by Staff Reporter | Mar 23, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
An appointed group of Scottsdale residents used to approve land and development plans, but state law now requires city staff to do it.
Municipalities must adhere their development review processes to HB 2447, legislation sponsored by House Majority Leader Michael Carbone (R-LD25) passed by the Arizona legislature last year.
The bill made it a requirement, rather than an option, for municipalities to have administrative personnel to review and approve site and development plans, land divisions, lot line adjustments and ties, and preliminary and final plats without a public hearing. It also requires administrative personnel to review and approve design review plans based on objective standards, also without public hearing.
Additionally, the bill requires municipalities to allow at-risk submittals for certain on-site preliminary grading and draining work on infrastructure, and applicants with a history of compliance with building codes and regulations to be eligible for expedited permit review.
The goal behind the legislation was to accelerate development approvals, according to Rep. Carbone.
“It’s more about expediting versus the long process which takes anywhere from six months to two years,” said Carbone during the House Commerce Committee hearing last February.
The city of Scottsdale announced on Thursday that they would still rely on their citizen-led board as they adopt the changes required by law.
Previously the city relied on appointed citizens to its Development Review Board (DRB) to undertake those responsibilities modified by HB 2447. Although residents will no longer be charged with handling all development approvals, the city says the DRB will continue “under a revised structure” in which the board will review applicant-requested deviations from objective design standards.
Additionally, the city said the board will be the one to ensure compliance with state requirements by transitioning existing design guidelines into clear, objective standards.
DRB’s staff liaison and the city’s Planning & Development area manager, Brad Carr, said city staff would play more of an assisting role to the DRB.
“The Development Review Board has always had a mission to uphold the highest standards for development in Scottsdale,” said Carr. “While the new state law alters the scope and practice that the DRB has employed in the past, the mission remains the same. City staff is committed to assisting the board in that mission.”
The city of Scottsdale notified the public in a press release that city staff are also evaluating and updating city code and zoning ordinances to align with the new state law, and had already amended the Land Division Ordinance in December for administrative processing of land division plats.
Scottsdale leadership has been critical of the changes.
Scottsdale Councilwoman Jan Dubauskas told Scottsdale Progress that the legislation removed community control over development processes.
“Local control ensures that our communities remain distinct and in Scottsdale helps us keep our unique charm,” said Dubauskas. “In Scottsdale, our design and planning commissions bring residents to the table to help keep our city special. The legislature’s effort to erode local control is concerning because it will eventually homogenize all communities.”
The bill received support from a number of builder advocate groups and some municipalities: the Arizona Chapter of NAIOP; Arizona Chamber of Commerce; Arizona Multihousing Association; the cities of Goodyear, Glendale, Buckeye, Maricopa; the town of Queen Creek; Home Builders Association of Central Arizona; and League of Arizona Cities and Towns.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Corinne Murdock | Feb 15, 2022 | Education, News
By Corinne Murdock |
The House will soon vote on a bill to allow college faculty and students to carry and possess firearms on campus property. The bill, HB2447, would only require that faculty and students submit notification to their administration that they are armed and possess a concealed carry permit. In the state of Arizona, individuals must be 21 or older to receive a valid concealed carry permit, or 19 and older for active military and veterans. The bill would extend to all higher education campuses — community colleges as well as four-year colleges and universities — and require them to adopt guidelines for firearm usage during an active shooter situation.
The House Rules Committee passed the bill on Monday. The House Judiciary Committee passed the bill last month along party lines, 6-4.
While House Judiciary Committee Republicans viewed the bill as a further defense of Second Amendment rights and increased, committee Democrats conveyed concern that allowing more guns on campuses would decrease safety. The bill sponsor, State Representative Quang Nguyen (R-Prescott Valley), cited how Texas passed a bill ensuring the same rights in 2016, SB11. Nguyen serves as the Arizona Rifle and Pistol Association president currently and is a certified CCW instructor, firearms safety instructor, rifle coach, and previously a state director for a junior rifle team overseeing competitors aged 12 to 20.
Arizona State University (ASU) Police Chief Michael Thompson insisted that college students lack the maturity to carry a firearm. Thompson said that students should leave it up to the professionals on campus: law enforcement and security.
“The notion that a CCW training is going to prevent some kind of mass shooting on campus is a fantasy,” said Thompson. “They are still in a very developmental stage in their lives, and they tend to not think through consequences and have issues with their actions at many occasions. It’s increasing and adding a risk to a campus that’s not necessary.”
Chairman Walt Blackman (R-Snowflake) explained that while in the military he oversaw platoons of hundreds of young men in the very age bracket that Thompson criticized: 18 to 23 years old. Blackman said that, based on his experience, he disagreed with Thompson’s assessment that college students
Thompson rebutted that the 18 to 23 years old in the military are soldiers “with training and supervision,” whereas those in college would be “intoxicated” and “in their dorm room, showing off rifles and handling pistols.”
Nguyen’s subsequent line of questioning prompted a heated exchange between the legislator and Thompson.
Nguyen responded that Thompson’s characterization of ASU’s climate made the case for necessitating concealed carry. He added that young adults may vote and even be drafted to serve in the military at 18, and cited his own daughter as an example, who finished six weeks of boot camp before turning 18 and received a firearm as part of her assignment.
“You kind of scare me when you start talking about kids drinking and doing drugs and being irresponsible. You just made a case for me to not send my kids to ASU,” said Nguyen. “Or you’re making the case for me that if I send my 21-year-old daughter to ASU, she should be armed to protect herself from all the drugs and the drug users on campus.”
Thompson said that his issue wasn’t with concealed carry generally, but with the ability for any states’ concealed carry permit to be permissible for use on college campuses. Nguyen questioned Thompson why concealed carry permits existed at all if those permits were questionable, or why Arizona allows reciprocity.
Minority Whip Domingo DeGrazia (D-Tucson) expressed concern that concealed carry permits may be obtained through an online course and a 15-minute interview with an instructor.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
