Joint Legislative Study Committee on Age-Specific Community Zoning Districts & Retirement Communities: final report

              JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE
ON AGE- SPECIFIC COMMUNITY
ZONING DISTRICTS &
RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES
FINAL REPORT
DECEMBER 1,1995
JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE
ON AGE- SPECIFIC COMMUNITY
ZONING DISTRICTS &
RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES
FINAL REPORT
DECEMBER 1,1995
Committee Members
Senator Warren Austin Turner, Co- Chair Representative Scott Bundgaard, Co- Chair
Senator Peter Goudinoff Representative Ruben F. Ortega
Craig Ahlstrom, Farnsworth Companies
David Bartlett, Attorney General's Office
Jim Graham, Sun Lakes Home Owners' Association
Earl Miner, Green Valley Community Coordinating Council
Joe Lane, Executive Assistant, Governor's Office
Mort Reed, Sun City Home Owners' Association
Fred Williams, Sun City West
EXECUTIVSEU MMARY
Section I
The Joint Legislative Study Committee on Age- Specific Community Zoning Districts and
Retirement Communities was established by Laws 1995, Chapter 83 ( Appendix A). The eleven
member committee was formed to study issues related to senior citizens and retirement communities
in Arizona. The charges of the study committee are to:
O study issues related to:
the common features that distinguish retirement communities, including both large
and small communities;
methods of addressing the specific needs of retirement communities in relationship
to the local, state and national government; and
the relationship between retirement communities and the Arizona fair housing act.
O prepare and submit a report on all aspects of the study to the President of the Senate and
the Speaker of the House of Representatives by December 1, 1995.
DISCUSSIOTNO PICS
Section I1
In 1994, an ad hoc worlung group on Age- Specific Zoning and Fair Housing reviewed some
specific needs of retirement communities. including the relationship between the Federal Fair
Housing Act and retirement communities. The working group also discussed legislation to create
a governmental entity with limited powers and authority for retirement communities. This
legislation. SB 1096 ( special governmental retirement communities), was introduced during the 1995
legislative session; however, a strike- everything amendment was adopted creating the Joint
Legislative Study Committee on Age- Specific Community Zoning Districts and Retirement
Communities.
The Joint Legislative Study Committee on Age- Specific Community Zoning Districts and
Retirement Communities held four meetings during the 1995 interim for the purpose of discussing
and revie~ ringis sues concerning retirement communities. The committee proceeded from the work
that was accomplished by the ad hoc working group. Some of the concerns of retirement
communities identified include: Federal Fair Housing Act exemption provisions; senior overlay
zones; and quasi- governmental entities.
FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING ACT OF 1988
In 1988, the Federal Fair Housing Amendment Act was enacted to protect families with
children fiom discrimination in housing. Under this Act, seniors- only communities may qualify for
an exemption from the anti- family- discrimination statute if certain co~ ditionsar e met.
Currently, to qualify for exemption status, the Federal Fair Housing Act requires retirement
communities to demonstrate that at least 80 percent of the households have in residence one person
55 years of age or older. The exemption provisions also require seniors- only communities to provide
significant facilities and services to meet the physical and social needs of senior citizens, such as
ramped sidewalks, public transportation and recreational facilities.
The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD)' was assigned to
develop regulations to enforce the senior housing qualification provisions of the Fair Housing Act.
HUD published these regulations in 1991 and has revised them several times attempting to respond
to residents of senior communities across the nation who had expressed their frustrations with the
rules.
In 1994, HUD representatives visited retirement communities for citizen input due to the
continued high degree of public interest and as part of the HUD rule- making process. During their
tour. HUD officials held a public meeting in Phoenix with almost 2,000 senior community members
in attendance. Representatives of HUD expressed support for rules which are fair and just for large
and small retirement communities, while senior community residents expressed concerns about the
ability of some communities to satisfy the significant facilities and service requirements. Some
\ viewed the requirement as discriminatory because it increases housing costs. Others suggested
seniors should be viewed as self- sufficient adults and be able to select a living environment suited
to their individual needs. Some retirement communities expressed the need for a verification
mechanism or compliance strategy for the 80 percent occupancy requirement to provide themselves
\ i. ith legal protection in the event their compliance with fair housing laws is challenged.
On August 18, 1995, HUD issued its most recent modification of the exemption provisions,
re\ ising the definition of the significant facilities and services requirement. However, some small
and large senior communities still opposed this rule.
This year, the U. S. House of Representatives introduced HR660, the Housing for Older
Pcrsons .4ct of 1995, to ease requirements for seniors- only communities to satisfy Federal Fair
Housing Act regulations. This legislation eliminates the significant facilities and services
requirement for seniors- only housing fiom the 1988 Federal Fair Housing Act. The Joint Legislative
Stud!. Committee on Age- Specific Community Zoning Districts and Retirement Communities has
been tracking HR660 through the legislative process. David Bartlett, Chief Counsel of the Civil
Rights Section at the Office of the Attorney General, suggested that the study committee recommend
legislation to change state law in order to maintain consistency with the Federal Act, contingent upon
the passage of HR660.
AGE- SPECIFIC ZONING
Retirement communities generally consist of many common interest developments which
are individually managed by home owners' associations. Home owners7 associations are governed
by deed restrictions and by- laws, and in some retirement communities, these governing documents
restrict residency to people who must be of a specific age or older. Some retirement communities
however do not have age- restricting provisions in their deeds.
In 1 982, Senate Bill 1 3 54 ( cities and towns; age spec$ c community zoning districts) was
enacted permitting municipalities and counties to establish senior community zoning districts
restricting residency to a head of a household or spouse who must be of a specific age or older.
Additionally, minors are prohibited from living in these senior community zoning districts.
Maricopa County adopted zoning ordinances to permit the use of senior overlay zoning and has
established several senior overlay zones for retirement communities such as Sun City and Sun City
West. No other county in Arizona has ever permitted this type of zoning.
The Committee discussed the history of senior overlay zones but made no recommendations
to amend existing law. Senator Peter Goudinoff expressed concern about the effect of a significant
decrease in demand for housing in age- specific communities in the future and the potential zoning
implications. Currently, Title 1 1, Section 829, Arizona Revised Statutes, addresses this concern
providing for down zoning through the adoption of an ordinance or by changing the boundaries of
a zoning district. Down zoning requires the approval from the county board of supervisors and the
county planning and zoning commission. The planning and zoning commission is required to hold
a public meeting on the zoning change. Upon receipt of the zoning commission's recommendation,
the county board of supervisors is required to hold a public meeting and notify, by first class mail,
each real property owner within three hundred feet of the proposed zoning boundary change. If
tuent? percent of the real property owners by area and number within the zoning area protests, an
affirmative vote of three- fourths of the board of supervisors is required to approve the zoning
change. After the public meeting, the board may adopt the boundary change.
QUASI- GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES
Some planned retirement communities in Arizona have been interested in having greater
planning. zoning and architectural control in their respective communities, including the power to
pass and enforce local ordinances. These communities, however, such as Sun City, Green Valley
and Sun Lakes, have chosen by vote not to incorporate and are not seeking city status. Last year's
ad hoc working group reviewed several bills that had been introduced in the past to create special
retirement community governmental entities with limited powers and authority. Senate Bill 1096,
creating special retirement community governments, was a result of that committee's work.
The Study Committee on Age- Specific Zoning and Retirement Communities discussed the
idea of establishing a special retirement community government with more planning and zoning
power and authority. Some members of the committee expressed concern with issues such as
establishing boundaries, legal responsibility, financing mechanisms and liability issues. The
committee then reviewed special districts and quasi- governmental entities existing in other states.
Specifically, the committee studied examples of the following types of governmental entities:
Cl Special Community Improvement Districts
Special districts in general, are independent and co- exist with substantial administrative
and fiscal independence from general purpose governments, such as county, municipal
or township governments. Special district governments usually perform a single
function, but in some instances, are authorized to provide related services.
O The LaVale Zoning District
The LaVale Zoning District, a unique special district with limited zoning powers, was
created for the purpose of regulating land use and building construction and design in a
ten square mile area of an unincorporated suburb. The LaVale Zoning Board may also
regulate the use of buildings and prescribe density limitations. Additionally, the Board
may establish and enforce regulations.
O Neighborhood Advisory Councils
Generally established through local ordinance or administrative action, neighborhood
advisory councils exist in a number of localities. These types of councils are advisory
in nature, but the scope of their duties nevertheless varies. Some neighborhood advisory
councils deal with specialized school functions; others may advise counties or
municipalities on a wide variety of functions performed by the parent government. As
an illustration, the advisory neighborhood commissions in the District of Columbia
advise the District government on matters of public policy including decisions regarding
planning, streets, recreation, social services programs and sanitation in their respective
neighborhoods.
A proposal was presented to the Committee to establish Retirement Village Advisory
Councils ( Appendix F). The Committee reviewed and discussed draft legislation addressing several
technical and legal issues which legislative members agreed to resolve. The Committee approved,
as a recommendation, Retirement Village draft legislation and any necessary technical modifications.
COMMIT~ REEEC OMMENDATIONS
Section I11
The Joint Legislative Study Committee on Age- Specific Community Zoning Districts and
Retirement Communities made the following recommendations:
O Legislation should be introduced to modify Arizona's fair housing statutes to conform
to the Federal Fair Housing Act, contingent upon the passage of HR660 ( Housing for
Older Persons Act of 1995).
O Introduce legislation to establish a mechanism for the formation of Retirement Village
Advisory Councils.
House Engrossed Senate B i l l
S t a t e o f Arizona
Senate
F o r t y - s e c o n d L e g i s l a t u r e
F i r s t Regul a r Session
1995
CHAPTER 83
SENATE B I L L 1096
AN ACT
E s t a b l i s h i n g t h e j o i n t l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e r i m s t u d y committee on age s p e c i f i c
community z o n i n g d i s t r i c t s .
Be i t enacted by t h e L e g i s l a t u r e of t h e S t a t e o f A r i z o n a :
S e c t i o n 1. J o i n t l e s i s l a t i v e i n t e r i m s t u d y committee on
aae s ~ e c i f i c communi t v z o n i n s d i s t r i c t s ;
members: d u t i e s : r e ~ o r t
A . A j o i n t l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e r i m study committee on age s p e c i f i c community
zoning d i s t r i c t s i s e s t a b l i s h e d c o n s i s t i n g o f t h e f o l l o w i n g members:
1. Four 1 egi s l a t o r s r e p r e s e n t i n g d i s t r i c t s w i t h s u b s t a n t i a1 r e t i rement
. p o p u l a t i o n s , two members o f t h e senate who are appointed by t h e p r e s i d e n t o f t h e
senate and two members o f the house o f r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a p p o i n t e d by t h e speaker
o f the house o f r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .
2. Four p u b l i c members r e p r e s e n t i n g r e t i r e m e n t c o m m u n i t i e s . t w o members
who are a p p o i n t e d by t h e p r e s i d e n t of t h e senate and two members who a r e
a p p o i n t e d by t h e speaker o f t h e house of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .
3. One p u b l i c member appointed j o i n t l y by t h e p r e s i d e n t of t h e senate and
the speaker o f t h e house of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e home b u i l d e r s '
i n d u s t r y .
4 . One r e p r e s e n t a t i v e from the Arizona a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l ' s o f f i c e appointed
by t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l .
5 . One r e p r e s e n t a t i v e from t h e g o v e r n o r ' s o f f i c e a p p o i n t e d by t h e
g o v e r n o r .
€ 3. The p r e s i d e n t of t h e senate and t h e speaker o f t h e house o f
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s s h a l l each d e s i g n a t e a cochairman from among t h e c o m m i t t e e ' s
l e g i s l a t i v e members.
C . Appointed members serve a t t h e p l e a s u r e o f t h e person who made t h e
appointment .
D. Committee members a r e n o t e l i g i b l e t o r e c e i v e compensation or
reimbursement f o r expenses.
E . The committee s h a l l study i s s u e s r e l a t e d t o s e n i o r c i t i z e n s and
r e t i r e m e n t communities i n t h e s t a t e i n c l u d i n g :
1. The common f e a t u r e s t h a t d i s t i n g u i s h r e t i r e m e n t communities, i n c l u d i n g
both l a r g e and small communities.
2. Methods o f addressing t h e s p e c i f i c needs o f r e t i r e m e n t communities i n
r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e l o c a l , s t a t e and n a t i o n a l government-.
3. The re1 a t i o n s h i p between r e t i r e m e n t communities and t h e Arizona f a i r
housing a c t .
F . The committee s h a l l prepare and submit a r e p o r t on a l l aspects o f t h e
study t o t h e p r e s i d e n t o f t h e senate and t h e speaker o f t h e house o f
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s by December 1. 1995.
G. The study committee may use the s e r v i c e s o f s t a f f from t h e l e g i s l a t i v e
and e x e c u t i v e branches as needed and as made a v a i l a b l e by t h e g o v e r n o r , t h e
p r e s i d e n t o f t h e senate and t h e speaker o f t h e house o f r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .
Sec. 2. R e ~ e a l
This a c t i s repealed from and a f t e r December 31, 1995.
APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR APRIL 15. 1995
FILED I N THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE APRIL 17, 1995
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
I N T E R I M MEETING NOTICE
Open to the Public
STUDY COMMITTEE ON AGE- SPECIFIC ZONING AND RHVWWNT COMMUNITIES
DATE: Thursday, August 3,1995
TIME: 3: 30 p. m. !
Senator Austin Turner
Cochairman
PLACE: Senate Hearing Room 3
Reuresentative Scott Bund~ aard
Cochairman
Membe~
Senator Peter ~ dudlnorr
Representative Ruben F. Ortega
Mr. Craig Ahlstrom, Farnsworth Companies
Mr. David C. Bartletf Attorney General's Offlce
Mr. Jim Graham, Sun Lakes Home Owner's Association
Mr. Earl Miner, Green Valley Community Coordtnathg Council
Mr. Mort Reed, Sun City Home Owners Association
Mr. Fred Williams, Sun City West
Phdiridnala with dlrubillties M y mqneat ucommod. fions such . I lntnrpretara, . ItenuUve form+ ts. or aaxistmce aitb ph@ d . ccaaalbUty.
Raqnesu lor uxommodrrtons must be made u least 72 h o w ln advmca If yon repatre . ccommodrtlona, plwe contact the Senate Secremy'r
omce u ( 6 ~ s)~ za1.-
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
Fony- Second Legislature - First Regular Session
STUDY COMMfITEE ON AGE- SPECIFIC ZONING AND RETIREhIENT .
COMMUNITIES
Minutes of Meeting
Thursday, August 3,1995
Senate Hearing Room 3 - 3: 30 p. m.
( Tape 1, Side A - Tap did nor record)
Cochair Turner called the meeting to order at 333 p. m. and the roll was called by the secraary
Members Present
Senator Peter Goudinoff
Mr. Craig Ahlstrom, Farnswonh Companies
Mr. David C. Bartlett, Anorney General's Office
Mr. Easterly ( representing Earl Miner with the Green Valley Community Coordinating Council) .
Mr. Jim Graham, Sun Lakes Home Owner's Association
Mr. Fred Williams, Sun City West
Representative Scott Bundgaard, Cochair
Senator Austin Turner, Cochair
Members Absent
Representative Ruben Onega
Mr. Mort Reed, Sun City Home Owners Association
Michael Grady, President, Palm Lakes Village Homeowners Association
Diana O'Dell, House Research Analyst
Jason Bezozo. Senate Research Assistant
Tami Ryall, Senate Research Analyst
Guest List ( Attachment 1 )
STUDY COMMITTEE ON AGE- SPECIFIC
ZONMG AND RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES
August 3,1995
Cochair Turner had Committee members introduce themselves and tell something about their
interests.
Diana O'DeIl, House Research Analyst, summarized the charge of the Committee ( Attachment 2) -
which is, basically, to study issues related to senior citizens and retirement communities in Arizona.
Jason Bezozo, Senate Research Assistant, redewed the activities of the ad hoc working group on
age- specific zoning and fair housing. He noted that activities included discussions of the Federal Fair
Housing Act, significant facilities and service requiremerrts, the City of Hayard coun decision,
bding sources for a pilot project to test the precertification process in Arizona, Housing and Urban
Development's ( HUD) d raft rde, and a tour of senior communities to rcccbe their input into the rule-making
process ( Attachment 3).
Senator Goudinoff asked whether federal law applies to communities that are deed restricted or
zoned, or whether it matters.
Tami Ryall, Senate Research Analyst. responded that the zoning element of age- specific law is a
separate issue fiom the Federal Fair Housing Act. She explained that zoning has been used in the past
as a way to measure compliance.
Mr. Bartlett explained that legislation was passed in the 1970' s which allowed counties and cities to
zone for retirement communities but in 1988 there was a complaint. He told the Committee that
Maricopa County does zone particular groups but the Attorney GeneraI's Office ( AG) challenged and
it caught everyone's attention.
Senator Goudinoff commented that under federal law it would not matter whether a community was
deed- restricted or zoned, but he noted that if federal law is changed, the distinction might be
imponant.
Mr. Graham stated that it has never been an issue.
Senator Goudinoff commented that he has always resisted zoning laws because of his concerns that
zoning is a police power of the state. He noted that under police power, a person can be told where
to live based on age. whereas a deed restriction is contractual and by choice. He fbnher distinguished
by stating that deed restrictions can expire or be changed through negotiations, but if zoning is
changed, it constitutes a taking. Senator Goudinoff opined that these retirement communities will
not exist in 30 years because of lack of money and contended that if the propeny is zoned age-specific.
property values will decline, there will be a push to chanse zoning, and people will argue that
it is a taking.
STUDY COMMITTEE ON AGE- SPECIFIC
ZONING AND RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES .
August 3. 1995
Cochair Turner thanked Senator Goudinoff for his comments and then referred to the introduction
of HR 660 which deletes the significant facilities and services requirement. He noted that the find
HUD regulations are due to be out next week so that the process is going on simuhaneously with the
legislation.
Ms. Ryd clarified that the deadline for HUD to pass the final rule was July 3 1 but added that there
is a feeling that HUD may be waiting to set what happens at the federal level if HR 660 passes.
Mr. Bartlm commented that HUD filly anticipates the bill to pass Congress and concurred with Ms.
Ryall's statement.
Senator Goudinoff maintained that if passage of the bill is assumed, the distinction between zoning
and deed restriction becomes significant, and if it fails, federal law ovenides.
When Chairman Turner asked whether a change would need to be made to Arizona's Fair Housing
Act, Mr. Bartlett commented on the probability of changing the state law if the federal statute
changes, in order to maintain consistency.
Members confirmed for the Chairman that there are deed restrictions in Sun. Ciry West and Sun
Lakes.
Mr. Williams told Chairman Turner that Sun City West has senior zoning and deed restrictions and
opined that it is true in other communities . as well.
Ms. Ryall communicated to the Committee the research findings on zoned communities, noting that
changing zoning % iasc complished by passage of a resolution and would allow propenies to be
grandfathered.
Making an assumption that he inherited a piece of age- specific property, Senator Goudinoff asked
whether he could get a variance. Ms. Ryall explained that her research was approached from the
standpoint of a mass of property owners rather than one individual. She explained that because of
the short notice for today's meeting and the technical nature of zoning, she could not answer all of
the Committee's questions. She told Senator Goudinoff that she will get an answer for him for a later
meeting.
Mr Easterly, representing Mt. Earl'Miner, commented. on a similar situation in which a man left his
propeny to his heirs. He noted that the heirs are renting the propeny to tenants meeting the age
requirements. Mr. Easterly stated that the Pima County Board of Supervisors has been asked for a
vote on the zoning overlay, which is allowed by the state. but it has chosen not to do it because of
the problems Maricopa County has with it. Cochair Turner commented that it is also the status of
P~ ma County.
Mr Graham noted that Sun Lakes relies on deed restrictions and commented that zoning can be
changed by the people who live in the area.
STUDY COMMITTEE ON AGE- SPECIFIC
ZONING AND RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES
5 August 3. 1995
Senator Goudinoff opined that if a minority of the people do not want to change, a taking may be
implied. --.
Michael Grady, President, Palm Lakes Village Homeowners Association, explained to Cochair Turner
-
that the legislation currently before Congess addresses dropping significant facilities and servic, es but
does not address the 80- percent- over- 55 occupancy requirement, so Arizona will still need a -
mechanism to establish the 80- percent rule. He noted that Palm Lakes Village is a deed- restricted -
community.
Mr. Bartlett stated that only once has there been a verification on the 80- percent- over- 55 rule and
it was essentially to accommodate the heir. He opined that whether or not there needs to be a
mechanism by statute or rule is the issue. Mr. Bartlett added that the AG does not have a position
on the issue right now and suggested that if thm is some concern about establishing a mechanism,
it could be by rule. He noted that the issue is only considered when there is a complaint. Mr. Banlett
commented that if the law changes regarding facilities and services, the 80- percent rule may not be
as important because most communities will police it on their own.
Mr Williams conveyed that he does not recall any arrangement in the proposed rules to terminate the
80- percent rule and suggested not spending any more time on it now.
Mr. Graham noted Sun Lakes' concern about compliance and told the Committee that it keeps a tight
control. He stated that if there is a complaint, he assumes it will be contested.
Cocharr Turner remarked that compliance has been more of a problem for the smaller communities.
He said it has caused lawsuits and difficulty for small community homeowners who are unable to
afford an attorney.
RETIREMENT COMMUNITY ISSUES
Cochair Turner turned to the subject of Issues of Concern to the Communities. He opined that the
communities would like to have input and suggested that the Committee meet on the east side, the
west side. and in Pima County to allow input by individuals who have concerns, rather than expect
the Cornminee to have the answers to solve the problems. When Mr. Williams asked if there will be
tlme to do that, Senator Turner suggested making a presentation following discussions between
members of the Committee and their respective communities He suggested the following topics for
consideration and asked for additional suggestions from other members of the Committee:
I Fair Housing Act exemption for senior communities which include facilities and services;
9- Limited powen for communities in areas of planning and zoning;
- J Tax equity ( Attachment 4);
4 School district relationship of these communities;
STUDY COMMITTEE ON AGE- SPECIFIC
ZONING AND RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES
4 August 3,1995
5. Needs of the small communities as opposed to needs of larger retirement communities; ---.
( Tape 1, Side B- Tppe did ) lor record)
6. Health statistics of people living in retirement communities versus those not living in
retirement communities; and
7. Contributions retirement communities make to surrounding areas.
Mr. Easterly distributed copies of The Retirement Communitv. Conce~ ot r Reality, by Earl Miner
( Attachment 5). He suggested that the 80- percent verification process is easy, if there is a place on
the homeowner's bill for verificatioq and noted that it works we11 in Green Valley's 44 homeowners
associations. Mr. Easterly recommended discussing the age overlay zoning since it allows
communities to get protection from the counties. He also suggested that there may be some things
that should not be included in legislation but should be a matter of practice or policy.
Mr. Ahlstrom stated that he does not think Mesa has an overlay zoning classification, but he noted
that all of the retirement communities in Mesa are deed- restricted and seem to be working very well.
He opined that if the Committee tries to create something suitable for all people, the homeowners will
not show up. He stressed the need for the right facilities and services.
Cochair Turner asked Mr. Ahlstrom if he has data showing the effect of retirement communities on
surrounding communities. Mr. Ahlstrom responded that Farnsworth Companies made an economic
study and the advantage was tremendous.
Cochair Turner requested that data be made available to the Committee for possible inclusion in the
Committee report.
Mr. Ahlstrom opined that the retirement communites can and will govern themselves by putting
proper information on their deed restrictions. He commented that Farnsworth Companies has a
system for knowing how many citizens of a certain age are in its communities and stated that he will
bring the information to the next meeting.
Mr. Graham stated that Sun Lakes and Leisure World govern themselves. He noted that people who
serve on the board are volunteers and are very concerned about age restrictions.
Cochair Turner asked if the Sun Lakes Community is supportive of incorporation and Mr. Graham
responded that they are not. Mr. Graham noted that Leisure World voted to stay out of the City of
Mesa and opined that Sun Lakes wants to remain on their own.
Mr Williams commented that government has recognized there is such a thing as a retirement
community He talked about an article he read in the newspaper which claimed that retirees spend
80- 90 percent of their money locally. He stated that retirement communities are a multi- million dollar
~ ndunryfo r an area not including assets. Mr. Williams contended that people are attracted because
STUDY COMMInEE ON AGE- SPECIFIC
ZONMG AND RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES
5 August 3, 1995
the communities have been designed to give them what they want. He maintained that the rerlrement
communities are not looking for city status and do not want to take over all the hnctions of
government. Mr. Williams commented that Sun City West believes there are some things, such as
planning, zoning and architectural control. which could be better administered by the community.
He added that Sun City West has police, a fire depanment, and shopping and wants to keep it as it
is. Mr. Williams conciuded by saying that Sun City West wants the few things that .& ill allow its -
residents to maintain their lifestyle.
Senator Goudinoff expressed interest in reviewing an exit strategy in order to ensure a way to phase
out a retirement community and not be trapped by government regulations. He suggested perhaps
getting the Joint Legishive Budget Committee's input. Senator Goudiioff stated that people are not
i saving enough money for retirement and opined that, though it is a good industry now, it might not
be 25- 30 years from now. He commented that he does not want to see the communities trapped with
zoning that would prohibit them from being converted to use for young families.
Discussions were held about Cochair Turner's idea of having fact- gathering meetings at some of the
retirement communities. Ms. Ryall told Senator Turner that if there is not a specified subcommittee,
and no formal action will be taken in the communities, any Committee member may attend who
wishes.
Mr. Bartlett suggested narrowing the focus to some of the issues of the original committee.
Senator Goudinoff suggested, and Messn. Banlen and Ahlstrom concurred, that the Committee wait
to see what action Congress will take.
Mr. Bartlett opined that it might make more sense to hold a meeting in Sun City if Congress passes
HR 660.
Cochair Turner established Thursday, September 28, at 11 : 00 a. m., as a tentative date and time for
the next meeting.
Cochair Turner stated that rather than have three separate meetings, he would ask Committee
members fiom retirement communities present to their communities the questions the Committee has
discussed and see if they have additional questions, in relationship to the Committee's charge, that
can be brought back to the Committee at the September meeting.
