– by Jerusalem Demsas Many individuals wrote in and complained about the new law which would have given more power to builders, CAI, CCMC, etc. If you read the bill below, you will see it has major flaws in it. I wrote and asked the legislature to deny this bill. It would not stop builders from making the same decisions and even less appropriate decisions with regard to lots, etc. Secondly, this has little to do with the military writing a letter and asking to not approve housing near air bases. Finally, the bill would open up more builds to more abuse by builders and builder owned HOAs. Read the bill (below). By me, lot sizing is determined at the municipal level. Usually, the builder picks the smallest size lots they can to maximize the
Topics:
Bill Haskell considers the following as important: AZ, law, politics
This could be interesting, too:
Angry Bear writes Planned Tariffs, An Economy Argument with Political Implications
Joel Eissenberg writes Will DOGE be an exercise in futility?
Bill Haskell writes The spider’s web called Healthcare Insurance
Bill Haskell writes Funding Public Goods Problematic??? Blame the Tax-Dodging Billionaire
– by Jerusalem Demsas
Many individuals wrote in and complained about the new law which would have given more power to builders, CAI, CCMC, etc. If you read the bill below, you will see it has major flaws in it.
I wrote and asked the legislature to deny this bill. It would not stop builders from making the same decisions and even less appropriate decisions with regard to lots, etc. Secondly, this has little to do with the military writing a letter and asking to not approve housing near air bases. Finally, the bill would open up more builds to more abuse by builders and builder owned HOAs. Read the bill (below).
By me, lot sizing is determined at the municipal level. Usually, the builder picks the smallest size lots they can to maximize the numbers of homes they can build. Most of the homes in one development are on lots from 4600 to 5500 square feet. You would get seven to nine homes on an acre of land. They would 4-5 feet off the lot line, twenty feet set back and about twenty-five feet in depth for a back yard.
The homes are from 1300 to 2100 square feet. Back yards can get pretty skimpy.
The reasoning is pretty clear as the restrictions are with the Builder who makes all the decisions on lot sizing to maximize profits. This law would give greater freedom to a builder. A freedom which is displayed in one development in Maricopa, AZ. The Lakes in Rancho El Dorado is a beautiful development to look at upon arrival. It does have its issues not told to potential buyers. The lakes are polluted and the HOA Declarant (builder/investor) and the builders have been promising a solution for years now. Until buildout, both have the power.
The HOA is builder paid and is not open to requests of the residents. For years they have been telling residents of a fix which has not occurred. The community is not allowed to talk to the Declarant picked HOA members. Every document which is not filed with the county is secretive. To the point, it is the builder and developers who decide once a development is approved.
As it is the Declarant and the Builders in The Lakes of Ranch El Dorado in Maricopa AZ are not doing the necessary work to clean up The Lakes pollution. Neither are they advising interested buyers of The Lakes problems. So now, you have fraud. The Declarant and the Builders have total control. There is nothing that says the municipality has invoked unnecessary restrictions on the builders.
Furthermore and in the beginning, the Builder has complete control of the build until 75% of the homes are built and then the HOA goes to the homeowners. It is the Builder who decides lot sizing and other community restrictions in conjunction with a City/Town, Township, County, and at times a state law or ordinance.
Typically there are two ways to build, a straight build is where the builder adheres to all city, county ordnances. A planned unit development is one where the builder/developer comes to the appropriate government and offers up a plan. Gives and takes are often in the negotiation. In one instance we gave up one restriction to achieve lower cost single units.
Until buildout occurs, the HOA is run by the builders in AZ.
State of Arizona
House of Representatives
Fifty-sixth Legislature
Second Regular Session
2024
REFERENCE TITLE: planning; home design; restrictions; prohibition HB 2570
1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
2 Section 1. Title 9, chapter 4, article 6, Arizona Revised Statutes,
3 is amended by adding sections 9-461.18 and 9-461.19, to read:
4 9-461.18. Planning; home design
5 A. A MUNICIPALITY MAY NOT INTERFERE WITH A HOME BUYER’S RIGHT TO
6 CHOOSE THE FEATURES, AMENITIES, STRUCTURE, FLOOR PLAN AND INTERIOR AND
7 EXTERIOR DESIGN OF A HOME.
8 B. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A MUNICIPALITY MAY NOT REQUIRE
9 ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
10 1. A HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, A CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION OR ANY
11 OTHER ASSOCIATION. PROPERTY OWNERS MAY VOLUNTARILY FORM OR ESTABLISH A
12 HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, A CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION OR ANOTHER ASSOCIATION.
13 2. A SHARED FEATURE OR AMENITY THAT WOULD REQUIRE A HOMEOWNERS’
14 ASSOCIATION, A CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION OR ANY OTHER ASSOCIATION TO
15 MAINTAIN OR OPERATE THE FEATURE OR AMENITY, UNLESS NECESSARY FOR
16 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.
17 3. SCREENING, WALLS OR FENCES.
18 4. PRIVATE STREETS OR ROADS.
19 C. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION DO NOT SUPERSEDE APPLICABLE
20 BUILDING CODES, FIRE CODES OR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS.
21 9-461.19. Planning; applicability; lot size
22 A. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A MUNICIPALITY WITH A POPULATION
23 OF MORE THAN FIFTY THOUSAND PERSONS THAT IS DESIGNATED IN WHOLE OR IN PART
24 AS AN URBAN AREA BY THE UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU MAY NOT ADOPT OR
25 ENFORCE ANY CODE, ORDINANCE, REGULATION, STANDARD, STIPULATION OR OTHER
26 REQUIREMENT ESTABLISHING, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
27 1. MAXIMUM OR MINIMUM LOT SIZES ON WHICH A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME MAY
28 BE LOCATED.
29 2. MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OR DIMENSIONS FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.
30 3. MAXIMUM OR MINIMUM LOT COVERAGE FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AND ANY
31 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
32 4. MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS GREATER THAN FIVE FEET FOR A
33 SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.
34 5. DESIGN, ARCHITECTURAL OR AESTHETIC ELEMENTS FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY
35 HOME.
36 B. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION DO NOT SUPERSEDE APPLICABLE
37 BUILDING CODES, FIRE CODES OR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS.
38 Sec. 2. Short title
39 This act may be cited as the “Arizona Starter Homes Act”.
Why Did The U.S. Navy Kill Arizona’s Housing Bill? – The Atlantic, Jerusalem Demsas