Pinal County officials are developing a comprehensive parking ordinance in response to parking complaints and recent state legislation that affects homeowners’ associations’ authority over street parking. Under House Bill 2298, HOAs whose declarations were recorded before January 1, 2015, must hold a meeting by June 30, 2025, to vote on continuing their authority to regulate parking on public roadways.
If HOAs don’t hold this vote or if the vote fails, they will lose their ability to regulate parking on public roads, shifting that responsibility to the county. The law also specifies that HOAs whose declarations were recorded after December 31, 2014, have no authority over roadways owned or held by governmental entities.
During Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors work session, County Engineer Chris Wanamaker presented a draft five-page ordinance that would give the county new tools to manage parking issues in unincorporated areas. “We started receiving a number of complaints from residents from HOAs about parking problems within neighborhoods, parking of semi-trucks, parking of nuisance vehicles,” Wanamaker explained. “We had no real tools or mechanisms to deal with those types of issues.”
The proposed ordinance would establish specific restrictions for unincorporated areas, including prohibiting heavy trucks (vehicles over 19,500 pounds) from parking on public roads in residentially zoned areas. Recreational vehicles, travel trailers, buses, boats, and utility trailers would be limited to 48-hour parking on public roads. The proposed ordinance also specifies that no one would be allowed to inhabit these vehicles while parked on the street.
Different areas of the county face unique challenges. In Arizona City, Supervisor McClure described problems with semi trucks parking on roads by homes, sometimes parking facing the wrong way after being asked to move. Supervisor Serdy noted these vehicles often start up at 4 AM and idle for an hour before leaving at 5 AM, creating noise issues for nearby residents.
Chairman Miller raised concerns about how the ordinance would affect general rural zoned properties with acre-and-a-quarter or two-acre lots. “I can show you half a dozen spots that I think would be in violation if this ordinance was in place,” Miller said. “I don’t think they’re hurting anybody. I don’t know if anybody’s even complaining about it.”
Supervisor Goodman acknowledged the delicate balance, stating, “I don’t want to hurt the livelihood of any individual really,” while noting that San Tan Valley’s subdivisions have particularly narrow roads where RV parking has been problematic.
The proposed ordinance would authorize both the Sheriff’s Office and Code Compliance to enforce violations on public rights-of-way through three methods: $250 citations per vehicle per day, immobilization with a traffic boot or barnacle device, or towing and storage at the vehicle owner’s expense. However, Wanamaker emphasized that enforcement would be complaint-driven, as the county lacks resources for proactive enforcement. “We have no plans of being proactive and searching for violations. We don’t have the staff or resources for that,” he said.
For HOAs, the ordinance creates a process for establishing “No Parking” zones on specific streets through resident petitions. The County Engineer would also be authorized to establish no-parking zones based on engineering studies to address traffic safety concerns.
The Board requested another work session to refine the ordinance, particularly regarding rural residential zones. Supervisor Vitiello suggested including warning notices before citations.
The ordinance was developed after reviewing similar regulations in Pima and Maricopa counties, as well as Phoenix, Chandler, and Queen Creek. It received input from multiple county departments, three HOA meetings, and eight individual residents over the past year.
The Board plans to review a revised version in another work session before proceeding with formal adoption procedures. The ordinance would only apply to unincorporated areas of Pinal County and would focus solely on public rights-of-way, not private property.