Cochair Turner adjourned the meeting at 4: 55 p. m
Mildred Hollister, Secretary
( Original minutes. attachments and tape on file in the Ofice of the Chief Clerk.)
mch
812 1 / 95
STUDY COMMITTEE ON AGE- SPECIFIC
ZONING AND RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES
6 August 3, 1995
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
INTERIM MEETING NOTICE
Open to the Public
JOINT LEGISLATIVE INTERIM STUDY COMMITTEE ON
AGE- SPECIFIC COMMUMTY ZONING DISTRICTS
DATE: Thursday, ~ e~ texkb2e8r, 1995
TIME: 11: OO a. m.
PLACE: House H e a ~ Rgo om # 2
Senator Austin Turner
Cochairman
Re~ resentativeS cott Bund~ aard
Cochairman
Members
Senator Peter Goudinoff
~ e~ resentativR; u ben F. Ortega
Craig Ahlstrom
David C. Bartlett
Jim Graham
Earl Miner
Mort Reed
Fred Williams
Joe Lane
811 5/ 95
bsf
.* lalh. Lfp. b rW dl.. NWL. may request accMRmodattonr such as interpreters, dtcmativc formats, or rulstmcc with phydal . c~ culbUQ.
Rrsmsb ( or rammodstbm rmat be made . t kat 72 boun h dwn If you require accommodatlonr. pi- eontact the Scrute Sccmtuy'r
---.
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
Forty- second Legislature - First Regular Session
Interim Committee Meeting
JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COIVIMITTEE ON AGE- SPECIFIC
COMMUNITY ZONING DISTRICTS
Minutes of Meeting
Thursday, September 28, 1995
House Hearing Room 2, 11 : 00 a. m.
TAPE 1, SIDE A
Cochair Bundgaard called the meeting to order at 1 1 : 10 a. m. and the secretary noted the attendance.
Members Present
Senator Peter Goudinoff
Representative Ruben F. Ortega
Craig Ahlstrom
David C. Bartlett
Jim Graham
Mort Reed
Fred Williams
Joe Lane
Representative Scott Bundgaard, Cochair
Senator Austin Turner, Cochair
Members Absent
Earl Miner
Speakers Present
Jane Lange, Chief, Office of Older Adult Health, Arizona Department of Health Services ( DHS)
Jason Bezozo, Research Assistant, Arizona Senate
Fran Bell, representing Saddlebrooke Homeowners, Tucson
Cochair Bundgaard asked for a motion to approve the August 3, 1995 minutes. In view of the fact
that the minutes were not distributed to Members prior to this meeting, it was decided that approval
be withheld until the next meeting in order to give Members an opponunity to read the minutes.
Jane 1 an ce. C hisf Office of Older Adult Health. Ari zona De~ anmento f Health Services ( DHS),
distributed Attachment 1, entitled " Health Status Profile of Arizona's Older Adults" ( filed with
original minutes in Office of Chief Clerk). The publication is a summary of the health status of
Arizona's seniors. She save a brief overview of this publication:
JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE ON
AGE- SPECIFIC COMMUNITY ZONING DISTRICTS
9/ 28/ 95
---.
• Chapter 1, Older Arizonans: A Demographic Portrait -- 13.4 percent of Arizona's
population are seniors, age 65 plus. Thls population is generally divided into three groups for
demographic analysis: the 65 to 74 age group; the 75- 84 age group; and the 85 plus age
group. There is a marked difference in the growth of the groups, with the 85 plus being the
fastest growing age group in the nation. In Arizona, between 1980 and 1990, this age group
almost doubled .
Chapter 2, Health Status Measures - Health status measures include issues such as monality
rates, difficulty in maintaining independence and chronic diseases. 25 percent of Arizona's
seniors have difficulty with the basic activities of daily living. The nationd rate is higher.
Chapter 3, Health Care Utilization - Seniors incur one- third of total health care expenditures
nationally. The status of Arizona's seniors is a little better than the national average.
Chapter 4, Healthy Aging in a Public Health Perspective -- The goals for the older
population are: ( 1) to improve health and quality oflife, and ( 2) to reduce the number of
restricted activity days resulting from acute or chronic illness.
Mr. Williams queried how the study could be utilized in the study of age- specific communities.
Before replying to the question, Ms. Lange stated she would need more specific information about
the issues the Committee is address~ ng.
Mr. Ortega asked how other states use this type of demographic information to shape their public
policy. Ms. Lange answered that the main purpose is long- term planning for hture growth in terms
of health care services. In response to Mr. Ortega, Ms. Lange said she does not know whether any
other states use this kind of information in relation to age- specific communities.
Jason Bezozo. Research Assistant. Arizona Senate, advised that in response to discussion during the
August 3 meeting, he has prepared material regarding a dezoning mechanism for county senior
overlay zones ( Attachment 2). Title 11, Section 829 of A. R. S. provides for downzoning through
adoption of an ordinance or by changing the boundaries of a zoning district. Downzoning requires
approval from th6 County Board of Supervisors and the County Planning and Zoning Commission.
When an application for downzoning is submitted by a property owner, public meetings must be held
by both the Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Notification of the meetings must be sent to
each real propeny owner within 200 feet of the proposed amendment or change.
Mr. Goudinoff asked whether anyone has tried to downzone an age- restricted zone. Mr. Bezozo
advised that recently. the Maricopa County Zoning Commission had downzoned a senior overlay for
not complying with the Federal Fair Housing Act. The action was brought by the Commission.
Mr. Goudinoff queried whether it is possible for an individual to rezone his own house in an age-specific
community. Mr. Bezozo said he would have to inquire whether a particular section could
be rezoned within the overlay area.
JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE ON
AGE- SPECIFIC COMMUNITY ZONING DISTRICTS
2 9/ 28/ 95
Mr. Bezozo stated that H. R. 660, Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995, eiiminates the significant
facilities and services requirement for senion- only housing fiom the 1988 Fair Housing Act. On . April
6, 1995, H. R 660 passed in the U. S. House of Representatives and is still to be heard by the U. S.
Senate. The Final Rule defining significant facilities and services; Housing for Older Americans, is
attached ( Attachment 3).
Mr. Bartlett suggested that if H. R. 660 becomes law, this Committee may want to sponsor or
recommend legislation at the State level so that Arizona's Fair Housing Law tracks with the
Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD) Fair Housing Law on significant facilities
and services.
Mr. Reed recommended that should legislation be proposed on the State level, some consideration
should be made, if necessary, of existing communities that have built their premise on significant
facilities or services but may not have yet completed construction.
Mr. Bartlen opined that a change in the statute would not necessarily mean a change in the
requirements of some of the major retirement communities beciuse they began their existence before
familial status was added to the Fair Housing Law of 1988. He said those requirements will probably
remain and are decisions to be made by those communities. This bill pertains to other retirement
communities which are less well ftnded, and to lower or middle class and mobile home communities
whose concerns have led to the federal legislation.
With no ftnher items on the agendq Cochair Bundgaard scheduled the next meeting for October 26,
at. 1 1 : 00 a. m.
Mr. Williams objected to the meeting being adjourned. He said nothing has been accomplished and
that it appears that nothing is going to be accomplished. He questioned the reason for being here.
Cochair Bundgaard replied that the next step in the process is to wait for Congress to make a decision
on H. R. 660. If H. R. 660 is passed by Congress. legislation can be drafted at the state level. Mr.
Williams said he is in full accord with that action; however, that is only one aspect of the problems
of retirement communities.
Mr. Williams related that discussions relating to retirement communities in the past have concerned
other factors, such as: retirement communities have a need for tighter controls than what general
county ordinances offer. The question is how to approach the needs of the unique character of
retirement communities. He stated that retirement communities are not lookins for incorporation;
they are asking for consideration of corporate responsibilities. He declared that discussion should
not be limited to the HUD issue.
Mr. Goudinoff recommended that Mr. Williams draw up a proposal and present it to Members. He
stated that Mr. Williams' comments raise the question of legal responsibility.
JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE ON
AGE- SPECIFIC COMMUNITY ZONING DISTRICTS
3 9/ 28/ 95
Mr. Ortega said he concurs with Mr. Goudinoff, and said two questions come to mind: ( I ) if
retirement communities are given additional authority, who comes within the jurisdiction o'f the
additional authority, and ( 2) how are the boundaries defined, i. e., the demographic qualifications.
Mr. Williams alleged that more is needed than changing zoning ordinances. Other needs are
architectural control; maintenance, such as for parkways; stricter zoning controls; and the creation
of an entity, a Board or Commission, to accomplish goals.
Mr. Goudinoff opined that those are the types of things that are typically done through a
homeowners' association Creating a Board or Cornrnission'would be creating a governmental entity
which, he opined, raises a liability issue.
Mr. Ortega referred to Special Districts which are already established in statute. He suggested that
the Special Districts statute be researched to find out whether additional authorities or responsibilities
would be appropriate. He said it may require hnher taxes for special communities, and that it is not
fair for the county to pay for those additional amenities.
Mr. Goudinoff pointed out that all Special Districts legislation involves taxation.
Mr. Reed pointed out that there are approximately 15,000 single family dwellings in Sun City and
there are 287 different CC& R's ( deed restrictions). One problem is that interpretation of the CC& R's
varies.
Mr. Goudinoff mentioned that overlay zoning legislation was passed to make up for the failure of
developers to include deed restrictions. He asked if it is the intent of Members to ask the Legislature
to void the existing covenants.
Mr. Ahlstrom stated that he is associated with a development in the East Valley which is totally
governed by CUR'S. The homeowners' associations govern themselves and tax themselves by
mandatory assessment of homeowners' fees. He said it works well for them. He asked for
clarification of the report to be submitted to the Legislature on the Committee's recommendations.
?
Cochair Turner said that the Committee must submit a repon by December 1. The Committee must
either propose legislation, recommend that hnher study be done, or recommend that no action be
taken. He said it is his understanding that since the last meeting on August 5, there have been some
meetings by community representatives, and was hoping that their ideas would be presented at this
meeting. He reminded Members that at the last meeting, Mr. Ahlstrom had volunteered to share
information about his success~ alc tivities in the East Valley.
Mr. Ahlstrom said that an economic study was made. He sugsested the study be copied and
distributed to Members for review.
Fran Bell. re~ resentinc Saddlebrooke Homeowners. Tucsoq, testified that she lives in a retirement
community. Since construction in the community is ongoing, she said residents are still under the
JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE ON
AGE- SPECIFIC COMMUNITY ZONING DISTRICTS
4 9/ 7,5/ 95
jurisdiction of the developer. She stated concern that retirement communities cannot get much from
county government and do not get a lot from county dollars. Additionally, she expressed concern
that there is not much in the State that protects a buyer.
In response to Mr. Goudinoff s question about incorporation, Mrs. Bell responded that she is not
advocating incorporation. She said there is no need to incorporate.
Mr. Ahlstrom asked Mrs. Bell to relate what services she would like that are not provided by the
county. Mrs. Bell stated that although the county supervisors are " good," they are still adjudicated
by State law and the opportunity for public input is not there.
Mr. Ahlstrom said that State law provides that if any property changes are proposed, all propeny
owners within 300 yards have to be notified.
Mr. Williams again reiterated that retirement communities are uniq'ue entities. He said everyone
recognizes that they are good economic clusters; that they bring an important economic atmdsphere
into the State. He emphasized that they should be encouraged.
Mr. Ortega proposed that staff research the section of law that applies to bringing relief to these
communities, and to also research what other states are doing.
Mr. Reed expressed the need for direction because he indicated that what is needed is not really
known. He suggested that it would be helpful to define a retirement community, identify the
organization in the community that can speak for it in governmental matters, and list problems.
TAPE 1, SIDE B
Mr. Bartlett commented on two issues. He observed that H. R. 660 changes only one issue of the
federal Fair Housing Law. If H. R. 660 does pass, then it may be desirable to track State law to
federal law. With respect to additional authority being granted to retirement communities, he said
it raises the following issues: a democratic method to pay for it, the type of mechanism wanted, and
the money, i. e., taxes, to be raised. He remarked that some retirement communities do not want that.
It becomes an issue of authority and money
Cochair Turner stated that he would like to see a written repon fiom community representatives and
mentioned that previous legislation came from people in the community. He asked if requesting a
continuance of this process would be an option.
Mr. Onega pointed out that since this is a statutorily- created Committee, some options are taken
away. He said that if the Committee desires a continuance for further study, it will be necessary to
request a continuance fiom the Legislature.
Mr. Goudinoff asked if it is the desire of the Committee to have a bill ready for introduction in
January 1996.
JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE ON
AGE- SPECIFIC COMMUNITY ZONING DISTRICTS
5 9/ 28/ 95
Cochar Turner referred to S. B. 1096, special governmental retirement communities, now: committee;
age specific community zoning, Laws of 1995. He said last year's bill covered one specific issue and
did not include all the issues raised here today. He emphasized that Members need to know more
about the wishes of the communities before a bill can be drafted.
Cochatr Bundgaard stated that the Committee is faced with a problem of direction. He volunteered
to meet, with staff and Members to amve at a foundation for hrther study.
Mr. Lane suggested that Cochair Bundgaard work with staff and others to find out what Members
want included in the proposed legislation. He asked that specific proposals be sent to each Member
for review before the next meeting.
