What's Hot

    Developer Proposing 83-Unit Condo Project in Flagstaff

    July 25, 2025

    BNSF Looks to Combine Plan Amendment, Rezoning in 1 County Hearing

    July 25, 2025

    GO Industrial Planning Car Storage Facility in Phoenix

    July 25, 2025
    Facebook Twitter Instagram
    AZBEX
    NEWS TICKER
    • [July 25, 2025] - Developer Proposing 83-Unit Condo Project in Flagstaff
    • [July 25, 2025] - BNSF Looks to Combine Plan Amendment, Rezoning in 1 County Hearing
    • [July 25, 2025] - GO Industrial Planning Car Storage Facility in Phoenix
    • [July 25, 2025] - Arizona Projects 07-25-25
    • [July 23, 2025] - Mohave County May Remove Data Centers as Economic Development Goal
    • [July 23, 2025] - Yuma P&Z Recommends Multifamily General Plan Amendment
    • [July 22, 2025] - Ariz. Construction Gained 600 Jobs in June
    • [July 22, 2025] - Yavapai Board Enables Bid Process for Cornville Road Roundabout
    Facebook Twitter YouTube LinkedIn
    • Home
    • News
      1. View Latest
      2. Planning & Development
      3. Local News
      4. Classifieds
      5. Editorial Analysis
      6. Budgets & Funding
      7. Commercial Real Estate
      8. People on the Move
      9. Arizona Projects
      10. Legislation & Regulations
      11. Trends

      Developer Proposing 83-Unit Condo Project in Flagstaff

      July 25, 2025

      BNSF Looks to Combine Plan Amendment, Rezoning in 1 County Hearing

      July 25, 2025

      GO Industrial Planning Car Storage Facility in Phoenix

      July 25, 2025

      Yuma P&Z Recommends Multifamily General Plan Amendment

      July 23, 2025

      Mohave County May Remove Data Centers as Economic Development Goal

      July 23, 2025

      Ariz. Construction Gained 600 Jobs in June

      July 22, 2025

      Scottsdale Report Shows Multifamily Pipeline Half of Common Estimate

      July 22, 2025

      Alleging Breaches, ZenniHome Closes NGS Operations

      July 21, 2025

      Glendale Voters to Determine VAI Resort’s Fate

      May 16, 2025

      Legislation Would Effectively Strip NIMBYs of Referendum Tool

      February 11, 2025

      2025 Forecast Tries to Clarify an Uncertain Market

      February 7, 2025

      KOREPlex Buckeye Site Quietly Listed For Sale

      January 31, 2025

      Ariz. LIHTC to Sunset Under New Budget

      July 8, 2025

      State Government Shutdown Averted as Hobbs Signs Budget

      July 1, 2025

      Arterial Life Cycle Program Covers 20 Years of Street Development

      June 27, 2025

      $56M+ MAG Program will Enable $90M in Arterial Street Widening Projects

      June 24, 2025

      Commercial Real Estate 07-22-25

      July 22, 2025

      Commercial Real Estate 07-15-25

      July 15, 2025

      Commercial Real Estate 07-08-25

      July 8, 2025

      Commercial Real Estate 07-01-25

      July 1, 2025

      Industry Professionals 07-22-25

      July 22, 2025

      Industry Professionals 07-15-25

      July 15, 2025

      Industry Professionals 07-08-25

      July 8, 2025

      Industry Professionals 07-01-25

      July 1, 2025

      Arizona Projects 07-25-25

      July 25, 2025

      Arizona Projects 07-18-25

      July 18, 2025

      Arizona Projects 07-11-25

      July 11, 2025

      Arizona Projects 06-27-25

      June 27, 2025

      Mohave County May Remove Data Centers as Economic Development Goal

      July 23, 2025

      Alleging Breaches, ZenniHome Closes NGS Operations

      July 21, 2025

      Ariz. LIHTC to Sunset Under New Budget

      July 8, 2025

      Tax Bill Would Make LIHTC Permanent

      July 2, 2025

      Ariz. Construction Gained 600 Jobs in June

      July 22, 2025

      BEX Updates Construction Sector Projections in Annual Mid-Year Update

      July 18, 2025

      Phoenix Industrial Sees First Vacancy Drop in Years; YoY Completions Drop 75%

      July 18, 2025

      Phoenix Construction Costs See 4.42% Q2 Annual Change

      July 15, 2025

      Developer Proposing 83-Unit Condo Project in Flagstaff

      July 25, 2025

      BNSF Looks to Combine Plan Amendment, Rezoning in 1 County Hearing

      July 25, 2025

      GO Industrial Planning Car Storage Facility in Phoenix

      July 25, 2025

      Arizona Projects 07-25-25

      July 25, 2025
    • AZBEX
      • Subscribe
      • Classifieds
      • Advertising
    • DATABEX
      • Webinars
      • Monthly Snapshot
    • Events
      • 2025 Mid-Year Update
      • 2025 Industrial LMS
    • About Us
      • Meet the Company
      • Meet the Sales Team
      • Meet the Editorial Team
      • Meet the BEXperts
    AZBEX
    Home » Planning & Development » Developer Opposed to Yuma Rezoning Conditions
    Planning & Development

    Developer Opposed to Yuma Rezoning Conditions

    BEX StaffBy BEX StaffMay 21, 2025No Comments4 Mins Read
    Credit: City of Yuma
    Share
    Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email

    By Roland Murphy for AZBEX

    Conditions imposed by the City of Yuma on a requested rezoning for a 50-acre parcel at the SEC of State Route 195 and 40th Street have not been well received by the landowner.

