[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6608576,"mediaKeyId","2939503-1308493fb1056d549c05eb5083e76d73","parentId",2939503,"title","Development Services outlines comprehensive plan update; supervisors push for June work session on growth and infrastructure","audioSeconds",1496,"startMs",3990000,"endMs",5486000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2939503-1308493fb1056d549c05eb5083e76d73&start=3990&end=5486","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2939503-1308493fb1056d549c05eb5083e76d73/thumbnail_3990000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6608576/Cochise-County/Arizona/Development-Services-outlines-comprehensive-plan-update-supervisors-push-for-June-work-session-on-growth-and-infrastructure","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6608576-3789b47f15a3158baac734b8b55f1297/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143286&Signature=WlcvPXifCzVIxj7~tn1KcakHs2kuSR8ZgaVNI9aW6BXKO4SR8sTAHwXVt0jcMvk-ehJvYB7bou926vxyuCN7QcskEfbHBgD~Bja2fWKg0GL9QVCSV4WZtluuJp66CppPrn3CkpdkMuayJ3IK3H119eoqeN2z8xq7m5anH4f1o5OtNrX7iiZuy9XsZYVww4MB3BEA4frs30SwflInebFBm3THnRc-ha2Vn1atEczfW~2EOHfH10i6UAtsnL0-8g9lufsx0-26LKItLG6jjMCCyVDvs7s9gEVjIVz46pF3znOp4tc0sKCnVpd-g7h0AhRMWVu8hjikTqIz4agtOVxV1Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Cochise County","date","2025-04-10T00:05:58.617Z","article","Christine McLaughlin, Development Services staff, presented an overview of the draft comprehensive plan and described the document’s required elements: an introduction and demographic profile, land‑use and growth maps, circulation (transportation) maps, water resources inventory, energy considerations, open‑space inventories and implementation topics.

McLaughlin highlighted demographics in the draft, noting Cochise County’s relatively older population and a Latino population above the state average. She said the land‑use section maps proposed land uses and lists density, lot size and allowable zoning; the circulation section identifies interstate, arterial and county roads as well as rail and airport facilities; and the water section inventories physical water availability and projected demand, noting much water authority rests with the Arizona Department of Water Resources.

The presentation also addressed energy: staff noted the county is served by multiple electric utilities and that the county has significant solar generation capacity in parts of northern Cochise County. Supervisors raised local concerns about large solar and wind facilities; one supervisor noted bird and visual impacts as recurring public concerns.

Board members framed the comprehensive plan as central to the county’s economic strategy. Supervisors discussed focusing industrial and commercial zoning where transportation and utility infrastructure intersect—examples cited included areas near I‑10, the Bisbee‑Douglas International Airport (BDI) and rail spurs. Supervisors emphasized Douglas’s port and potential rail connections as important long‑term opportunities that could shift truck and rail traffic and broaden the county’s tax base.

Supervisors said growth and economic development are priorities because the county’s population is aging and state shared revenues are tied to population. The Board asked staff to intensify community outreach and data collection—McLaughlin said staff aims to collect a larger number of public survey responses and other input—and to schedule a focused work session in June to review recommendations and draft policy actions.

No formal action was taken at the work session; staff said they would continue to develop the draft comprehensive plan, expand public outreach, and return with materials for further work sessions and public hearings as required by state law before any plan adoption.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","20250409 Work Session Board of Supervisors and Planning and Zoning","oneSentenceSummary","Staff previewed draft elements of the Cochise County comprehensive plan—including land use, water, energy, transportation and open space—and supervisors emphasized economic development priorities (industrial hubs, airport and border port connections) and asked for more public outreach and a June work session.","taxTitle","Cochise County, Arizona","taxId",27859,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6608580,"Supervisors and planning staff flag conflicts in subdivided ‘Pierce Sun Sites’ area; special overlay zone proposed",732,2022000,2754000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2939503-1308493fb1056d549c05eb5083e76d73&start=2022&end=2754","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2939503-1308493fb1056d549c05eb5083e76d73/thumbnail_2022000.jpg","/articles/6608580/Cochise-County/Arizona/Supervisors-and-planning-staff-flag-conflicts-in-subdivided-Pierce-Sun-Sites-area-special-overlay-zone-proposed","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6608580-c36796f6fb94b7d41b0c08a78618239f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143286&Signature=EZN-~NtD7EfJXw3wqXLKA0ZYY-YlguFdcyr8HrmfoPV7YZyuKPOZG29QaF~q4HUy2qtVkS3SRgLOkkO3U6QJPcu7RukfoAybqHEhSwppiG3CVtTbaJiK3riM5WSbvo~sA0qora1siDMG4qz9-QQtmAwuzFM3sa0YxTNKr-cDsAM1Edwn7JZ4bXVKOlI6XK3aq10Hz1P0hxvqipxBez9rZs~hP2gqRviADmZHQc5HBsAcfv7Q8D6yaO~QUOK7j9hu~GCRTUEgi32jSzGFHkqpTsGmT0nYXpfj6busKc1ZKmF1OIqY02d0n4gMuxqv6y0NsQBieMOFgQi4YC3k83jMKQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Board members described a recurring land‑use conflict in subdivided areas (referred to in the meeting as the Pierce Sun Sites problem) where buyers combine several small residential parcels to reach the acreage threshold for rural RU‑4 zoning.

Supervisors said neighbors who paid for larger homes object when adjacent parcels are bundled and used to place smaller principal residences, mobile homes, or large accessory buildings. At the meeting staff explained that some purchasers are combining lots to achieve the RU‑4 threshold so they can build mobile homes or smaller primary residences with large barns or shops.