Mr. Ortega concurred that there is a need to get something more specific.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 12: 20 p. m.
& Joanne Bell, G'ommittee Secretary
( Attachments and tape on file in the Office of the Chief Clerk.)
JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE ON
AGE- SPECIFIC COMMUNITY ZONING DISTRICTS
6 9R8195
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
DATE:
TIME:
PLACE:
J N T F R I M M E E T I N G N O T I C E
OPEN TO THE PUBUC
STUDY COMMITTEE ON AGESPECIFIC ZONING
AND RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES
Thursday, November 2,1995
11 : 00 a. m.
House Hearing Room 3
Senator Warren Austin Turner
Cochairman
MEMBERS:
Senator Peter Goudinoff
Craig Ahlstrdm
David C. Bartlett
Jim Graham
1 014195
jcs
Representative Scott Bundaaard
Cochairman
Representative Ruben F. Ortega
Earl Miner
Mort Reed
Fred Williams
T i e11 of the Americans Wth Disabiiities Act prvhibitr the Arizona Senate h md iscriminating on the basis of disability in
the pmvls'on of its sc# vicar and public meaUngr indMdds wHlr dlsobilillas may quest mwmable accommodations, such
as interpraters w Pltematiw formats, by contacting the Senata Sem@ ty's Omce at ( 602) 5124231 ( voice) as rroa~ s pssibla
Please be specHIc about the agenda item in which you am in- and for which you are requesting an accommodation.
7he Senate may not be ebh to pmvfde certain a e f f x n m ~ o npsr for to the mWng unless they are requested a ntasonabie
time in advance of the meeting. This agenda will be made available in an alternative format on requestm
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
STUDY COMMITTEE ON AGE- SPECIFIC ZONING
AND RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES
Minutes of Meeting
November 2, 1995 - 1 1 : 00 a. m.
House Hearing Room 3
Members Present
Senator Austin Turner, Cochairman Representative Scott Bundgaard, Cochairman
Senator Peter Goudinoff Representative Ruben F. Ortega
David C. Bartlett Earl Miner
Jim Graham Mort Reed
Fred Williams Joe Lane
Member Absent
Craig Ahlstrom
Staff Present
Tami Ryall, Senate Research
Jason Bezozo, Senate Research
Diana O'Dell, House Research
Cochairman Turner called the meeting to order at 1 1 : 10 a. m., attendance was noted, and
Mr. Jason Bezozo was asked to present an overview of HR 660, the 1995 housing act for
older persons.
Jason Bezozo, Assistant Senate Research Analyst, explained that HR 660 was passed
by the U. S. House of Representatives in April 1995 with a vote of 424- 5. He stated that
the legislation eliminates the significant facilities and services requirements for seniors-only
housing from the 1988 Fair Housing Act. Mr. Bezozo stated that subsequent to this
Committee's last meeting, HR 660 was approved for full committee action by the U. S.
Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property
Rights. As of last week, Mr. Bezozo reported that the U. S. Senate Judiciary Committee
referred the legislation to the full Senate body. He also reported that as of this date, HR
660 has not been placed on the Senate calendar.
Mr. Miner added that he has been in communication with U. S. Senator Kyle's staff
regarding HR 660. Mr. Miner expressed concern that the bill has in it not only the
elimination of the services and facilities but it also has a requirement that the Department
of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD) must come up with some new regulations
relating to population. He explained that the HUD rules, published in August and made
effective in September, specifically provide for a process that will take care of the need for
any further action on the part of HUD relative to HR 660. Mr. Miner stated that he was
Page 2 MINUTES OF STUDY COMMIITEE ON
November 2,1995 AGE- SPECIFIC ZONING AND RETIREMENT COMMUNlTlES
hopeful the HUD rules would be in harmony with HR 660, thereby eliminating a lot of detail
work for the residents of retirement communities.
Chairman Turner asked Mr. Bezozo to update the Committee on his research of special
districts and quasi- governmental entities.
Mr. Bezozo stated that in his communications with other state legislatures and national
organizations, it was learned of the existence of several county subordinate districts which
include ( a) special improvement districts, ( b) local zoning boards, and ( c) neighborhood
advisory councils.
Referencing special districts, Mr. Bezozo stated that special districts generally are
independent and typically coexist with substantial administrative independence from
general purpose governments such as county, municipal or township governments.
Special districts usually perform a single function, and in some instances enabling
legislation allows them to provide several types of services that are usually related.
By way of example, Mr. Bezozo informed the Committee of the existence of many
community improvement districts throughout the United States. He explained that
community improvement districts are a form of special tax districts that are governed and
managed by community elected boards. He emphasized that these types of special tax
districts are not created to replace local government but are established to enhance and
complement the local authority by providing additional services that are secondary in
nature such as security patrolmen, waste management, sidewalk improvement,
maintenance and so forth. He stated that all of these special districts have the power to
levy taxes or special assessments in order to defray the costs of the additional contracted
services.
Like other states, Mr. Bezozo stated that Arizona has county subordinate agencies and
districts that have certain characteristics of governmental units. He commented that
Arizona has approximately 30 different types of special districts that account for more than
260 special district governments, including agricultural improvement districts, irrigation
districts and fire protection districts.
Referencing local zoning boards, Mr. Bezozo commented that the State of Maryland has
a unique special district in which the community has been granted some zoning powers.
He explained that the LaVale Zoning District was created in Maryland Laws, 1957 ( on file
with original minutes) for the purpose of regulating land use and building construction in
a ten- square mile area of an unincorporated suburban area. He stated that the statute
also provides that the LaVale Zoning Board may regulate the use of buildings and the
number of families housed per acre of land, as well as establish and enforce its
MINUTES OF STUDY COMMITTEE ON Page 3
AGE- SPECIFIC ZONING AND RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES November 2,1995
regulations. The statute provides for a hearing and appeals process. Regarding the
financing of the LaVale Zoning Board, Mr. Bezozo explained that the monies come from
building permit fees. He stated that while the Board does not issue building permits, the
Board acts like an additional county agency and must sign off on the building permit
application prior to its issuance by the county. Mr. Bezozo added that the Board members
work on a volunteer basis.
Referencing neighborhood advisory councils, Mr. Bezozo commented on the existence of
quasi- government neighborhood councils in many localities and in particular the
metropolitan areas. Mr. Bezozo explained that such councils may be distinguished from
privately organized civic associations and similar organizations when established by
official legislative or administrative action, with members elected by the voters or
appointed by public officials. He explained that while municipal neighborhood councils are
advisory in nature, the scope of their duties vary. Some duties include dealing with
specialized school functions while other duties include advising counties or municipalities
on a wide variety of functions performed by the parent government. Mr. Bezozo stated that
while most quasi- governmental neighborhood councils are generally established through
local ordinance or administrative action, some have been authorized through state
legislation, including municipal advisory councils in some California localities.
By way of example, Mr. Bezozo explained that there are twenty Planned District
Ordinances ( PDOs) in the City of San Diego. Commenting that while PDOs are not
municipalities but rather enclaves of San Diego that do not have the power to vote or set
a city ordinance, Mr. Bezozo explained that a PDO acts like a community planning group
that may submit planning and design proposals to the city council for approval. Each
PDO is different. Commenting that while the La Jolla PDO has very detailed ordinances,
Mr. Bezozo stated that other districts have very general ordinances.
Mr. Williams asked if the Committee members could be provided with a copy of Mr.
Bezozo's report outlining his research findings. Mr. Bezozo replied that copies would be
made available.
Expressing appreciation of Mr. Bezozo's thorough presentation, Senator Turner asked if
any of the county subordinate districts that he discussed could be operational in Arizona,
under Arizona's current law.
Mr. Bezozo replied that while special districts do exist in Arizona, none of the special
districts would apply to any of the conditions which some of the members of the Committee
have been interested in. Regarding zoning issues, Mr. Bezozo stated that he found no
government entity other than Maryland that establishes a specific zoning district within
county government. He commented that the Maryland zoning district might be a type of
Page 4 MINUTES OF STUDY COMMllTEE ON
November 2,1995 AGE- SPECIFIC ZONING AND RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES
governmental entity the Committee could look at as well as neighborhood advisory
councils. Mr. Bezozo commented that he did not know of any specific zoning districts or
neighborhood advisory councils that exist in Arizona.
Senator Turner asked if the county or city could form a neighborhood advisory council.
Mr. Bezozo answered that he learned of only two neighborhood advisory councils, one in
California, established through state legislation, and one in the District of Columbia,
enacted by the U. S. Congress.
Senator Turner inquired if his understanding was correct that the La Jolla PDQ was
established by legislation. Mr. Bezozo replied yes and added that the La Jolla PDO is only
specific to the City of San Diego.
Mr. Miner commented that he was of the understanding, in speaking with the City Attorney
of the City of San Diego one year ago, that the City was able to establish PDOs because
they were a charter city. Mr. Miner asked if there was enabling legislation passed by the
California Legislature that gave the City that authority.
Mr. Bezozo replied that he was of the understanding, in speaking with the County Attorney
in San Diego, that PDOs were established through state legislation. He stated that he
would check with San Diego officials again to verify the correctness of the information.
Mr. Bezozo informed the Committee that he had not yet received written materials
requested of the City of San Diego relative to San Diego PDOs, as well as the enabling
act. Mr. Bezozo commented that as soon as he is in receipt of the requested materials,
including examples of neighborhood advisory councils, he will provide copies to the
Committee members so that the matter can be reviewed in more detail.
Mr. Reed asked if the LaVale Zoning District in the State of Maryland was set up by the
state legislature or the county. Mr. Bezozo ex~ lainedth at the zoning district was set up
through state legislation in 1957, specifically ~ nvolvinga ten- square mile area.
Expressing a desire to read statutory language, Representative Ortega asked that Mr.
Bezozo provide the Committee members with a copy of Maryland's statute. Mr. Bezozo
referred Representative Ortega to the previously distributed LaVale Zoning District statute.
Mr. Williams asked if existing Arizona law would be in conflict with establishing another
special district that would address the concerns of the retirement communities. Mr. Bezozo
replied that he did not know of any constitutional or statutory prohibition against
establishing districts and should be addressed by Legislative Council if it is the desire of
the retirement communities to draft some form of legislation.
MINUTES OF STUDY COMMllTEE ON Page 5
AGE- SPECIFIC ZONING AND RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES November 2, 1995
Inviting discussion of special governmental entities, Chairman Turner asked Mr. Reed to
present the recommendations prepared by four different retirement communities of
substantial size.
Mr. Reed read the prepared proposal for establishment of special governmental retirement
entities as subdivisions of county government ( on file with original minutes). He explained
that the four retirement communities met several times in an attempt to materialize in
writing something for the Committee to consider. He stated that the entity is known as a
Retirement Village, defined as an area with specific boundaries with a population to be
determined by legislation that qualifies under HUD regulations and Arizona Fair Housing
law as an age- specific retirement community and as a planned community under Arizona
law. He stated that such Retirement Village would have limited authority over certain
standards, adopted by local vote, that affect the desirability and property values of the
community such as ( 1 ) architectural harmony, ( 2) maintenance of specified common areas,
structures and facilities, ( 3) upkeep of property by homeowners, ( 4) deed restrictions, and
( 5) zoning. He also stated that the authority would include the ability to select, from those
standards, those appropriate for the community and to enforce those standards. Mr. Reed
stated ttfat such authority would be exercised by a board or commission from five to nine
resident electors chosen by a vote of property owners and residents in the Retirement
Village to serve without pay. He concluded by stating that funding of the board or
commission would be determined by the Retirement Village.
Mr. Lane stated that he did not understand how an authority to enforce the standards
would be developed. He asked if the retirement communities were suggesting the ability
to have ordinances.
Mr. Reed replied, " not directly." He stated that while the residents of Sun City are
governed by deed restrictions, there is no organization within Sun City that has the
authority to enforce the deed restrictions. He also added that the County cannot enforce
them.
Senator Goudinoff inquired if his understanding was correct that when a person violates
a deed restriction, the person can be sued. Mr. Reed answered yes. Mr. Reed went on
to explain that while a person can bring a legal action, the procedure is not as simple as
one would believe it to be. By way of example, he stated that the Sun City Homeowners
Association, since its inception, has filed three lawsuits on different occasions to enforce
deed restrictions. He continued to explain that in each case, the lawsuits ensued over a
period of 18- 20 months before any action could be taken and the conditions continued to
deteriorate during that same period of time. He stated that in most cases where deed
restrictions are not being met, the Association attempts to work with the violator to resolve
Page 6 MINUTES OF STUDY COMMllTEE ON
November 2, 1995 AGE- SPECIFIC ZONING AND RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES
the matter. Mr. Reed commented that approximately 75- 90% of the cases are successfully -
resolved without filing a legal action.
Mr. Williams commented that many of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
( CC& Rs) do not necessarily designate a specific agency or organization to enforce the
violations or to enforce the covenants against violations, leaving enforcement to the
individual homeowner who is affected. He stated that while a homeowner has a right to
enforce his rights, it places a burden on the homeowner. Mr. Williams commented that
CC& Rs are generally declared on the property by the developer prior to the development
of the community. He added that in many instances there is a complete lack of uniformity
within the entire community because the community is often built in units or sections and
the developers have filed different CC& Rs for each unit or section, complicating the issue
further.