    The disagreement prompted the Yuma Planning and Zoning Commission to continue a discussion and vote on the request during its April 28 meeting.

    In the March BEX Leading Market Series event dealing with housing, land use attorney Benjamin Tate of Withey Morris Baugh told attendees he is more frequently encountering situations in which cities and other jurisdictions impose greater portions of development costs on owners and developers to offset infrastructure development beyond the impacts created by the specific projects.

    Quoting the AZBEX article on the event, “Tate said his biggest challenges and cases at the moment tend to center around infrastructure and impact fees. In addition to various cities and jurisdictions recently increasing or planning to increase fees as part of their regular review cycle, he and his firm have been busy evaluating, and occasionally challenging, what portions of infrastructure costs get assessed to developers.

    “In 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled cities cannot impose fees without establishing a relationship between a development and its proportional impact on infrastructure and costs. Tate explained it has been an ongoing effort to correctly determine what that proportionality is and to protect clients from having to pay too great a percentage of costs, particularly for infrastructure projects that were planned before a given development was even envisioned.” (AZBEX, March 14)

    The Yuma Conditions

    The City staff’s conditions appear to be a related issue. The Yuma Sun reported landowner Brian L. Hall Living Trust requested rezoning of a 50-acre property from agriculture to high density residential. There are no development plans in place yet, as the owner is still working to determine the maximum and minimum potential density for the site, which has the potential for anywhere between 657 and 1,516 units under the standards for the proposed high-density residential zoning.

    City staff presented seven conditions for approval, two of which have been called out by the owner’s legal representative as inappropriate.

    One condition, Number Five, would require the owner or developer to build sound attenuation walls along the frontage of SR 195 and future elevated portions of 40th Street. Representing the owner, attorney William Katz argued the condition would require expensive development features to be added to the project and that similar developments along SR 195, including a developed City property, have not required building sound attenuation walls.

    Katz also argued imposing a requirement for sound attenuation on streets used for transportation improvements would require a change to Yuma’s Infrastructure Improvement Plan, which would require an action by the City Council.

    The Sun quoted Katz as saying, “Any improvement that is an exaction or condition of approval that’s required on the developer in order to proceed with the project is required to be put into an amended IIP so that developer can receive credit against street and transportation development fees over the cost of the improvement.”

    The other condition, Number Six, would require a payment-in-lieu for designing and building the roadway on 40th Street from the western edge of the property frontage to Avenue 6¾ East. The improvements would include two travel lanes constructed to City standards, with aggregate base, pavement, sidewalks, landscaping and streetlights.

    According to Katz, the street section is not part of the Council’s current IIP, and placing it as a condition of approval would require Council to amend the plan.

    Katz also questioned imposing the two conditions in the rezoning phase of the process. He said these types of requirements would normally be discussed after the rezoning when the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council considered platting for the development.

    Katz argued imposing expensive development requirements on a rezoning is not allowed under City code or State law.

    The City’s legal counsel, John LeSueur, said imposing the conditions in the rezoning stage did not violate City code or State law. His argument was supported by City Engineer Andrew McGarvie who said there is not a platting requirement for the apartments proposed on the site and the City felt the conditions would be best addressed in the rezoning process.

    The Commission met in executive session to take advice from counsel and voted to continue the case to the May 12 meeting, where it was approved 6-0 with all the original conditions intact, including a requirement to satisfy all the conditions within two years of the zoning ordinance being approved by Council.

    abuse of process apartments/condos approval conditions Benjamin Tate BEX Leading Market Series City of Yuma IIP Infrastructure Improvement Plan John LeSueur multifamily Private rezoning William Katz Withey Morris Baugh Yuma City Council Yuma Planning and Zoning Commission
    Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn WhatsApp Reddit Tumblr Email

    Related Posts

    Developer Proposing 83-Unit Condo Project in Flagstaff

    July 25, 2025

    BNSF Looks to Combine Plan Amendment, Rezoning in 1 County Hearing

    July 25, 2025

    GO Industrial Planning Car Storage Facility in Phoenix

    July 25, 2025

    Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Our Picks

    Developer Proposing 83-Unit Condo Project in Flagstaff

    July 25, 2025

    BNSF Looks to Combine Plan Amendment, Rezoning in 1 County Hearing

    July 25, 2025

    GO Industrial Planning Car Storage Facility in Phoenix

    July 25, 2025

    Arizona Projects 07-25-25

    July 25, 2025
    Stay In Touch
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • LinkedIn
    • YouTube
    Don't Miss
    Planning & Development

    Developer Proposing 83-Unit Condo Project in Flagstaff

    July 25, 20250

    By Roland Murphy for AZBEX Red Oak Development Group is planning to build an 83-unit…

    BNSF Looks to Combine Plan Amendment, Rezoning in 1 County Hearing

    July 25, 2025

    GO Industrial Planning Car Storage Facility in Phoenix

    July 25, 2025

    Arizona Projects 07-25-25

    July 25, 2025

    BEX serves architecture, engineering and construction firms as well as all the ancillary product and service categories that market to them. These include manufacturing representatives, public agencies and private real estate organizations, specialty subcontractors and services providers related to our industry.

    Our Picks

    Developer Proposing 83-Unit Condo Project in Flagstaff

    July 25, 2025

    BNSF Looks to Combine Plan Amendment, Rezoning in 1 County Hearing

    July 25, 2025

    GO Industrial Planning Car Storage Facility in Phoenix

    July 25, 2025
    Contact Us

    Phone: 480-709-4190
    Address: P.O. Box 12196 Tempe, AZ 85284
    Email: sales@azbex.com

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.