A specific pattern the meeting examined: neighbors’ houses in affected pockets are typically about 2,000 to 2,800 square feet, while some applicants proposed principal structures of roughly 600 square feet plus accessory buildings (multiple speakers referenced a 600‑square‑foot house and a 2,200–2,500‑square‑foot shop or barn). Neighbors said those contrasts affect property values, sight lines and neighborhood character.

Staff and supervisors discussed remedies including: creating a special overlay or localized zoning category to preserve small‑parcel residential character; clarifying standards for principal‑structure size relative to accessory buildings; and tightening rules that allow mobile homes under RU‑4 in these pocket situations. Several supervisors suggested that some buyers may have been told by third parties they could combine lots and obtain different development rights; staff said the treasurer’s office denies advising on zoning and that buyer education is needed.

Board members also raised code enforcement capacity. Development Services staff said enforcement is largely complaint‑driven and noted there are two code enforcement officers countywide, a capacity supervisors said is insufficient to police neighborhood problems or respond to recurring violations.

No regulatory change was adopted at the session. Supervisors asked staff to explore options, including an overlay zone or targeted amendments to the county’s zoning rules for these subdivided pockets, and to identify potential enforcement and staffing implications. Staff said they would return with options and that the Planning & Zoning Commission and Board would need to consider any ordinance or text amendments before changes could take effect.","Board members described neighborhood conflict where buyers combine small, residential lots to gain RU‑4 zoning and place mobile homes or small houses with large outbuildings; staff and supervisors discussed creating a localized overlay zone and strengthening code enforcement.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6608582,"Cochise County supervisors and planning staff debate P&Z attendance rules and appeal procedures",1634,143000,1777000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2939503-1308493fb1056d549c05eb5083e76d73&start=143&end=1777","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2939503-1308493fb1056d549c05eb5083e76d73/thumbnail_143000.jpg","/articles/6608582/Cochise-County/Arizona/Cochise-County-supervisors-and-planning-staff-debate-PZ-attendance-rules-and-appeal-procedures","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6608582-9f41825903d64a9d51e9ef58463d97c1/orig.mp4?Expires=1771143286&Signature=Z6dAvZO~sTT8uFp0qi5P-BdsE5rSEhuwycVHfXHeK27ykG~iRSyhFRBC9COkxELeYRQrakfW4wByVyA-fbpsc12Bl6Pb76KqpmVA4fNppjdiquWgbV0~o1HOc53TI64SopDCUIK5EdEsFlM3hZDuhRGGPjg2pWMmxICOS29UShlK6EGFN7rMbEjcIneA41UnoXO2OOFtP2GlMPIA3mGMM1fG2dDlyiiUGqCqlt5gigSZ03aWXcxUmc7hcCcXvHyFKt7fFzUnQfrWtK3UtoiYfDL1UhRtSXbo15upd6s~Ea2cWPWc5cgjihYXR2BpqkhARG~TLeUxVBweYXjdoxHDkA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Christine McLaughlin, Development Services staff, reviewed the Planning and Zoning Commission’s authority and processes, telling the joint meeting that “the authority comes from Arizona Revised Statutes §11-802” and that the commission serves both advisory and quasi‑judicial roles.

The presentation outlined how the commission makes findings of fact on special uses, rezonings and text amendments, and how most rezoning decisions are a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. McLaughlin described the appeal process, noting, “The appellant has 15 days to apply from a date of a hearing,” and said appeals may present new evidence that the board may consider.

Supervisors and commission members pressed staff about two recurring problems: commissioners who rarely attend in person and appeals that arrive at the board with new material the commission did not see. Supervisor Kathleen Billman said in-person participation matters to constituents, arguing that “it is important to be here at least…once a month” so officials can hear people face to face. Several supervisors said continued remote‑only participation by some commissioners had become a concern.

Board members discussed possible bylaw changes to address prolonged absenteeism. Supervisor Robert Montgomery observed that “many other boards…will dismiss a member if they miss three consecutive meetings.” Staff said the existing bylaws specify amendment processes and that any change would come back to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. Multiple supervisors asked staff to draft options and to consult the county attorney on legal risks before returning recommendations.

The meeting also focused on how appeals that include new evidence should be handled. Staff described current practice: when an appeal arrives the board receives the Planning & Zoning Commission’s recommendation plus a staff recommendation and any additional materials submitted with the appeal. Supervisors and staff discussed a procedural option to remand appeals that rely on new evidence back to the commission for a limited, expedited reconsideration before the board decides. Christine McLaughlin said remand is a recognized option and discussed the practical steps staff could take to make the presence or absence of new evidence more explicit in staff reports and application materials.

No formal votes were taken at the work session. Supervisors asked staff to draft clear options for (1) bylaw language or administrative policies that would address long‑term nonattendance by commissioners, (2) a transparent pre‑appeal or remand process for handling new evidence, and (3) any required public‑notice or timing changes those options would trigger. Staff said they would work with the county attorney and return with recommended language and process options for the Board’s consideration.

The discussion underscored persistent tensions between the advisory role of the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Board’s role as final decision‑maker, especially when applicants present additional material between the commission hearing and a board appeal. Staff noted that making exhibit lists and “new evidence” fields on appeal forms more explicit would help document what the commission actually reviewed and when new materials have been added.","At an April 9 joint work session, Development Services staff reviewed the Planning & Zoning Commission’s authority and appeals process while supervisors raised concerns about absentee commissioners and proposed tightening bylaws and a pre-appeal review process for new evidence.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Development Services outlines comprehensive plan update; supervisors push for June work session on growth and infrastructure

Supervisors and planning staff flag conflicts in subdivided ‘Pierce Sun Sites’ area; special overlay zone proposed

Cochise County supervisors and planning staff debate P&Z attendance rules and appeal procedures