Mr. Bartlett commented that he did not understand how a Retirement Village would make
a difference in the enforcement of deed restrictions when the Retirement Village would still
have to go to court to enforce deed restrictions. He also commented that he did not
understand how the Retirement Village envisioned raising money for the speda~ d istrict.
Representative Ortega asked if the retirement communities envision that the Retirement
Village will have the ability to assess penalties and fines, absent litigation. He made
reference to the LaVale Zoning District language.
Mr. Reed stated that approximately one- third of the deed restrictions on single family
dwellings in Sun City do not mention who has the authority to respond and to enforce. He
added that the first one- third of the deed restrictions, written in the early stages of Sun
City, say that the Sun City Homeowners Association may but are not obligated to enforce
the deed restrictions. Another one- third of the deed restrictions, interspersed from 1970
to 1978, say that the Sun City Homeowners Association shall enforce the deed restrictions.
Mr. Reed identified the problem as a grey area, a black area and a white area that has to
be taken care of by the Association.
Mr. Bartlett asked if his understanding was correct that the retirement communities want
another entity, a Retirement Village, for the purpose of enforcing the deed restrictions.
Mr. Miner stated that a neighbor having to enforce another neighbor is at the present time
a significant part of the retirement communities' problem. Referencing Mr. Bartlett's
question, Mr. Miner explained that the retirement communities believe it will be easier to
enforce deed restrictions through a governmental entity because the residents willingly will
be able to recognize the authority of government rather than one neighbor against another.
MINUTES OF STUDY COMMIJTEE ON Page 7
AGE- SPECIFIC ZONING AND RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES November 2, 1995
Mr. Graham echoed Mr. Miner's statement. Commenting that while some residents will use
the legal system to challenge or appeal deed restrictions, Mr. Graham stated that he was
of the belief that the percentage will be very small. He remarked that dealing with the deed
restriction problem at another level, under the litigation level, would result in a cost savings
in legal fees and expenses. Mr. Graham also stated that he was of the belief that the
violators will accept the decisions of the Retirement Village governmental entity as being
final.
Representative Ortega commented that it was not clear in his mind whether the Retirement
Village governmental entity could enforce and make retroactive something that was not
contained in the original recorded deed. He also commented on the Retirement Village
being " mediatorsn in those situations where specific deed restrictions are not a part of the
original deed.
For clarification purposes, Mr. Miner pointed out that in order for an area to be identified
as a Retirement Village, it would have to first qualify under the federal HUD law. He
explained that the federal HUD law has certain requirements that must be met, including
the requirement that a particular entity must have rules in effect, such as a rule that
specifies at least 80% of units have one resident fifty- five years of age or older.
Commenting that the retirement community residents would have agreed, at the time of
purchase, to abide by certain rules in order to qualify as a Retirement Village, Mr. Miner
stated that he was of the belief that the retroactive concern would be eliminated.
Senator Goudinoff acknowledged that he was of the understanding that the retirement
communities were asking for state law authorizing a separate governmental entity known
as a Retirement Village that will identify " who" it intends to sue and will eliminate a
neighbor having to sue a neighbor and thereby solving such problems as deed restriction
violations and so forth. He also acknowledged that he was of the understanding that the
newly created agency, in the form of a board or commission, would have to impose
standards that have already been agreed to. Senator Goudinoff asked for clarification
from the retirement communities of the real authority of the board or commission with
respect to enforcement and payment of attorney fees in the event that the alleged violator
prevails and the court awards the defendant attorney fees. Senator Goudinoff asked if the
board or commission would be able to accumulate enough funds for attorney fees and
costs.
Mr. Reed replied that the board or commission would not commence a legal action until
the necessary funds were first accumulated.
Senator Goudinoff stated that while he understood the Retirement Village would not take
any legal action until the funds were first secured, he again asked how the Retirement
Page 8 MINUTES OF STUDY COMMITTEE ON
November 2, 1995 AGE- SPECIFIC ZONING AND RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES
Village would fund ' additional" attorney fees and costs that might be ordered by the court -
for reimbursement to the prevailing defendanthomeowner. He asked if the retirement
communities envisioned renaming their neighborhood/ homeowners associations as
Retirement Village Boards or if another layer of government is being envisioned.
Mr. Miner stated that while the CC& Rs, as property rights, currently exist and will continue
to exist, a Retirement Village Board is an additional layer of government. Mr. Miner
expressed the necessity for this additional layer of government because the retirement
communities' priorities are somewhat different than the counties' priorities. He explained
that because of the priority differences, there would be times when it would be helpful if
the retirement communities could handle the matters relative to the maintenance of the
community as a retirement area because the retirement communities are much closer to
the situation. Mr. Miner stated that the retirement communities seek the assistance of the
Legislature in solving the issues of liability and funding as questioned by Senator
Goudinoff.
Mr. Reed expressed agreement with Mr. Miner's comments. He added that ' one blanket
statement" would not cover the four retirement communities because of their slightly
different needs and priorities.
Representative Ortega asked ( a) if each of the four retirement communities would
automatically become a Retirement Village if they qualified under the HUD age specific
requirements or if each community would petition to become a Retirement Village, ( b) if
the purpose of leaving the population number ' open" would make the option available to
other retirement communities such as Sunsites Pierce in Cochise County that presently
has a population of approximately 500 persons, and ( c) if the retirement communities were
in agreement to hold harmless the counties relative to the issue of liability.
Referencing the question on population, Senator Turner answered that the population limit
would be a number mutually agreed upon. He cited an example of a number similar to the
number of residents required to form a city.
Mr. Miner added that the population number was purposely left open for discussion among
the Committee members to determine whatever figure would be appropriate. Referencing
the issue of liability, Mr. Miner also added that the retirement communities are working
cooperatively with the counties in helping them to understand what the retirement
communities are seeking in the establishment of a new governmental entity and to address
the concerns of the counties relative to a Retirement Village.
Referencing the issue of funding, Mr. Lane asked if the Retirement Village, under the
Board of Supervisors, would have the county collect the monies and then in turn give back
MINUTES OF STUDY COMMITTEE ON Page 9 , -
AGE- SPECIFIC ZONING AND RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES November 2, 1995
some money to the Retirement Village or if the Retirement Village would have its own
taxing and collecting powers through a sales tax or property tax.
Mr. Reed answered that Sun City envisions setting up a Deed Restriction Enforcement
Fund for voluntary contributions. He explained that the Deed Restriction Enforcement
Fund would be similar to, and patterned after, the existing Water Defense Fund.
Mr. Williams stated that the retirement communities do accept the responsibility of liability.
He also stated that the retirement communities are seeking the guidance of the Committee
members in suggesting alternative methods of funding that would be consistent with the
goals and objectives of a Retirement Village.
Mr. Lane asked Mr. Williams if he thought the folks in his retirement community would be
happier with a sales tax at the grocery store or a property tax to fund a ~ etiremenVt illage.
Mr. Williams replied that he did not have a specific answer to the question. He stated that
at the present time, the property owners are willing to pay an annual amount into the
existing homeowners association for the limited purposes that the homeowners association
has. He remarked that he did not believe any of the retirement communities were thinking
of the idea of a sales tax.
Senator Goudinoff commented that he was of the opinion that if legislation were being
drafted, the Legislature would want to leave it as broad as possible and give the
Retirement Village the authority to assess a property tax, sales tax, income tax, poll tax,
or whatever, thereby accomplishing their goal of being independent and responsible for
their own govern. Discussion followed. Senator Goudinoff commented that a Retirement
Village would have to have some form of taxing authority or assessment authority to satisfy
any judgements that may be imposed on a Retirement Village.
Mr. Bartlett commented that he did not understand how a Retirement Village would not be
a ' city" when a Retirement Village wants some of the same government powers of the
cities but not all of the powers of cities, such as the ability to tax, collect revenues, spend,
impose authority, pass ordinances, regulate zoning, regulate architectural and so forth.
Mr. Graham answered that the retirement communities do not want their own police force,
fire department, and so forth but they do want to protect the beauty and functionality of the
retirement communities, with lien rights against the violating property owner within the
Retirement Village boundaries that could be collected through a foreclosure proceeding.
Mr. Williams added that the retirement communities are not looking for big money. It takes
a lot of money to administer a city. The retirement communities would require only a small
Page 10 MINUTES OF STUDY COMMITTEE ON
November 2, 1995 AGE- SPECIFIC ZONING AND RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES
amount of money. Mr. Williams stated that it is the hope of the retirement communities that -
they can relieve the counties of some of the counties' responsibilities by letting the
Retirement Village take over, to a degree, some of those responsibilities.
Senator Turner asked if it might be possible to have an advisory function through the
county Zoning and Planning Board, with the Retirement Village's budget being a part of
the county's budget.
Mr. Williams replied that his retirement community's experience has been that the counties
are not very helpful when it comes to enforcement matters. Explaining that his retirement
community has situations that should fall under county jurisdiction rather than CC& Rs, Mr.
Williams stated that when the community goes to the county, the county is not very helpful.
Mr. Reed commented that the retirement communities' concern is property values and
nothing more, such as architectural harmony, maintenance of specified common areas,
upkeep of properties by the property owners and so forth. He stated that the retirement
communities are concerned about deed restrictions as opposed to county ordinances. Mr.
Reed explained that a problem arises when a homeowner applies for, and receives, a
building permit from the county that is in violation of the deed restrictions of the community.
The neighbor complains to the homeowners association and the association learns that
the property owner was not even informed by the county of the violation. The
homeowners association has no authority to resolve the matter.
Mr. Miner added that the retirement communities are only asking that they be given very
limited powers and that those powers be removed from the county. Mr. Miner expressed
agreement with Senator Turner's suggestions of an advisory type authority or limited areas
of authority to not only create the enforcing process but to follow up the process with the
cloak of authority of government. Mr. Miner stated that because some authority would be
" carved outn from the county, there would be a need for very close cooperation with county
officials.
Mr. Bartlett asked if his understanding was correct that the retirement communities want
a statute that would allow the county, at their option, to ( a) establish Retirement Villages
that meet specific criteria, ( b) allow the Retirement Villages to assess the property tax or
some other such taxes and assessments to fund the specific limited authority relative to
deed restrictions and zoning, ( c) provide the Retirement Villages with the ability to assess
the members, and ( d) hold elections for purposes of determining who would represent the
Retirement Villages.
Mr. Miner replied that Mr. Bartlett's understanding is correct. He clarified that the costs
would be minimal because the Retirement Villages would utilize the services of individual
MINUTES OF STUDY COMMllTEE ON Page 11
AGE- SPECIFIC ZONING AND RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES November 2, 1995
volunteers and volunteer groups. Mr. Miner stated that the greatest unsolved problems
are the issues of liability and funding. He commented that the retirement communities
seek the Committee's wisdom on these issues.
Discussion followed between Senator Goudinoff, Representative Ortega, Mr. Earl and Mr.
Graham regarding the liability and funding issues relating to current methods being used
by homeowners associations with the purchase of private liability insurance with large
deductibles and high coverage.
Cochairman Turner announced that no further discussion would take place. He asked that
staff work with the Committee members in developing some recommendations that can be
voted on at the next Committee meeting. Cochairman Turner announced that the next
meeting would be November 21, 1995 at 10: OO a. m.
Mr. Bartlett commented that without any basis, he could not, as an agency, make any
recommendation. He added that Congress has not yet changed the law and that it would
be inappropriate to have a bill going through the legislative process that might be
inconsistent with federal law.
Senator Goudinoff asked that the recommendations be included on the agenda for the next
meeting so that action can be taken. Referring to a recent newspaper article entitled,
" Their Careers: Count on Nothing and Work Like a Demon," appearing in the October 31,
1995 issue of The Wall Street Journal ( on file with original minutes), Senator Goudinoff
commented that consideration needs to be given to the exit strategy issue and suggested
that a sunset clause of perhaps twenty years be included in any proposed legislation.
Referring to the list of items for consideration presented in the August 3, 1995 meeting,
Cochairman Turner stated that while the Fair Housing Act exemption and the limited
planning and zoning powers were both discussed, there have been no proposals or
discussions from the public or members of the Committee in the area of school district
relationships. He commented that the benefits of retirement communities to the State was
also discussed. Cochairman Turner expressed a desire to include some of that
information in the Committee's report to the Legislature. Referencing a recent Sun City's
report on the retirement community's contribution to the State's economy, Cochairman
Turner asked if parts of the Sun City report could be provided to the Committee for
inclusion in the Committee's report to the Legislature.
Page 12 MINUTES OF STUDY COMMllTEE ON
November 2,1995 AGE- SPECIFIC ZONING AND RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES
Mr. Reed replied that pertinent parts would be made available to the Committee members,
including the fact that Sun City residents add $ 630 million per year to the State's economy.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1235 p. m.
Respectfully submitted,
n
r
Nancy Boyd, , yC h i t k e e w e t t h y
( Tape and attachments on file in the Office of the Secretary of the senate.)
