[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-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],{"_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",6493421,"mediaKeyId","5585229-2fd644b7f9dd7866a35e73bee90bd097","parentId",5585229,"title","Cochise County planning commission denies special‑use request for Ever After Ranch events venue in Tres Alamos","audioSeconds",3983,"startMs",1972100,"endMs",5955140,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5585229-2fd644b7f9dd7866a35e73bee90bd097&start=1972&end=5955","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5585229-2fd644b7f9dd7866a35e73bee90bd097/thumbnail_1972100.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6493421/Cochise-County/Arizona/Cochise-County-planning-commission-denies-specialuse-request-for-Ever-After-Ranch-events-venue-in-Tres-Alamos","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6493421-72f22d7b0ea136b642b8e48bc2610f4c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770869448&Signature=ijyurpMHx3jtZP3QWOhmgUTAYnXci6J0xZi4iIxzjCKR5rC6xlJXlmAvfaOmWm1H1vXgd1ckPzjyeSn0Vgpbh9xWCa9b18GsdOPwRxSX-WBOjiUc1AzS62L47FVHqiZ5-jHpkeq2YmAPRPeNTvLcq6sANHazAHpOaJBA1sIl5D4L3GjPX-w07hATcskqWwkIuRZ7MS~FQi-zMicQXBTSTYCJiw3Vt922qITP0vrzzKFU4wCFVigrQXnnkk8kSnpyWony9Oxo9TIiQ3z4zu~YmjV93r0K678FA2j1WzOwGnmDVzp~vUJYsE5-S-BtVjkJUIytVKO~BQiCTq6yvNCZrA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Cochise County","date","2025-08-14T15:35:14Z","article","The Cochise County Planning and Zoning Commission voted to deny special‑use authorization SU‑25‑18, an application to allow guest lodging, events and outdoor recreation at the property marketed by the applicants as \"Ever After Ranch.\" The applicants, Mario and Angela Robles, sought approval to operate a small agritourism and events venue with up to 15 guest lodging units and related facilities on roughly 40 acres of a larger 108‑acre parcel.

Staff framed the proposal as a reuse of an existing, extensively developed ranch property and recommended approval with conditions. Planning staff read a set of conditions that would limit outdoor activities after 10 p.m., require a dual‑lane primary entrance, limit guest lodging to no more than 15 tiny homes, require dust suppression and require permitting and environmental approvals for wastewater and the proposed wading pond. \"No more than 15 tiny homes for guest lodging shall be placed on the site,\" staff said when listing recommended conditions.

The commission heard more than a dozen public comments, most in opposition. Neighbors raised concerns about increased traffic on a county dirt road, the potential for amplified noise from events, strain on local water supplies, emergency‑response distances and possible impacts to property values. \"There is no way that having an event center right there is going to not have a negative impact on our property,\" said Anne Roberts, a nearby resident who said she lives directly across the road from the proposed site. Several commenters noted recent commercial uses in the area and said they were still opposed to this scale of development.

The applicants described the proposal as a low‑impact, rural venue with agricultural activities, limited event sizes and onsite lodging intended mostly for short stays. Angela Robles said the operation would emphasize quiet, small weddings and retreats and that larger, louder events were not the applicants' intent. Mario and Angela Robles said they plan to invest in road upgrades and site improvements; they also confirmed they do not yet own the property and that the sale is contingent on approval of the special‑use permit.

Commission discussion emphasized the tension between the applicant's proposed mitigation measures and the neighbors' concerns. Commissioners asked about water use, noise controls, road maintenance and how frequently large events might occur. The applicants said the facility would be built to accommodate up to 200 people but that typical events would be much smaller; the applicants later described their largest envisioned events as \"probably a 150 people,\" and said larger events would be limited and infrequent.

At the vote the motion to approve SU‑25‑18 with staff‑recommended conditions — moved by Commissioner Limbach and seconded by Commissioner Montgomery — failed. Several commissioners cited neighborhood objections and compatibility with the Tres Alamos area plan as reasons to vote against approval. The motion was denied; the chair read the appeal rights for the applicant.

The commission record shows staff had recommended approval subject to multiple conditions intended to limit impacts, and the decision to deny was based on the majority view that the proposal, as presented, would be inconsistent with the rural character described in the Trace/Tres Alamos area plan and would cause neighborhood impacts that could not be adequately mitigated through the special‑use process.

The applicants and members of the public were told the decision can be appealed to the Cochise County Board of Supervisors within 15 days.

