains FOUR or more mobile home spaces.

Autumn Johnson Oct 17 2025 at 12:26PM on page 45

Question

Should these definitions be modified to apply only to utility scale projects?

Autumn Johnson Oct 17 2025 at 12:21PM on page 12

Question

Is the ordinance intended to cover residential and commercial/industrial batteries used primarily for on site purposes?

Autumn Johnson Oct 17 2025 at 12:15PM on page 152

Comment

Article 601 – Setbacks
It is recommended that the ordinance reference the most recent versions of UL 9540 and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 855 to ensure consistency with current national safety standards. The American Planning Association (APA) has found that the national average for BESS-specific setbacks ranges from 50 to 150 feet from property lines. While NFPA 855 recommends 100 feet, we recommend that Maricopa County adopt a maximum setback of no more than 150 feet measured from the structures themselves rather than from the property line, consistent with the Phoenix Regional Standard Operating Procedures for Battery Energy Storage Systems.

Setbacks should be measured from the BESS equipment, not the property boundary. This approach would align Maricopa County’s ordinance with national standards, strengthen regulatory defensibility, and ensure that safety requirements are proportionate to actual risk rather than imposing arbitrary distances that could either under- or over-regulate BESS facilities.

Modern BESS projects are subject to updated safety standards and design improvements that address issues identified in earlier systems. The American Clean Power Association (ACP) provides a helpful FAQ regarding battery safety and air emissions, noting that the average emissions rates of equivalent masses of plastics exceed those of batteries. Following the Moss Landing incident, sampling conducted by the Environmental Health Division and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found “no threat to human health or the surrounding environment.”

All forms of electricity generation and energy storage carry some degree of risk; however, battery incidents account for only about 2 percent of installations nationwide. Setbacks for BESS should therefore not be more restrictive than those applied to comparable energy infrastructure, such as substations.

Autumn Johnson Oct 17 2025 at 12:10PM on page 104

Comment

Article 506 – Landscaping and Buffering
The landscaping and buffering requirements for industrial districts are not appropriate for solar projects and impose unnecessary costs given the large land area such projects typically cover. Solar projects should be exempt from these industrial landscaping and buffering standards.
If a full exemption is not adopted, there should at least be a mechanism allowing staff to administratively approve alternative approaches for remote projects, similar to the process proposed by the City of Buckeye. Additionally, any irrigation requirements would undermine one of the key environmental benefits of solar facilities—their inherently low water use.

Autumn Johnson Oct 17 2025 at 12:04PM on page 68

Comment

Article 305.4.2 – Plan of Development (Site Plan) Expiration
The current two-year expiration period, with only a single one-year extension, is insufficient for solar projects, which often experience extended development timelines due to utility coordination and other regulatory processes. The expiration period should be lengthened—or eliminated entirely—for solar projects, and applicants should be permitted to obtain an unlimited number of extensions as needed.

in reply to Andrew Yancey's comment

Andrew Yancey Oct 17 2025 at 11:21AM on page 337

Comment

This approach would also be similar to the County's proposal to allow staff to administratively reduce certain parking requirements where an applicant can demonstrate such modification is warranted.

Chinedu Oputa Oct 17 2025 at 11:20AM on page 104

Comment

I recommend that the IND-2 landscaping/buffering requirement should not apply to utility-scale solar and BESS projects

Andrew Yancey Oct 17 2025 at 11:19AM on page 337

Comment

We propose adding a new Section 906.3.4 with the following text to address specific perimeter treatment issues for solar and BESS projects: "Alternatives to wall, buffer, and landscaping requirements for industrial districts may be approved by the Planning and Development Department as part of a POD application for a utility-scale solar generation, BESS, or other renewable energy system project based on the use’s low visibility from public view, remote location, or where wall, buffer, or landscaping alternatives would be consistent with the character of the surrounding area."
Renewable energy projects are often located in remote areas where screening requirements do not provide any tangible benefit. Due to the size of many energy projects, these requirements can be quite costly and can often be counterproductive by introducing more manmade apparatuses in areas characterized by native desert landscape and vegetation. Further, one of the benefits of solar and BESS projects is that they do not require water use; therefore, adding in an irrigated landscaping requirement cuts against this low-water benefit.

Chinedu Oputa Oct 17 2025 at 11:18AM on page 176

Comment

The draft does not include provisions to allow BESS as an accessory use when located on the same parcel and under the same ownership as a permitted principal use (e.g., solar or industrial generation sites).

I would recommend the inclusion of this provision.

Chinedu Oputa Oct 17 2025 at 11:17AM on page 175

Comment

I appreciate the City’s commitment to ensuring public safety in the siting of Battery Energy Storage Systems. However, I encourage the City to reconsider the proposed fixed setback distances of 100 feet from property lines and 500 feet from residential uses, as these standards are overly rigid and do not account for evolving technology, proven mitigation measures, or the performance-based framework established under NFPA 855 and UL 9540A testing protocols.

National and state agencies are moving away from one-size-fits-all setbacks toward flexible, risk-based approaches that evaluate each project’s design, chemistry, enclosure type, and fire-protection features. A fixed 500-foot setback can make otherwise safe, well-designed projects infeasible especially in industrial or utility corridors without necessarily improving safety outcomes.