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
J N T E R I M MEETING N O T I C E
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
STUDY COMMITTEE ON AGESPECIFIC COMMUNITY
ZONING DISTRICTS
DATE: Tuesday, November 21,1995
TIME: I 0: 00 a. m. *
PLACE: House Hearing Room # 3
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Opening Remarks
3. Discussion of Retirement Village
4. Public Testimony
5. Develop Committee Legislative Recommendations
6. Other Business
7. Adjourn
Senator Warren Austin Turner
Cochairman
MEMBERS:
Senator Peter Goudinoff
Craig Ahlstrom
David C. Bartlett
Jim Graham
Joe Lane
kkc
Representative Scott Bundaaard
Cochairman
Representative Ruben F. Ortega
Earl Miner
Mort Reed
Fred Williams
T t l e I/ of the Americans With Disabilities Act prohibits the Arizona Senate from discriminating on the basis of disability in
the provision of Its services and public meetings. ind/ viduais with disabilities may request rwsonabie accommodations, such
as interpmters or altematiw formats, by contacting the Senate Secretary's OtRce at ( 602) 512- 4231 ( voice) as soon as possible.
Please be specilic abouf the agenda item In which you are interested and for which you are ruquesting an accommodation.
The Senate may not be able to provide certain accommodations prior to the meeting unless they are rsquested a reasonable
time in advance of the meeting. Thb agenda will be made available in an altematlve fonnat on request*
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
STUDY COMMITTEE ON AGE- SPECIFIC ZONING
AND RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES
Minutes of Meeting
November 21, 1995 - 10: OO a. m.
House Hearing Room 3
Members Present
Senator Austin Turner, Cochairman Representative Scott Bundgaard, Cochairman
Senator Peter Goudinoff Representative Ruben F. Ortega
David C. Bartlett Craig Ahlstrom
Jim Graham Earl Miner
Fred Williams Mort Reed
Joe Lane
Member Absent
none
Staff Present
Jason Bezozo, Senate Research
Cochairman Bundgaard called the meeting to order at 10: 05 a. m. and attendance was
noted. See attached list for other attendees.
Cochairman Bundgaard summarized the issues discussed by the Committee regarding
retirement communities, including discussion of H. R. 660, the Housing for Older Persons
Act of 1995, ( b) review of the procedures for down zoning senior overlays, ( c) discussion
of special governmental entities for retirement communities, and ( d) review of different
types of special government entities in other states. Cochairman Bundgaard announced
that Mr. Bezozo will provide an update on H. R. 660 and review the Retirement Village
proposal and that the Committee will vote on some recommendations for legislation.
Jason Bezozo, Assistant Senate Research Analyst, explained that H. R. 660 is federal
legislation that eliminates the significant facilities and services requirements for seniors-only
housing from the 1988 Fair Housing Act. He advised that H. R. 660 was heard by the
Senate Judiciary Committee and referred to the full Senate but has not yet been placed
on the Senate calendar as of this date.
Mr. Bezozo gave an overview of the proposed retirement village legislation ( on file with
original minutes). He explained that the bill allows a retirement community of 3500 persons
to establish a Retirement Village. The retirement community must also qualify as an
exempt retirement community under Housing and Urban Development laws. If two- thirds
of the voters in the retirement community petition the Board of Supervisors, the Retirement
Village is established and an election shall be called for choosing the members of the
Page 2 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF STUDY COMMllTEE
November 21, 1995 ON AGE- SPECIFIC COMMUNITY ZONING DISTRICTS
Retirement Village Advisory Council. If 10% of the voters petition the Board of
Supervisors, the Board shall call an election for the establishment of the Retirement
Village. The ballot will also contain a list of individuals who have petitioned the Board of -
Supervisors to become a council member. The Advisory Council shall consist of seven
members to serve for a term of two years. The petitioners will have 180 days from the
date of filing to obtain the required number of signatures and thepetitions must be filed at
the County Recorder's Ofice or Elections Department. This legislation allows a Retirement
Village to include within its boundaries any undeveloped contiguous land which has been
designated as future age- restricted homes. The Retirement Village may include territory
of a city or town if it is contiguous. The Advisory Council will select a president, vice
president, treasurer and a secretary and the members will serve without compensation.
The Advisory Council may receive and spend any monies made available from any private
or public person or entity. The Advisory Council may advise and make recommendations
to the local governing body on the following matters, except matters relating to commercial
or industrial property:
Architectural design and harmony
Color and texture of improvements
Construction materials
Development density
Grading and site development
Height and bulk of buildings
Landscaping
Land use, including accessory uses
Off- street parking
On- street parking
Public areas
Site design, including infill
Maintenance of specified common areas, structures and facilities
Property upkeep
Deed restriction enforcement
Zoning; and
Any other matters necessary to effectuate the adopted plan covering any
area of the Retirement Village
Mr. Bezozo stated that the proposed legislation contains a delayed repeal date of June 30,
2026. In addition, some last minute revisions were added. Those include annexation and
deannexation language which would allow the Retirement Village to change its boundaries
if necessary. Another revision would allow the County Board of Supervisors to apply the
ordinances specific to a Retirement Village.
Representative Ortega inquired how the population figure of 3,500 was established. Mr.
Bezozo answered that the proposed legislation is a rework of the previously proposed
legislation from last year regarding retirement communities. He explained that last years'
legislation proposed a population threshold of 4,500. This years' proposed legislation is
a lower figure so that a retirement community which is made up of several phases would
allow each phase to establish a Retirement Village and not just have one Retirement
Village per retirement community. Lowering the population number would allow several
phases to establish their own retirement village.
Representative Ortega inquired of the reason that the proposed legislation ( page 4, line
1) requires an accurate map of the boundaries for an annexation yet it is silent to the need
for a map when a Retirement Village is established. Mr. Bezozo answered that he was not
familiar with the language regarding annexation and deannexation. He stated that the
language is taken from the cities and towns annexation language. Commenting that while
he is not familiar with the procedure and process used by the cities and town to annex and
deannex land, Mr. Bezozo explained that the issue was a concern that the Retirement
communities be able to annex or deannex land if this land that is contiguous but not age
restricted at the time that the Retirement Village is established. This would allow them to
annex that specific land.
Representative Ortega suggested that the language prescribe that a map be provided or
say that there not be an accurate map. We are talking about two procedures that are
basically the same. One is that we ask for an accurate map and one is that we do not ask
for an accurate map. We need to address that question.
Referencing page 1, line 17, Representative Ortega inquired how it is known whether the
board of supervisors is satisfied that two- thirds of the qualified electors reside in the
community. He asked if a two- thirds is a majority vote or a two- thirds vote. Mr. Bezozo
stated that while he did not know the answer to the specific question, he would research
the matter further with the county and report the findings to Representative Ortega.
Referencing page 2, line 1 and stating that he had never seen this particular language,
Representative Ortega asked for an definition of an " order entered of record." Mr. Bezozo
replied that the language comes from the cities and towns. He stated that he is not familiar
with the procedure used in entering an order in the record. Mr. Bezozo added that he
would research the matter further and report his findings to Representative Ortega.
Referencing page 2, line 16, Representative Ortega stated there is an inconsistency in
electton laws. Reading from the proposed legislation that " the ballot shall also list the
names of all registered voters in the proposed community who file a petition with the Board
of Supervisors for election," Representative Ortega commented that the people in the
Retirement Village will be the only ones who can sign the petition and vote. He asked if
the proposed legislation would break up electoral precincts. He commented that there has
to be precinct boundaries. When ballots are drawn up, not every person in the county is
Page 4 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF STUDY COMMllTEE
November 21, 1995 ON AGE- SPECIFIC COMMUNITY ZONING DISTRICTS
going to vote for the Retirement Village. Have you discussed any mechanism to make
sure that precinct boundaries are followed to make it easier for the balloting process to take
place. Mr. Bezozo replied that proposed language, as written, would allow any person
that petitions the Board of Supervises who lives within the retirement community that is
applying for a Retirement Village and within those boundaries, they may just petition. We
did not discuss establishing districts within districts that are established for general
elections. Representative Ortega commented that the reason for bringing up the question
is that it raises confusion. If we do not follow precinct lines. We've chosen the county for
the elections department in determining the outcome of an election. They are responsible
for printing a ballot to make that determination. If you do not follow precinct lines, 1 am not
sure the ballot can be used.
Commenting that while all of Representative Ortega's concerns are good points to be
brought to the attention of the Committee that need to be addressed, Senator Turner
reminded Representative Ortega that the Committee is in an advisory and early- phase of
proposing legislation and is working with speed in order to meet the December 1, 1995
deadline. He acknowledged that the proposed legislation needs to be cleaned up, and he
stated that the Rules Attorney will also review the proposed language.
Referencing the draft copy of the proposed legislation, Mr. Bartlett commented that the
Attorney General does not have an opinion on the proposed legislation. He stated that he
is of the opinion that three things need to be addressed. First, you are asking the county
Board of Supervisors to make ordinances from the advisory committee presumably
covering an area that is within the city and you will have a conflict of authority there. That
needs to be sorted out. Second, the way it is drafted, it is mandatory of the County to clear
the committees. If you want that, that is fine but it is not included in special words that a
group of people could dictate that they set up an Advisory Committee without the Board
being able to say, " no we do not want to do that." Third, the whole section on page 2,
Section F, if I understand what you are trying to do, we do not want to include lots of farm
land but my first reading is that it is unconstitutionally vague, it has to be urban but not
rural. I understand what you are trying to do to eliminate the retirement communities to the
current areas and there is vacant land next to them. There is a more artful way to say that
without what looks like creating problems.
Commenting on Senator Turner's statement, Representative Ortega stated that these
questions are brought up with that intent that when we go into the Legislative Session next
year, we can come up with as clean of a bill as possible and something that can be worked
in a practical manner. My intent is not to derail anything. I think we have worked long and
hard to try to come up a solution and I think at least we have a framework here. The intent
of my questions is strictly that to make sure that we have a clean as bill that is possible
because these same questions will come up again if we do not address them before the
session.
MINUTES OF MEETING OF STUDY COMMIITEE Page 5
ON AGE- SPECIFIC COMMUNITY ZONING DISTRICTS November 11, 1995
Representative Ortega commented that his next question deals with some confusion in the
numbers. Referencing page 2, line 9, he stated that the language says " the Board within
60 days after filing of the petition shall call the electionn and then on page 2, line 31, it says
" Petitioners have 180 days from the date of the filing to obtain the required number of
signatures." The way I read this language is that there are two processes. The first
process is establishment of a Retirement Village which is a two- thirds petitioning process.
The second process is the election of its Advisory Council. I am trying to make sure we
do not run into some kind of a confusion as to directing the county to file an election, it
must be within 60 days or the next general. Subsequent language states that petitioners
have 180 days or six months. I just want to make sure that the language is not
contradictory of each other.
Referencing Mr. Bartlett's comments, Representative Ortega asked where " urban" is
defined in the statute. Mr. Bezozo stated that he did not know the answer but would
research the matter and report his findings to Representative Ortega. Representative
Ortega stated that he did not believe " urban" is defined in statute.
Referencing page 1, paragraph 1 which describes that a Retirement Village is comprised
of 3500 people that meets the definition under the federal HUD requirements and
referencing page 2, line 41 that says, " after future age restricted homes," referring to areas
that shall be contiguous to the Retirement Village, Representative Ortega asked if age
restricted homes is the same as defined in the Federal HUD laws and Title 41. Mr. Bezozo
stated that the age restricted development is for undeveloped property that has been
designated by a county or city as age restricted and in order to be developed they would
have to be qualified for the HUD laws and if automatically qualified, they would have to
meet their requirements.
Representative Ortega commented that just because you bring this into the Village for the
future, we are looking at something that is not there yet that does not qualify them. So we
are making a qualification on page 1 and erasing the qualification on page 2. That is
another issue that needs to be cleaned up.
Addressing another concern with the language that says the Retirement Village may
include the territory of its city or town, Representative Ortega stated that the contradiction
is that the retirement community is going to the Board of Supervisors asking to be created
into something but not yet requiring the same thing from another elected body such as a
city or town. Representative Ortega asked if the proposed legislation is asking cities and
towns to allow the Retirement Village to create itself. He questioned why permission is
asked of the County but not the city or town. Mr. Bezozo explained that the county is a
political subdivision of the State and in order to give its authorities and powers, it needs to
be stated in statute, unlike cities and towns who have the power to establish their own
ordinances.
Page 6 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF STUDY COMMITTEE
November 21, 1995 ON AGE- SPECIFIC COMMUNITY ZONING DISTRICTS
Mr. Williams commented that he is glad that some of the questions are raised so that they
will be addressed before proposed legislation is presented to the Legislature. I believe
that these words relating to the creation of a council and the filing of the petitions are
borrowed from existing language in the statutes in the creation of other entities. We are
not creating something different here. It is the same language that would be used if a
special district were to be created, a city, and so forth. He commented that the precinct
places had nothing to do with the proposed legislation because the election that takes
place is within the boundary of the area to be determined as a community. Mr. Williams
stated that he believed the word " map" can be deleted from the language. He also
commented on other concerns raised by Representative Ortega.
Senator Turner expressed a desire to make a motion on the proposed legislation.
Senator Turner moved the Committee recommend for legislative action, that
the proposed legislation regarding Retirement Villages, conforming to Arizona
statute, be developed and submitted by legislative members of this
Committee concerning Retirement Villages and Councils. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Ahlstrom.
