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.

Click anywhere in the document to add a comment. Select a bubble to view comments.

Comments

Add comment

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?

Wendy Oct 6 2025 at 4:22PM on page 189

Comment

Why are we requiring any specific findings here? Aren't you subjecting yourself to a potential issue if the findings are not clear enough.

Wendy Oct 6 2025 at 4:13PM on page 60

Comment

Should reduction in permitted uses be in here?

Patricia DiRoss Oct 6 2025 at 3:13PM on page 4

Comment

Relevant Section:
· 902.3.1 Item 3 (PDF page 315-316), bullets a-d.
Diameter restrictions are not applicable to utility power infrastructure (e.g. transmission, distribution poles, etc.)

Wendy Oct 6 2025 at 2:31PM on page 23

Comment

I think this is mispelled....Do you mean offal?

Patricia DiRoss Oct 6 2025 at 2:28PM on page 4

Comment

Relevant Section:
· 902.3.1 Location Sub-Item 1. Bullet item C (PDF page 310-311)
· Concern: “Towers and support structures shall have a maximum diameter of 30” inches (2.5 feet).
· Proposed feedback:
Revise to: “Towers and support structures shall have a maximum base diameter of 60 inches (5 feet) and a maximum top diameter of 42 inches (3.5 feet).”
· Notes: It is common for wireless facility poles to be tapered—wider at the base and narrower at the top. The current document references a 30-inch diameter and the accompanying diagram shows this measurement at the top of the pole. However, it does not specify the diameter at the base, which may be intentional. In practice, most tapered poles deployed for wireless infrastructure vary in range from 36 to 60 inches diameter at the base. As such, the proposed diameter does not reflect the typical dimensions of commonly deployed poles and may need clarification or adjustment to accommodate standard industry designs.

Patricia DiRoss Oct 6 2025 at 2:25PM on page 4

Comment

Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF)
Chapter 129 – Development Regulations (PDF Pages 309-316)

Relevant Section:
· Section 902.2.5 (PDF page 10) . “Facilities for public safety agencies are exempt from the requirements of this Section.”
· Proposed feedback:
Revise to: “Facilities for federal and public safety agencies are exempt from the requirements of this Section.”
· Notes: Federal (SRP entity) versus state and local law governance. Local ordinances do not override federal jurisdiction.

Jeff Oct 3 2025 at 11:17AM on page 199

Comment

This is a mistake. This will not go over well with the community. You are deleting the senic coridor from rockaway hills south.

Jeff Oct 3 2025 at 11:04AM on page 265

Comment

This should not be deleted, exhisting wording is more clear.

Jeff Oct 3 2025 at 10:59AM on page 118

Comment

All these difinitions are being deleted and changed to a confusing chart.

Jeff Oct 3 2025 at 10:58AM on page 108

Comment

You are efectively deleting all zoning calasifications

Jeff Oct 3 2025 at 10:51AM on page 207

Comment

Why get rid of this survey?

Jeff Oct 3 2025 at 10:26AM on page 59

Comment

What are you saying here? By deleting any rule to notify neighbors of a zoning change for any category?

Jeff Oct 3 2025 at 10:13AM on page 32

Typo

I do not believe this to be gramaticly correct.

Elisa Navarette Oct 2 2025 at 11:23AM on page 265

Comment

This seems like a large jump in allowable expansion that could impact housing, it seems like there should be a threshold over which any impacted neighborhoods should have an opportunity to weigh in.

Elisa Navarette Sep 30 2025 at 3:51PM on page 202

Comment

Would like to see a provision for lighting to protect the wildlife in this area. "Mitigating these effects requires using shielded fixtures, warm light, and dimming lights to necessary levels, as well as limiting light trespass and skyglow, according to the National Park Service."

Elisa Navarette Sep 30 2025 at 3:44PM on page 185

Comment

Would like to see an additional requirement that they explain how they are demonstrating "sustainable development."

Elisa Navarette Sep 30 2025 at 3:34PM on page 164

Comment

I think this should also include a stipulation such as this one: "*Include the distancing of 100' from property lines and 500' from existing residential uses."

Elisa Navarette Sep 30 2025 at 3:30PM on page 152

Comment

Please make sure there is consideration for any occupied or non-occupied property zoned as residential.