I recommend that the City adopt language that:

Allows performance-based or site-specific alternatives when supported by UL 9540A test data, thermal/radiant heat-flux modeling, or other engineering analyses demonstrating equivalent safety.

Recognizes the role of fire-rated barriers, active suppression systems, and access design in achieving safe separation distances.

Encourages early consultation with the Fire Department or AHJ to evaluate alternative compliance pathways under NFPA 855 Section 4.3 (“Equivalency”).

Adopting a performance-based setback framework would maintain public safety while enabling more efficient land use, better integration with existing infrastructure, and broader deployment of clean-energy storage projects that benefit the community.

Andrew Yancey Oct 17 2025 at 11:04AM on page 68

Comment

We suggest eliminating or extending the POD expiration provisions. At a minimum, the POD should be valid for at least 3 years and not have any limit on the number of extensions that can be approved by staff. In addition, the POD applicant should be able to request a longer expiration as part of the POD application. An example of this approach can be found in Buckeye's proposed zoning ordinance update (set for City Council hearing on 10/21): "Approval of a Site Plan shall be effective for three years, unless otherwise stated in such approval. The validity period may be administratively extended an additional 12 months from the date of expiration if, in the opinion of the Zoning Administrator, unforeseen circumstances led to the delay in construction of the project. Though there is no limit on the number of extensions that may be granted, approval of any extension is discretionary and may be based on factors
including, but not limited to, the Site Plan is no longer in conformance with updated or revised City codes and/or other requirements."

Jane Peiffer Oct 16 2025 at 4:32PM on page 63

Question

If a major plan amendment can be approved administratively by the planning and development department, why does a minor amendment only get a "Staff will recommend approval, approval subject to conditions, or denial." Can minor plan amendments actually be administratively approved by staff? What happens after staff recommendations? What is the process after that? The Major plan amendment section above lists the process but this one only lists a recommendation stage.

Jane Peiffer Oct 16 2025 at 4:27PM on page 63

Question

Why would major plan amendments to a Unit Plan of Development be held to a lower review standard than a major plan amendment to a Special Use Permit? Would the impacts of a major plan amendment on a Unit Plan of Development have more and longer lasting impacts on an area than that of a Special Use Permit area? All "major plan amendments" should be treated the same.

Jane Peiffer Oct 16 2025 at 4:20PM on page 62

Typo

typo "maye" should be may

Jane Peiffer Oct 16 2025 at 3:57PM on page 59

Typo

Typo - remove the "e" from "maye"

Courtney Coolidge Oct 15 2025 at 3:22PM on page 152

Comment

We encourage the commission to remove the 500-foot setback and adopt an aproach consistent with nationally accepted safety standards. The 500-foot restriction is not tied to any recognized engineering, safety or operational standard and not reflective of contemprary understanding of BESS safety or industry practices. Specifically the National Fire Protection Association provides a well-vetted, risk-based framework for siting and safety of energy storage systems. The standard contemplates variable setbacks, often significantly less than the proposed 500 feet. The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry supports responsible deployment of energy storage for grid modernization and energy resilience and respectfully request the removal of this proposed setback provision.

Cepand Alizadeh Oct 14 2025 at 3:36PM on page 175

Comment

As stated earlier in my prior comment on the proposed draft document, we appreciate the county’s proactive approach to revising and updating its zoning ordinance. That said, the setback requirements in the draft amendments raise significant concerns within the industry and merit reconsideration. The proposed 100-foot setback from property lines and 500-foot setback from existing residences are excessive and unsupported by BESS-specific impact data. Such restrictions could limit available land, particularly in urban and infill areas, forcing developers to abandon otherwise viable sites and slowing deployment of critical clean energy infrastructure. More onerous setbacks can also drive up land acquisition and engineering costs. This could make projects financially unfeasible, especially for smaller-scale or community-based initiatives.

Community safety would be protected and practical deployment supported through a more balanced approach, such as a 150-foot setback combined with appropriate screening, fire safety and sound attenuation measures.

Cepand Alizadeh Oct 14 2025 at 3:35PM on page 152

Comment

While we appreciate the county’s proactive approach to revising and updating its zoning ordinance, the setback requirements in the draft amendments raise significant concerns within the industry and merit reconsideration. The proposed 100-foot setback from property lines and 500-foot setback from existing residences are excessive and unsupported by BESS-specific impact data. Such restrictions could limit available land, particularly in urban and infill areas, forcing developers to abandon otherwise viable sites and slowing deployment of critical clean energy infrastructure. More onerous setbacks can also drive up land acquisition and engineering costs. This could make projects financially unfeasible, especially for smaller-scale or community-based initiatives.

Community safety would be protected and practical deployment supported through a more balanced approach, such as a 150-foot setback combined with appropriate screening, fire safety and sound attenuation measures.

Deacon Wardlow Oct 14 2025 at 6:54AM on page 389

Comment

I recommend caution when releasing code with specifications which could create a "sole source' directive effectively giving a single manufacturer a monopoly in the area. The specific build stated in Chapter 11, section J, part 2 refers to a patented configuration which is solely owned by Watchfire Signs (link).