Representative Ortega asked if the Committee is going to entertain further public
discussion prior to voting on Senator Turner's motion.
Senator Turner commented that no written requests have been made known to the
Cochairmen of the Committee.
Mr. Williams commented that he does not favor the proposed legislation, in its present form
in a sense that it proposes an Advisory Council. Mr. Williams stated that he seeks a
governmental entity which will have some individual authority.
Mr. Bartlett stated he does not intend to vote, one way or another on the proposed
legislation. The Attorney General has not had a chance to review the proposal. He
commented that is easier to establish Advisory Councils than it is to establish a body with
political power.
Senator Turner commented that the action of this Committee is to recommend that we
proceed with proposing legislation concerning Retirement Villages.
Cochairman Bundgaard stated that in order to have further discussion, it would be
necessary that Senator Turner withdraw his motion and that Mr. Ahlstrom withdraw his
second to the motion.
MINUTES OF MEETING OF STUDY COMMllTEE Page 7
ON AGE- SPECIFIC COMMUNITY ZONING DISTRICTS November 1 1, 1995
Senator Turner withdrew his motion. Mr. Ahlstrom withdrew his second to
the motion.
Cochairman Bundgaard invited public comment.
L. Q. Yowell, President, Citizens for Self- Government, Sun City, Arizona, explained
that at the November 11, 1995 meeting of the Board of Directors of the Citizens for Self-
Government, the Board passed a resolution relative to Retirement Villages. He read the
resolution and presented it to the Committee Secretary ( on file with original minutes):
' Citizens for Self- Government stands opposed to efforts'to establish legislation for
a retirement village unless and until such legislation includes a provision for state-shared
revenue funds commensurate with those provided to incorporated areas."
Dick Gray, a concerned citizen, stated that he was not prepared to make any comment
at this point in time.
Sally Bender, Lobbyist, County Supervisors Association, stated that the County
Supervisors Association would like to be kept apprised of any legislation that the
Committee intends to go forward with. She expressed the need for the County Supervisors
Association to be involved with the matter. She also commented that many of
Representative Ortega's comments need to be addressed.
Discussion followed between Mr. Lane, Mr. Miner, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Williams, Senator
Turner, Representative Ortega and Ms. Bender regarding ( a) senior overlay zones, ( b)
Retirement Village applicability to all 15 counties, ( c) senior living clusters, ( d) annexation
of contiguous land, and ( e) ownership of specific parcels of property in relationship to
voting.
Cochairman Bundgaard invited further public discussion. There was none.
Senator Turner MOVED that the Committee recommend legislation to
establish committees in Retirement Villages to assist the local government or
county in planning and zoning.
Cochairman Bundgaard invited comment.
Discussion followed between Mr. Miner and Senator Turner.
Senator Turner modified his motion to read that the Committee adopt the
proposed legislation as presented to the Committee, with any necessary
changes.
Page 8 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF STUDY COMMlnEE
November 21, 1995 ON AGE- SPECIFIC COMMUNITY ZONING DISTRICTS
Cochairman Bundgaard asked Senator Turner to clarify his motion. Senator Turner
explained that his motion is to adopt the recommendation in preparing a bill for legislative
consideration with any necessary changes.
Mr. Reed questioned the meaning of necessary changes in this case. Senator Turner
replied that the changes would be those that arise during the legislative process resulting
from concerns such as those expressed by Representative Ortega and perhaps other
concerns of the Attorney General. Senator Turner stated that the proposed legislation has
a legislator that is willing to sign on as the sponsor.
Mr. Bartlett stated that he is not going to vote on the motion. He added that he did not
have a clear understanding on the motion.
Mr. Miner expressed support for the concept of the bill.
Discussion followed between Mr. Williams, Mr. Bartlett and Senator Turner regarding the
motion.
Mr. Bartlett commented that he is of the belief that what Mr. Miner and Senator Turner are
recommending is not the bill in front of the Committee members. He stated that Senator
Turner wishes to have this Committee recommend to the Legislature that there be a law
passed establishing Advisory Committees from Retirement Villages in the various counties
subject to a vote of those people in the Retirement Village and that that Advisory
Committee would have no authority other than to advise a Board of Supervisors on a list
of requirements affecting essentially home ownership in the Retirement Village. That is
different than what is in the proposed bill. Mr. Bartlett stated that if his understanding is
correct of what Senator Turner is speaking to, Senator Turner wants the Committee to
recommend the approach of establishing Advisory Committees from Retirement Villages
as opposed to having independent elected bodies or opposed to recommending that no
action be taken.
Senator Turner commented that Mr. Bartlett's analysis of the motion is correct. He
explained that the concept needs to be worked into the language.
Discussion followed between Mr. Miner and Mr. Bartlett regarding the concept of
Retirement Villages and the need that any State legislation regarding Retirement Villages
be consistent with pending federal legislation as contained in H. R. 660.
Senator Turner asked Mr. Bezozo to recap the Turner motion as he understands it.
It is MOVED that the Committee work off the proposed bill and make
recommendations to the concept of the Retirement Village with an Advisory
MINUTES OF MEETING OF STUDY COMMllTEE Page 9
ON AGE- SPECIFIC COMMUNITY ZONING DISTRICTS November 11, 1995
Council and that the recommendations would include those changes to work
on those problems with the bill.
Senator Turner acknowledged Mr. Bezozo's understanding of the Turner motion is in fact
the Turner motion.
Mr. Reed seconded the motion. The motion CARRIED by voice vote.
Mr. Bartlett suggested that the Committee recommend to the Legislature that Arizona's fair
housing laws conform with the Federal Fair Housing Act.
Senator Turner MOVED that the Committee recommend legislation be
introduced to conform Arizona's fair housing statutes with the Federal Fair
Housing Laws in the event that H. R. 660 is enacted. Mr. Bartlett seconded the
motion. The motion CARRIED by voice vote.
Chairman Bundgaard invited further discussion.
Mr. Williams stated that the residents of Sun City West have discussed the Retirement
Village concept and have expressed their thoughts relative to retirement communities and
school taxes. He submitted to the Committee the written concerns ( on file with original
minutes).
Discussion followed between Mr. Williams, Senator Turner, Mr. Bartlett, Senator Goudinoff,
and Mr. Miner regarding the Committee's final report that is due December 1, 1995.
The meeting adjourned at 1 1 : 10 a. m.
Respectfully y6&& U, r\
( Tape and attachments on file in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate.)
A PROPOSAL FOR
ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL GOVERYENTAL RETIREMENT ENTITIES
AS SUBDIVISIONS OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT
Provide in the law for a governmental type of entity to be known as a
RFTIREMENT VILLAGE, defined as an area with specific boundaries and- a
population of at least that qualifies under HUD regulations and Arizona
Fair Housing law as an age- specific retirement cmunity, and as a planned
cmunity under Arizona statutes.
such' Retirement Village to have limited authority over certain standards,
adopted by local vote, that affect the desirability and property values
of the cmunity, such as:
architectural hamny
maintenance of specified c m n areas, structures and facilities
upkeep of their property by homeowners
deed restrictions 7 LI
zoning.
The authority includes the ability to select from among the standards
those appropriate for the cmunity, and to enforce those standards.
Such authority to be exercised by a bard or cdssion of from five ( 5 )
to nine ( 9) resident electors who are chosen by a vote of property owners
and residents in the Village, and who will serve without pay.
Funzing of the work of the board or cmission shall be determined by
the Village, since a single method is not appropriate to all.
ARIZONA STATE SENATE
RESEARCH STAFF
Jason Bezozo &
Research Assistant
542- 3171
TO: Members of the Joint Legislative Study Committee on Age- Specific
Community Zoning Districts
DATE: November 9,1995
Re: Special Governmental Entities
At the September 28 meeting of the Joint Legislative Study Committee on Age- Specific
Community Zoning Districts, I was asked to do some research on special districts and quasi-governmental
entities. During my research, I contacted many state legislatures and national
organizations including the National Association of Counties and the United States Census
Bureau. I found several county subordinate districts which may be of interest to the
Committee. These entities include special community improvement districts, a local zoning
district and neighborhood advisory councils.
Special districts in general are independent and co- exist with substantial administrative and
fiscal independence from general purpose governments, such as county, municipal or
township governments ( townships do not exist in Arizona). Special district governments
usually perform a single function but in some instances are authorized to provide related
services.
To illustrate one of these common arrangements, a community improvement district is a form
of a special tax district which exists throughout the United States. Community improvement
districts are governed and managed by community elected boards. These types of special
taxing districts are not created to replace local government, but are usually established to
enhance and complement the local authority by providing secondary services, such as
security patrolmen, waste management and sidewalk improvement and maintenance. All of
these community improvement districts have the power to levy taxes or special assessments
to defray the costs of providing services.
Like all states, Arizona has county subordinate agencies and districts which have certain
characteristics of governmental units. Arizona has about thirty types of special districts,
accounting for more than 260 special district governments. Some of these include agricultural
improvement districts, irrigation districts and fire protection districts.
Members of the Study Committee on
Age- Specific Community Zoning Districts
November 9,1995
Page 2
A unique special district where the community has been granted limited zoning powers exists
in Maryland. The LaVale Zoning District was created in 1957 for the purpose of regulating
land use and building construction and design in a ten- square- mile area of an unincorporated
suburb. The LaVale Zoning Board may regulate the use of buildings and the number of
families which may be housed per acre of land. Additionally, the Board may establish and
enforce regulations, and a hearing and appeals process is provided by statute.
Financing for the LaVale Zoning Board comes from building permit fees. The Board charges
a $ 2 application fee and $ 2 per one thousand dollars of construction cost. The Board does
not issue building permits, however. lnstead the Board acts like an additional county agency
which must sign off on the building permit application before it is issued by the county. Board
members work on a volunteer basis and are not compensated for their time.
In a number of localities, most notably in metropolitan areas, quasi- governmental
neighborhood advisory councils are known to exist. Councils of this type, when established
by official legislative or administrative action and with members elected by the voters or
appointed by public otTicials, may be distinguished from privately organized civic associations
and similar organizations. Municipal neighborhood councils are advisory in nature, but the
scope of their duties nevertheless varies. Some neighborhood advisory councils deal with
specialized school functions, whereas others may advise counties or municipalities on a wide
variety of functions performed by the parent government, as in the case of the advisory
neighborhood commissions in the District of Columbia which may advise the District
government on matters of public policy including decisions regarding planning, streets,
recreation, social services programs, health, safety and sanitation in those neighborhood
areas.
Quasi- governmental neighborhood advisory councils are generally established through local
ordinance or administrative action, although some have been authorized through state
legislation, as in the case of the municipal advisory councils in some California localities. For
example, within San Diego there exist 20 Planned District Ordinances ( PDO). PDOs are not
municipalities; rather, they are enclaves of San Diego that do not have the power to vote or
set city ordinance. lnstead, a PDO acts like a community planning group and may submit
planning and design proposals to the city council for approval. Each PDO is different. Some,
like the La Jolla Planned District, generate detailed ordinances established to retain and
enhance the economic, architectural, civic and social values and quality of life. Others, such
as the Otay Mesa Planned District, execute general ordinances to control the use and
development design of industrial and commercial areas.
At your request, I would be happy to send you copies of the enabling legislation for the Lavale
Zoning District, the San Diego Municipal Code for Planned District Ordinances or the District
of Columbia Code for the Advisory Neighborhood Commission. If you have any questions or
need further information regarding this matter, please feel free to call me.
LaVALE ZONING DISTRICT
Chapter 58
LaVALE ZONING DISTRICT
4 58- 1. Applicability of provisions.
58- 2. Purpose; auihoriiy of LaVa, l c Zoning Board.
\ 4 58- 3. Establishment and enforcement of restrictions.
$ 58- 4. LaVale Zoning Board.
5 58- 5. Contributions to rescue & quad.
$ 58- 6. Appeals.
58- 7. Violations and penalties.
[ HISTORY: Adopted and amcndcd as indicated in t ccxt .]
( Ireupturn S- L1 Tmning Dirlruf -. $ H Ch. JJ
IaV& . Sanitary h r k : l - . h Ch. . ib
Spe~ L( le xin9 err.+ - Sec Ch. 73.
Land & uokvmrnl - So0 Clr. 141.
§ 58- 1. Applicability of provisions. 11957, ch. 228,' sec. 337Aj
The provisions of this chapter shall apply and be effcctivc! In
the boundaries of Lavale Election District No. 29, as set fonh in
$ 566 of Chapter 56, LaVale Sanitary District, said Lmundarics
heing the same as the present physical boundaries of Electiotl
District No. 29, Allegany County, except, however, that portiorl
of said \ mundaries and of said Election District No. 29 as are sef
forrh in 5 3.3- 1 of Chapter 33, Cresaptowt~ Special Ti~ xiny Dis.
trici, that seclior~ defirling the limiis of the Cresaptown Special
' CJl~ or'b Note: Cttrvccr 228 of 1957 war auurovod bv the votrn * I a n* lrrmdun\ on June
18. 1957.
ID:
§ 58- 1 ALLEGANY COUNTY CODE 58.3
Taxing Area or District, and this chapter does nor interxd to and
does nor include in its provisions any application to any part ol
the Cresaptown Specid Taxing Area or District.
