Loading...
The City must review applications for both application completeness and substantive compliance. The City must send written notice to the applicant of the application’s status within the mandatory time frames listing all required additional information or corrections. Written notices may be delivered by mail or electronically (the term “notice” as subsequently used in this Compliance Policy includes either type of notice). If the permit sought requires approval of more than one City department, each department may issue separate notices.
(Am. Admin. Directive, 5/14/2013; Am. Admin. Directive 1.02-9, rev. 4/25/2014)
11.1 The City will review an application for administrative completeness. If the City determines that an application is not administratively complete, the City must issue a written notice with a comprehensive list of the specific deficiencies. A.R.S. §§ 9-835(D), 9-835(E). The statute provides for additional written notices of deficiencies based on the applicant’s submission of the missing information.
11.2 The notices of deficiencies must cite all reference to the applicable regulation or policy, and inform the applicant that the City’s mandatory time frame is suspended pending receipt of the requested corrections or any missing information. A.R.S. § 9-835(E).
11.3 If the City fails to provide notice to the applicant of administrative completeness or deficiency, the application is then deemed complete. A.R.S. § 9-835(F).
(Am. Admin. Directive 1.02-9, rev. 4/25/2014)
12.1 For substantive reviews of a license application, the City may issue no more than one comprehensive request for corrections, as that term is defined in the A.R.S. § 9-831(7) except as listed below.
12.2 The City may make the following additional requests for corrections:
1. If the City subsequently identifies legal requirements that were not included in the comprehensive request for corrections, the City may amend the comprehensive request for corrections once to include the legal requirements and provide the legal authority for the requirements.
2. If an applicant fails to resolve an issue identified in a request for corrections, the City may make a supplemental written requests for corrections that are limited to issues previously identified in a comprehensive request for corrections.
3. If an applicant requests significant changes, alterations, additions or amendments to an application that are not in response to the request for corrections, the City may make one additional comprehensive request for corrections and may have an additional fifty percent of the substantive review time frame for the license to be granted or denied.
12.3 Nothing in the statute prohibits communication between the City and the applicant regarding a comprehensive request for corrections. A.R.S. § 9-835(H).
12.4 The substantive and overall time frame may be extended by mutual written or electronic agreement. The extensions may not exceed 50% of the overall time frame. For an application requiring more time, the applicant must submit a new application. A.R.S. § 935(I).
(Am. Admin. Directive 1.02-9, rev. 4/25/2014)
13.1 The City must give notice of approval, denial or withdrawal.
13.2 The City may deem an application withdrawn if the applicant does not provide the requested documentation or information, or an explanation why the information cannot be provided within the established time period after:
1. fifteen
from date of the notice of application corrections or deficiencies; or
2. thirty
after the date of the notice of a request for corrections.
13.3 If the notice is for a denial or withdrawal, the notice must include the following:
1. Citations of the pertinent regulations justifying an application denial or withdrawal; and
2. An explanation of the applicant’s rights to appeal the denial or withdrawal, including the number of working
in which the applicant must file an appeal and the telephone number of a municipal; contact person who can answer questions regarding the appeal process; and
3. An explanation of the applicant’s right to resubmit the application, the total amount of fees that will be assessed for reapplication and the method in which those fees are calculated.
13.4 If within the substantive review time frame for a license, and after all permitted comprehensive requests for corrections, the license request is still not in compliance with the City regulations and policies, the application will be denied.
(Admin. Directive 1.02-9, rev. 4/25/2014)
Upon receiving a notice of application denial or withdrawal, the applicant may submit a new application to the City for further reviews. If an application is denied or has been withdrawn, and the applicant resubmits the application for the same purpose with only revisions or corrections to the original, the City may not assess any additional application fees that exceed the cost of processing the resubmitted revisions or corrections. A.R.S. § 9-835(L) and (M).
(Admin. Directive 1.02-9, rev. 4/25/2014)
If the City does not send notice to an applicant regarding approval, denial, or withdrawal within the overall time frame or any mutually agreed extension thereof, the City must refund the all fees within 30 working
of the expiration of the overall time frame or any mutually agreed extension of the overall time frame, waive any additional fees for further review of the application, and continue to process the application. A.R.S. § 9-835(K).