Elisa Navarette Sep 30 2025 at 3:12PM on page 104

Comment

Shouldn't this also reference "OUTDOOR LIGHT CONTROL PROVISIONS ARTICLE 1112.1.PURPOSE: These provisions are intended to control the use of outdoor artificial illuminating devices emitting rays into the night sky which have a detrimental effect on astronomical observations. It is the intention of this Ordinance to encourage good lighting practices such that lighting systems are designed to conserve energy and money, while increasing nighttime safety, utility, security and productivity."

Elisa Navarette Sep 30 2025 at 3:11PM on page 104

Comment

Should this not also reference "OUTDOOR LIGHT CONTROL PROVISIONS ARTICLE 1112.1.PURPOSE: These provisions are intended to control the use of outdoor artificial illuminating devices emitting rays into the night sky which have a detrimental effect on astronomical observations. It is the intention of this Ordinance to encourage good lighting practices such that lighting systems are designed to conserve energy and money, while increasing nighttime safety, utility, security and productivity."

Elisa Navarette Sep 30 2025 at 3:08PM on page 104

Comment

I think requiring landscaping that in effect requires water usage needs to be reconsidered. While I agree with rain gardens and other methods of helping to slow rainwater runoff to prevent erosion and to recharge aquifers, I don't think we should require water usage for the sake of landscaping when we are still trying to figure out how to supply water for the residents and agriculture. This should only be required to the extent that it will cause the property to match the surroundings. In other words, if there is residential on one side, then facing that side there should be landscaping so as to not devalue or take away aesthetically from that neighborhood.

Elisa Navarette Sep 30 2025 at 12:32PM on page 58

Comment

I don't think newspapers reach the general public anymore, even with online digital versions as these often require subscriptions. While I don't think we should place undue burden on applicants to reach those in the area of concern, I do think there should be a more reliable way, possibly direct mailing or social media.

Elisa Navarette Sep 30 2025 at 12:21PM on page 48

Comment

It seems that this could be limiting alternative energy generation technologies that we don't currently use in large quantities but that may be used in the future. Could this be reworded as such: "Facilities designed to generate and distribute energy (e.g. electrical, nuclear, solar, etc. )..."

Elisa Navarette Sep 30 2025 at 12:15PM on page 46

Typo

This should maybe have an "or" between maintain & enhance instead.

Elisa Navarette Sep 30 2025 at 11:49AM on page 29

Typo

Looks like there may be a comma missing after arranged.

Elisa Navarette Sep 30 2025 at 11:02AM on page 7

Comment

I object to deleting this line, I think this should still be an objective. The zoning commission may be reconsidering the size and conditions of what can be built on a piece of land but this should still be a consideration. Overcrowding contributes to traffic concerns, crime and other disturbances of the peace.

Andrew Yancey Sep 29 2025 at 10:26AM on page 104

Comment

New IND-2 landscaping/buffering requirement should not apply to utility-scale solar and BESS projects. These projects are low-water use by nature, and irrigation requirements should not apply. They are also typically in more remote areas where such screening does not serve a practical purpose. In addition, standard industrial screening in these areas can appear unnatural and out of character - natural desert is generally much more consistent with the area's character.

Andrew Yancey Sep 29 2025 at 10:21AM on page 337

Comment

Please clarify that lot coverage exemption applies to BESS in addition to solar panels.

Andrew Yancey Sep 29 2025 at 10:19AM on page 152

Comment

Please clarify that 500' is measured to the existing residential structure.

Jane Peiffer Sep 24 2025 at 5:22PM on page 59

Comment

Amendments initiated by the Commission should also be held to the same public notice procedures, not just public hearing requirements. I would add the words "notice and" between public -- hearing.

Jane Peiffer Sep 24 2025 at 5:17PM on page 58

Comment

The effects of changes in zoning are much further reaching the the closest 300'. This should be expanded.

in reply to Brittany C's comment

Jane Peiffer Sep 24 2025 at 4:33PM on page 57

Comment

If the notification area is increased then this sentence could read "within the notification area or a reasonable proximity to the subject property..." If someone is outside the 300' (or whatever distance line) by 20' or even 100' they should still be heard and considered the same as someone withing the distance line.

in reply to Brittany C's comment

Jane Peiffer Sep 24 2025 at 4:28PM on page 57

Comment

Agree! Or some proportional increase in distance based on the size of the area of the application. 300' for 5 acres, 1000' for 5-20 acres, 2000' for 20-50 acres, etc. The larger the area of the proposed change the larger the potential future effect on the area so the larger the notification area should be also.