8 58- 2. Purpose; authority of Lavale Zoning Board. 11957,
ch. 228, sec. 33781
For tile purpose of promoting health, safety, morals and gens
era! welfare; of enhancing safety from fire, panic and other
dangers; of reducing traffic congestion; of providing adaqtlate
light and air; of preventing the overcrowding of land and undue
concentration of population; of abetting provision of sdrc~ ols,
parks and public facilities; and to promote the ordcdy growth of
said bVale Zoning District in the interest oi all its inhabitants,
the Lavale Zoning Board is hereby empowered within said dis-trict
to regulate the use, height, area and type of constructiotl of
buildings and the use of land. The LaVale Zoning Board may, by
appropriate regulations, restrict, control, linlit or regulate the
ereclion, alteration, repair and use of buildings and the use of
land and regulate the number oi families which may be lioused
per acre of land.
§ 58- 3. Establishment and enforcement of restrictions.
11957, ch. 228, sec. 337C)
The LaVale Zoning Board shall determine the manner in which
regulations and restrictions shall be established and enforced and
from time 10 time amended, supplemented and changed. Befarc
determining the regulations and restrictions to be enforced there-in,
if shall hold a public hcaring or hearings tl~ ereon, giving at
least fifteen ( 15) days' notice in a newspaper of general circulation
rhroughou! the district of the place and time of the beginning of
such hearing or hearings. The LaVde Zoning Board shall have
the power to amerld, supplement or repeal the regulations or
restrictions adopted by it, provided that, before doing so, il shall
follow the same procedure with resped to notice and public hear-ings
as is herein provided for the original regulations and
rcsr nctions.
0 58.4 LaVALE ZONING DISTRICT 5 58- 4
8 58- 4. Lavale Zoning - Board. 11957, ch. 228, scc. 337D;
,1959, ch. 300, sec. 337D( c); 1968, ch. 110, scc. 359( c)]
A. Qualifications. For the purpose of carrying out the provi-sbns
of this chapter, there shall be constituted and formed
a h a r d of three ( 3) persons, which shall bc known and
designated as the " Lavale Zoning ihard." Each member
of the b a r d shall bc q resident of the zoning districi and a
qualified voier therein and tile owner of at least five
hundred dollars ($ 500.) worth of assessablr! real property
within said zotling district or a resident ol the district who
has been a q~ alificdv oter for at last three ( 3) years.
H. Election. The members of the Hoard shall be elected. Thc!
firs! clection shall be held on June 18, 1957, arid shall be
conducted simultaneously with the election refercrndurn set
forth under the provisions of this chapter. ' l'he eiection for
the three ( 3) memtwrs of tIw Board shall be conducted by
rtle Board of Election Su~ wrvisors for Allegany Cotcnty.
Names of candidates for election of all duly qt~ dificd candi-dates
shall be placed upon the voting maclline or ballot, as
the case may be. Any candidate for office who wishes his
name placed upon the ballot must file with the Chairman
of the Board of Election Supervisors for Allegany County a
written petition requesting that he be a candidate for office,
signed by at least twenty ( 20) registered voters of the dis-trict.
' T). ris list of lwenty ( 20) registered volers must be ccr.
tified to for genuineness by thcr Clcrk or Clerks of the Board
nf Electmn Supervisors for Allegany County. Each c. andi-date
for office at lhe Junc 18, 1957, election shall submit
his petit~ onf or eleclion, fully certified by the Board of Eiec-lion
Supervisors, to the Chairman of the Board of Election
Supervisors no later than 12: 00 midnight June 8, 1957. At
the clection to be held on June 18, 1957, thc! three ( 3)
candidates receiving the highest number of voles shall be
elected to office. The candidate receiving the most votes
shall be elected to serve until the general clection heid in
1% 2 in Allega~~ Cy ounty and shall be Ctlairman of the
Board untii the next succeeding general election. The can-didate
receiving the second highesf rlumbcr of votes shall
he electccl to serve until fire general election held in 190.
OCT 30' 95 11: 45 N o . 0 0 3 P . 0 5
584 ALLEGANY COUNJY CODE 58- 4
The candidate receiving the third highest number of votes
shall be elected to serve until the general election held in
1958.
C. Subsequent elections; terms; compensation; vacancies; pow-ers
and duties. The election of a' member to said Board in
the 1958 general election and all subsequent electio~~ shsa ll
be upon the same terms and conditions as set forth above
and also shall be conducted by the Board of Election Su-pervisors
of Allegany County simultaneously wiih the bal- .
loting lor all other elective' offices, s.\ At all of these subse.
quent elections, beginning with the election of' 1958, all
candidates for office must have their petitions fully certified
and presented tu the Chairman of ( he h a r d of Election
Supervisors a1 lcsst sixty ( 60) days prior to such election.
The person elected to office at the 1958 eiection shall hoid
uffice for a period of six ( 6) years. In a similar manner, the
member clected to serve utltir 1960 shall 1~ replaced or
rcelected at the 1960 election, and the candidate elected to
serve until 1962 shall bc replaced or reelected at the 19612
elecfion. Thereafter, members of the Board whose lcrms
expire shail be replaced or reelected every two ( 2) years
for terms of six ( 6) years. The Cl~ ajnnan of the Board shall
be chosen by its members after each general election.
Members of the Board shall serve witl~ out compensation
but shall be provided with funds to cover the expenses
incurred in the performance of their duties. In the event of
the retnoval from ofice of any member or his failure to
qualify or his death in office or for his inabiliiy to serve for
any reason whatsoever, this chapter shall not fail for want
of a member of the Board, but in all such cases the Board
ol County Commissioners for Allegany County shall ap-point
a person to serve as a member of the Eharci to fill
the unexpired term of the member of the Board. In the
event that the original Board cannot or is not for any rea-son
whatsoevcr elected at the June 18, 1957, referendum
and clecticm, the Board of County Cornmissioners of Alle-gany
Counly shall appoint the entire Board as aforesaid.
' The LaValc Zoning h a r d shall exercise such duties, pow-ers
and authority as may be necessary and advisable [ or
the proper administration and enforcement of this chapter.
D. Oath of office. Before assuming the duties of office, each
mernkr- elect shall take the constitutional oath of office,
which shall be recorded in the office of the Clerk of the
Circuif Court for Allegany County.
§ 58- 5. Contributions to rescue squad. [ 1969. ch. 4531
' fhc LaVale Zoning Board may, in iis discretion, contribute not
in excess of eight thousand dollars ($ 8,000.) of the funds of the
Zoning Board to the LaVale + Voluntepr Rescue Squad, Inc.; pro-vided,
however, that funds which have been collected for a s ~ .
cific p t q ~ ~ msaey riot be used.
5 58- 6. Appeals. [ 1957, ch. 228, sec. 337E; 1968, ch. 110, scc.
3601
Any person, persons, taxpayer or officer of the district jointly
or severally aggrieved by any decision of the LaValc Zoning
Board may, within thirty ( 30) days after the fitng of such dccision
in the office of the Zoning Board, appeal to the Circuit Court for
Alicgany County. The Court shall hear all such appeals without
the intervention of a jury and shall have the power to affirm, mod-ify
or reverse, in part or in whole, any decision appealed from and
may remand any case for the entering of a proper order or for
further proceeding as the Court shall determine. An appeal may
be taken to the Court of Appeals of Maryland from any final
decision of the Circuit Court for Allegany County.
9 58- 7. Violations and penalties. 11957, ch. 228, sec. 337F3
Any violation of the rules, regulafions and restriclions adopted
pilrsuant lo th~ sch apter shall be a misdemeanor, punishable by a
hnt: not to exceed one hundred dollars ($ 100.). Any person who
shall violate such rules, regulations and restrictiolu shall he
deemed guilty ol a separate offense for every day that such viola.
tion shall continue. In addition to other remedies, the 7~ ning
Board may institute any appropriate acfion or proceedings to
compel compliance with the zoning regulations and restrictions
adopted pursuant to this chapter.
Rough D r a f t
P r i n t date: November 20. 1995 1: 31: 30 pm)
Folder 370, D r a f t e r DRT
AN ACT
i
AMENDING TITLE 9. ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING CHAPTER 12; AMENDING
SECTION 11- 251.05, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; PROVIDING FOR THE DELAYED REPEAL
OF TITLE 9. CHAPTER 12. ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES: RELATING TO RETIREMENT
V I LLAGES .
REFERENCE TITLE: r e t i r e m e n t v i l l a g e s ; c o u n c i l s
State o f Arizona
Senate
Forty- second L e g i s l a t u r e
Second Regul a r Session
1996
S. B.
Introduced by
Be it enacted by the L e g i s l a t u r e o f the S t a t e o f Arizona:
S e c t i o n 1. T i t l e 9, Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s , i s amended by adding
chapter 12, t o read:
CHAPTER 12
RETIREMENT VILLAGES
ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
9- 1301. Retirement v i l l aaes: r e a u i rements establishment;
g l e c t i o n : d e f i n i t i o n
A. A COMMUNITY THAT QUALIFIES AS AN EXEMPT RETIREMENT COMMUNITY UNDER
THE FEDERAL HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT LAWS AND TITLE 41. CHAPTER 9 AND
THAT HAS A POPULATION OF THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED OR MORE PERSONS MAY
ESTABLISH A RETIREMENT VILLAGE UNDER THIS CHAPTER.
B. WHEN TWO- THIRDS OF THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS RESIDING IN A RETIREMENT
COMMUNITY DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION A PETITION THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
SETTING FORTH THE METES AND BOUNDS OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE NAME BY WHICH THE
PETITIONERS DESIRE THE COMMUNITY TO BE KNOWN AND REQUESTING ESTABLISHMENT OF
THE COMMUNITY AS A RETIREMENT VILLAGE, AND THE BOARD I S SATISFIED THAT TWO-THIRDS
OF THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS RESIDING IN THE COMMUNITY HAVE SIGNED THE
P E T I T I O N , I T SHALL DECLARE THE COMMUNITY A RETIREMENT VILLAGE BY AN ORDER
ENTERED OF RECORD. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SHALL CALL AN ELECTION I N THE
MANNER PRESCRIBED I N SUBSECTION C FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING A RETIREMENT
VILLAGE ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR A RETIREMENT VILLAGE ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO
T H I S SUBSECTION.
C. WHEN TEN PER CENT OF THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS RESIDING I N A
RETIREMENT COMMUNITY DESCRIBED I N SUBSECTION A P E T I T I O N THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS I N THE MANNER PRESCRIBED I N SUBSECTION B, REQUESTING THE CALLING
OF AN ELECTION FOR THE PURPOSE PROVIDED I N T H I S SUBSECTION, THE BOARD, WITHIN
S I X T Y DAYS AFTER F I L I N G OF THE PETITION, SHALL CALL THE ELECTION. AND THE
ELECTION SHALL TAKE PLACE ON THE DATE OF THE NEXT GENERAL OR COUNTYWIDE
ELECTION SCHEDULED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. EXCEPT THAT NO SUCH ELECTION MAY
BE CALLED WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF A PREVIOUS ELECTION FOR
ESTABLISHMENT OF A RETIREMENT VILLAGE OF SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME TERRITORY.
I N ADDITION TO THE QUESTION REGARDING ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RETIREMENT
VILLAGE, THE BALLOT SHALL ALSO L I S T THE NAMES OF A L L REGISTERED VOTERS I N THE
PROPOSED COMMUNITY WHO F I L E A PETITION WITH THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR
ELECTION TO THE RETIREMENT VILLAGE ADVISORY COUNCIL CONSISTING OF SEVEN
MEMBERS. THE TERM OF COUNCIL MEMBERS I S TWO YEARS. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SHALL DETERMINE THE ELECTED COUNCIL MEMBERS BASED ON THE VOTE. ONLY
Q U A L I F I E D ELECTORS OF THE COMMUNITY SHALL VOTE AT THE ELECTION. I F A
MAJORITY OF QUALIFIED ELECTORS VOTING VOTES FOR ESTABLISHMENT, THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS BY AN ORDER ENTERED OF RECORD SHALL DECLARE THE COMMUNITY A
RETIREMENT VILLAGE.
D. BEFORE OBTAINING ANY SIGNATURES ON A P E T I T I O N REQUIRED BY
SUBSECTION B OR C. A COPY OF THE PETITION SHALL BE F I L E D WITH THE COUNTY
RECORDER. OR I N A COUNTY THAT HAS AN ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT, WITH THE COUNTY
ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT. THE PETITION SHALL STATE I T S PURPOSE CLEARLY AND
CONCISELY, AND THE PETITION SHALL BE I N THE FORM AND SIGNED AND V E R I F I E D AS
GENERALLY PROVIDED FOR I N I T I A T I V E P E T I T I O N S . P E T I T I O N E R S HAVE ONE HUNDRED
EIGHTY DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE F I L I N G TO OBTAIN THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF
SIGNATURES.
E. BY WHICHEVER PROCEEDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RETIREMENT VILLAGE
I S ACCOMPLISHED, THE ORDER SHALL DESIGNATE THE NAME OF THE COMMUNITY AND I T S
METES AND BOUNDS. AND THEREAFTER THE INHABITANTS WITHIN THE DEFINED AREA ARE
A BODY P O L I T I C BY THE NAME DE