(Admin. Directive 1.02-9, rev. 4/25/2014)
PDSD DIRECTOR APPROVAL PROCESS | |
APPLICATION TYPES | |
1. Changes of use; 2. Downtown Area Infill Incentive District –
within the Downtown Core Sub-district requesting a modification of
regulations (Note:
within the Greater Infill Incentive Sub-district are processed in accordance with the 400' Notice Procedure below); 3. Electrical connections (certain types); 4. Expansion of existing premises; 5. Home occupations; 6. Individual Parking Plans for
greater than 300' from R-3 or more restrictive zoning districts; 7. New construction; 8. Nonconforming same Land Use Class substitution; 9. Nonconforming parking areas; 10. Parking Design Modification Requests (except requests to modify the number of bicycle or motor vehicle parking spaces); 11.
within certain overlay zones; 12. Restricted adult activities; 13. Temporary uses or structures; 14. Tenant improvements; 15. Wireless Communication uses (certain types); 16. Rio Nuevo District Zone Minor Modifications of Development Regulations (MDR); 17. Zoning Compliance for Site Improvements in Existence on May 1, 2005; 18. Other applications, such as blood donor centers and circus, carnival and tent shows; or 19. Site plans (Site plans in Overlay Districts require different time frames for review). | |
TIME FRAME | |
Administrative Compliance Review for Application Completeness | 20 working
|
Substantive Review | 65 working
|
Overall Time frame | 85 working
. Note: This time period includes a second review after return of comments on the first review, or when a
package or site plan is required. Total time is less if only one review is needed for a particular approval, or when a
package or site plan is not required. |
PDSD DIRECTOR APPROVAL PROCEDURE: 100' NOTICE PROCEDURE | |
APPLICATION TYPES | |
1. Design Development Options (DDO) in accordance; 2. Parking Design Modification Requests to the required number of bicycle and motor vehicle parking spaces; 3. PDSD
Special Exception applications; 4. Approval of resident artisan uses in the Historic Preservation Zone; 5. Certain wireless facilities; 6. Requests for demolition of contributing, non-historic structures in the HPZ. | |
TIME FRAMES | |
Administrative Compliance Review for Application Completeness | 20 working
|
Substantive Review | 35 working |
Overall Time frame | 55 working |
PDSD DIRECTOR APPROVAL PROCEDURE: 400' NOTICE PROCEDURE | |
APPLICATION TYPES | |
1. Mitigation plans for certain restaurants serving alcohol within 300 feet of R-3 or more restrictive zoning; 2.
within the Greater Infill Incentive Sub-district of the Downtown Area Infill Incentive District requesting a Modification of Development Regulations; and, 3. Individual Parking Plans for
within 300 feet of R-3 or more restrictive zoning districts. | |
TIME FRAMES | |
Administrative Compliance Review for Application Completeness | 20 working
|
Substantive Review | 45 working |
Overall Time frame | 65 working |
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL |
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL | ||
APPLICATION TYPES | ||
1. Compliance with certification of existing premises. 2. Interpretations of the UDC. 3. Planned Area Development interpretations. 4. Zone boundary conflicts. | ||
TIME FRAMES | ||
Regular Review | Complex issues requiring additional research or a City Attorney opinion: | |
Administrative Compliance Review for Application Completeness | 20 working | 20 working |
Substantive Review | 10 working | 25 working |
Overall Time frame | 30 working | 45 working |
PDSD DIRECTOR APPROVAL IN CERTAIN OVERLAY ZONES |
PDSD DIRECTOR APPROVAL IN CERTAIN OVERLAY ZONES | |
APPLICATION TYPE | |
Historic Preservation Zone Design Review | |
TIME FRAMES | |
Administrative Compliance Review for Application Completeness | 20 working |
Substantive Review: | |
Full Review | 40 working |
Minor Review | 25 working |
Overall Time frame: | |
Full Review | 60 working |
Minor Review | 45 working |
APPLICATION TYPE | |
Rio Nuevo District Design Review | |
TIME FRAMES | |
Administrative Compliance Review for Application Completeness | 20 working |
Substantive Review: | |
Major | 65 working |
Minor | 50 working |
Overall Time frame: | |
Major Review | 85 working |
Minor Review | 70 working |
APPLICATION TYPE | |
Neighborhood Preservation Zone Design Review | |
TIME FRAME | |
Administrative Compliance Review for Application Completeness | 20 working
|
Substantive Review | 20 working |
Overall Time frame | 40 working |
PDSD DIRECTOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION PROCEDURE | |