Jane Peiffer Sep 24 2025 at 4:23PM on page 57

Comment

Love this addition of "clearly visible for the nearest public right-of-way...in order to ensure visibility." So many times the area of proposed change in the unincorporated area is away from a roadway as an addition to a different development area. Requiring signage near an actual road is a great step in the right direction!

Jane Peiffer Sep 24 2025 at 3:31PM on page 52

Comment

All sections under this Planning and Zoning Commission relate to Temporary Use Permits and contain no other functions assigned to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Chart on page 52 clearly indicates that they have many functions. Shouldn't those functions also appear here? Or is there a later section where the other functions are discussed and where these can be listed as part of the "complete" list of functions and authority.

Jane Peiffer Sep 24 2025 at 3:26PM on page 52

Comment

Isn't there a further appeal if Planning and Zoning Commission denies an application? I realize there is only so many spaces on the chart/columns but there has to be a way to add the actual appeal step. Could the parenthetical of "(Upon Administrative Denial)" be added to the Decision Authority under the "(Upon Opposition Received)"

Jane Peiffer Sep 24 2025 at 3:16PM on page 52

Comment

The chart above says Extensions to Temporary Use Permits are under the Decision Authority of the Board of Adjustment. But this paragraph says its the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Jane Peiffer Sep 24 2025 at 3:06PM on page 51

Comment

The original edit "...or their duly authorize representative." is better than the newer/longer update. Or you could change representative (singular) to the plural form if the Director is likely to designate/authorize multiple people for various functions (i.e., one per district or for different types of permits/violations, etc.)

in reply to Michael Smith's comment

Jane Peiffer Sep 24 2025 at 2:56PM on page 47

Comment

I completely agree. This restriction is an excessive intrusion by the county.

Jane Peiffer Sep 24 2025 at 2:45PM on page 43

Typo

Missing a comma. "A sign, except billboard signs, portraying..."

Jane Peiffer Sep 24 2025 at 2:38PM on page 41

Comment

object to "future right-of-way line" here as well.

Jane Peiffer Sep 24 2025 at 2:37PM on page 41

Comment

"Future right-of-way line" as a restriction is unduly burdensome on the property owner. The county should either acquire the right-of way and maintain it, or it should not count against the property owner. The County should not be able to say "well, we might want a road there in the future so you can't use xxx feet of the property you pay taxes on."

Jane Peiffer Sep 24 2025 at 2:33PM on page 41

Question

Couldn't this definition be eliminated since there are already definitions for Private School and Public School? Or could they be combined as a School general definition and then sub listing between public and private? Seems overly redundant.
Additionally, why would a business colleges and trade or vocational schools be excluded? These would often offer multiple "branches" of learning and course selections. Why are preschools, nursery schools and nurseries listed as both schools and then later excluded under the "not including" list?

Jane Peiffer Sep 24 2025 at 2:01PM on page 40

Comment

This is a ridiculous restriction and is overly intrusive. Let the HOAs or the CCRs enact restrictions on "community / subdivisions" but leave the rest of us alone. I should be able to have a garage sale or home party as often as I see fit, so long as traffic doesn't impact my neighbors and sale items are not creating a littering or trash problem.
A good compromise might be to say 1 weekend per month, not to exceed 24 individual days in one year.

Jane Peiffer Sep 24 2025 at 1:42PM on page 40

Comment

Not all access easements are roads. Utility access easements are not roads, they are specific limited access to the easement holder. If two neighbors have an access easement for the furthest third neighbor that is not a "road" but more of a private driveway limited to the three properties and not to the public in general such that a road provides. Not all private roads or easements have "right-of-way" lines either.

Jane Peiffer Sep 24 2025 at 1:26PM on page 36

Comment

"for individuals with limited mobility" is poor restriction definition. Anyone could say they have limited mobility. Perhaps it should read more along the lines of: "for vehicles that possess a state issued ADA/Handicap license plate or window placard and possessing an occupant with limited mobility."

Jane Peiffer Sep 24 2025 at 1:02PM on page 36

Comment

County parks often have rental pavillions, sports fields and other areas. Wouldn't that be considered commercial as they are transactional arrangements?
I think you should strike the words "non-commercial" and "not-for-profit." If someone wants to use their land as a private park type space they should be allowed to do so.

Jane Peiffer Sep 24 2025 at 12:55PM on page 35

Typo

Should there be a semicolon after music but before zoo?

View all