As this part of the code is written it could be in violation of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act. Brightness and display management is well addressed elsewhere in section J and the easiest way to avoid future conflict/issues would be to remove this section as the rest of the code regarding Digital Billboards is well considered.

Patricia DiRoss Oct 13 2025 at 5:18PM on page 175

Comment

A 100-ft set back from the property line is significant. Looking at existing projects in Maricopa County a typical setback is between 30-60 ft. If possible, it would be beneficial to have a 50-ft setback requirement from property line.

James Carpentier Oct 13 2025 at 12:11PM on page 42

Comment

The section that includes the level 1 to 4 levels of operation should be include in the sign code section that regulates EMDs.

James Carpentier Oct 13 2025 at 12:09PM on page 42

Comment

The methodology to measure sign should be included in the sign regulation section of the code.

James Carpentier Oct 13 2025 at 12:02PM on page 283

Comment

Exemptions from section 12.7.2 should be allowed for businesses that are open past 11:00 pm.

James Carpentier Oct 13 2025 at 11:57AM on page 282

Comment

Electronic message displays should also be listed since they do not require shielding.

James Carpentier Oct 13 2025 at 11:43AM on page 392

Comment

The allowable area for this sign type should be encouraged by not including the sign type with the allowable sign area for walls.

James Carpentier Oct 13 2025 at 11:41AM on page 391

Comment

This section needs to accommodate double frontage or corner lots with similar standards.

James Carpentier Oct 13 2025 at 11:22AM on page 384

Question

Section 3. is not clear what shall not exceed 50% of the gross sign area?

James Carpentier Oct 13 2025 at 11:04AM on page 383

Comment

We recommend that this section refer to drive through facilities rather than restaurants to avoid content regulation.

James Carpentier Oct 13 2025 at 10:59AM on page 383

Question

This sign type is not intended to be legible from the street. What is the purpose to have this sign type screened from the ROW?

James Carpentier Oct 13 2025 at 10:54AM on page 382

Comment

We recommend that the allowable sign area for canopies not be included in the allowable sign area for wall signs.

James Carpentier Oct 13 2025 at 10:53AM on page 382

Comment

We recommend that 2.2.1. be eliminated since this is content regulation.

James Carpentier Oct 13 2025 at 10:51AM on page 382

Comment

We recommend that w2.wa. be eliminated since this is content regulation.

James Carpentier Oct 13 2025 at 10:50AM on page 382

Comment

We recommend that the sign regulations be by district rather than use to avoid content regulation.

James Carpentier Oct 13 2025 at 10:47AM on page 381

Comment

A permitter wall sign should not be included in the allowances for wall signs. These are two separate sign types.

James Carpentier Oct 13 2025 at 10:44AM on page 381

Comment

The wall sign area needs to consider and allow for additional sign area for double frontage parcels and corner parcels.

James Carpentier Oct 13 2025 at 10:38AM on page 378

Comment

We recommend that sign regulations be by district rather than use and not include the term identifying since this may be considered content regulation.

James Carpentier Oct 13 2025 at 10:34AM on page 374

Comment

This also contains content regulation and should refer to during construction rather than identifying. As an option describe the sign type and include reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.

James Carpentier Oct 13 2025 at 10:31AM on page 373

Comment

We recommend that RE signs be regulated in a content neutral manner. Rather than pertaining to during the sale or listing. Another option is to describe the sign type such as post sign with a sample image along with time, place and manner requirements.

James Carpentier Oct 13 2025 at 10:19AM on page 369

Comment

Directory signs should be regulated in a content neutral manner without reference to content such as a minor sign with time, place and manner regulations.

James Carpentier Oct 13 2025 at 10:14AM on page 369

Comment

We recommend avoiding content regulation of this nature to avoid potential conflict with Reed vs. Town of Gilbert.

James Carpentier Oct 13 2025 at 10:10AM on page 368

Comment

The removal of the sign 30 days after continual use is not reasonable. Additional time needs to be allowed.

James Carpentier Oct 13 2025 at 9:59AM on page 367

Comment

Section 5. is not reasonable since every sign will increase the ambient light intensity. We suggest that a reasonable enforceable illumination standard be established for static signs.

James Carpentier Oct 13 2025 at 9:55AM on page 367

Comment

The methodology to measure the .3 foot-candle brightness should be included. Contact me for the resource that outlines this methodology.

James Carpentier Oct 13 2025 at 9:52AM on page 366

Comment

Exemptions of this nature may be considered content regulation in conflict with Reed vs. Town of Gilbert. If you contact me, I will send some complimentary resources.

Ty Utton Oct 10 2025 at 11:30AM on page 152

Comment

The proposed 500-foot separation between BESS installations and residential areas is excessive and not justified by fire codes or prevailing industry standards. A more reasonable, performance-based setback framework with flexibility for mitigation would better balance safety and development needs.

Jane Peiffer Oct 6 2025 at 4:59PM on page 61

Question

What about private individuals who are interested in changes and developments in their communities but are not part of an "interest group"? Can those folks sign up the same way to get notified?

View all