APPLICATION TYPE | |
Special Exceptions requiring PDSD
approval | |
TIME FRAME | |
Administrative Compliance Review for Application Completeness | 20 working |
Substantive Review | 25 working |
Overall Time frame | 45 working |
ZONING EXAMINER SPECIAL EXCEPTION PROCEDURE | |
APPLICATION TYPE | |
1. Special Exceptions requiring ZE decision under the UDC. 2. Substitution of nonconforming uses (uses not in the same land use class). 3. Expansion of nonconforming uses. | |
TIME FRAME | |
Administrative Compliance Review for Application Completeness | 20 working |
Substantive Review | 40 working
for administrative review |
Overall Time frame | 60 working
for administrative review The substantive and overall time frames are suspended from overall time frame under A.R.S. § 9-835(C)(8)(c) for the required ZE Public Hearing |
(Am. Admin. Directive 1.02-9, rev. 4/25/2014; Am. Ord. 11732, 2/19/2020)
Section
3-03.1.0 GENERAL
3-03.2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROCESSES
TABLE 3-03 TYPICAL TIMEFRAMES FOR COMPLIANCE REVIEW/FLEXIBLE OPTION
In 2011 the Arizona Legislature passed a “Regulatory Bill of Rights” (SB 1598) requiring municipalities to establish and adhere to time frames in a broad range of permitting processes. Under the law, cities must create an overall permitting time frame for each process, consisting of an “administrative completeness” time frame and a “substantive review” time frame. The aim of this bill was to create faster, more uniform, and more transparent processes, goals which the City of Tucson Planning and Development Services Department (PDSD) share. However, the implementation of these time frames may have unforeseen consequences.
Under the SB 1598 regulatory-limits process, the city must determine whether a permit application is complete or not during the administrative completeness time frame. If the city fails to make this determination within established time limits, the permit is deemed complete regardless of deficiencies. Similarly, during the substantive review period, an application must be denied or approved within the established time frame or the permit fee will be refunded.
The SB 1598 regulatory-limits process offers applicants very limited opportunities to supplement their application with additional material after submission. Moreover, changes to a permit application are limited to responses to a PDSD request. Development changes proposed by the applicant do not appear to be allowed. Upon proper denial, during either review period, applicants must reapply with new plans and pay another permit fee.
PDSD is committed to customer service and recognizes that applicants may not wish to be locked into formulaic
which do not provide an adequate opportunity to submit additional requested materials and desired plan changes. Thus, PDSD offers applicants the opportunity to make permit applications according to either the SB 1598 regulatory-limits process or the more flexible process City of Tucson PDSD customers are familiar with.
Under the flexible application process, applicants have multiple opportunities to alter or amend their application and to confer with city staff for advice. This allows the applicant to adjust plans based on their own changing development circumstances over time or on suggestions by staff. Additionally, applicants may alter their permit applications as many times as necessary during the process.
Applicants are encouraged to carefully consider which application process best meets their needs. Staff can explain the processes in more detail upon request as well as provide you a copy of SB 1598. The following points outline some of the highlights of each process.
A. A limited number of opportunities to confer with staff and supply necessary information and materials. PDSD may request additional information only once after the application is deemed administratively complete.
B. If city fails to meet established timeframe for review, an application may be deemed complete although lacking essential materials. If an application is not timely approved or denied, fees are refunded to the applicant.
C. During review period applicant may lose opportunity to propose alterations to support permit approval or changes in circumstance during development.
D. If permit properly denied after PDSD one-time request for more information, applicant must reapply and pay new fee.
E. Denials must be explained and the applicable code provisions identified.
F. Applicant may request code clarification.
Loading...