Notes: the applicants and staff emphasized that the special use, as noticed, would apply to the southerly 40 acres of the three‑parcel, 108‑acre property. The staff presentation and recommended conditions also referenced potential state permits from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and the Arizona Department of Water Resources for wastewater or water‑use changes.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","20250813 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The Cochise County Planning and Zoning Commission voted to deny special‑use authorization SU‑25‑18, an application to allow guest lodging, events and outdoor recreation at the property marketed as Ever After Ranch.","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},6493416,"Planning commission forwards three rezonings and ADU code changes, approves truck parking; tables two special‑use items",7730,351950,8082150,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5585229-2fd644b7f9dd7866a35e73bee90bd097&start=351&end=8082","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5585229-2fd644b7f9dd7866a35e73bee90bd097/thumbnail_351950.jpg","/articles/6493416/Cochise-County/Arizona/Planning-commission-forwards-three-rezonings-and-ADU-code-changes-approves-truck-parking-tables-two-specialuse-items","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6493416-38d8ca0aef2517bf0e8d4475719c7396/orig.mp4?Expires=1770869448&Signature=epQmixEbWVAWciezgpHO4Ze1iHIv6rcl4PjRMX46zmqlp9CfzSFWXpJRTo5uwXwWA25n1vjd-Wdnd4mrtqTpRV~BKg~yZl5j4VrGttMJ4itMJiKcWILHN2TQuH7aK5DERQHYj4PFEhRHY~WLHXd4llnriYfdfUEh0pviKOJ7AAGWratOWzsvu9cjsxkd0hTopdMbOm6-b93uKNJZABK4E9DP3sja3LyjNnC6vJK4WLpYhSqnO-1401JpogZkiqNgxbTuz1nD5Y8NIamqTdpNfNIpzcCvMZBZE8xyK6tHAirdG83lxcJASFQS-rpJRokCSuQ6NXTK6AnanJxFBUp6Zg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Cochise County Planning and Zoning Commission took action on multiple zoning and code items, forwarding several rezoning requests to the Board of Supervisors with recommendations of approval, approving one contractor‑yard special use with conditions, approving a countywide accessory dwelling unit (ADU) text amendment required by new state law, and tabling several dockets to the September meeting.

What the commission approved and forwarded

- RZ25‑09 (Desert Sky Subdivision): The commission recommended approval without special conditions to downzone a parcel from RU‑2 to RU‑4 (tax parcel 404‑02‑027). The motion passed unanimously; commissioners recorded their votes in the roll call (Ayes: Limbach, Montgomery, Watkins, Gonzales, Fickett, Saunders; Chair voted aye). Staff noted the parcel is in an older subdivision and that RU‑4 allows owner‑builder residential development and temporary RV occupancy during construction; the applicant, Shane Harmon, said he plans to move to the property and build a single‑family home.

- RZ25‑10 (Highway 80 commercial property): The commission recommended approval to rezone tax parcel 408‑11‑009 from RU‑4 to General Business (GB). Staff noted the property’s plan designation as a developing corridor and that GB is appropriate along major arterials; the applicant, Alfonso Munoz, said he seeks the option to market the property for commercial buyers. The motion passed unanimously and will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.

- RZ25‑11 (SunSites No. 2, Quail Pass Drive): The commission recommended approval to downzone a parcel from SR‑43 to SR‑174 to allow an accessory living quarter (park model) for a property consolidated from multiple lots in SunSites. Staff said 26 notices were mailed and that the SunSites area consists of antiquated plats; applicant Luis Minuta said the request was to allow a 34‑by‑10 foot park model as an accessory living quarter. The motion passed unanimously and will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.

- SU25‑19 (Truck parking / contractor yard): The commission approved a special‑use authorization to allow large truck parking as a contractor yard on a parcel west of Douglas along Kings Highway (APN 407‑34‑066F). Conditions on approval include a county right‑of‑way and clearing permits, a maximum of six large trucks on site at a time, two‑inch gravel or other stabilizing surfacing for parking and loading areas to reduce dust, prohibition on on‑site fueling and maintenance, fencing of parking/storage areas, and retention of perimeter vegetation. Staff reported mailings and three responses in opposition; the applicant indicated the trucks would support nearby border‑construction activity and that they own the vehicles. The motion passed (recorded votes: Limbach, Montgomery, Watkins, Gonzales, Fickett, Saunders and chair all voted aye).

- R25‑03 (Accessory dwelling unit text amendment): Staff initiated a countywide text amendment to align county code with Arizona House Bill 2928 (state ADU law, ARS 11‑810.01). The changes allow one attached and one detached ADU per lot where a single‑family dwelling is permitted, with a possible second detached ADU on parcels of one acre or greater; set a 1,000‑square‑foot cap and 75%‑of‑primary‑dwelling limit, clarified setbacks and permit routing, and removed certain rental restrictions. Planning staff (Ms. McLaughlin) explained the changes were required to comply with state law. The commission voted to recommend approval; recorded roll call votes were largely aye with the chair registering a dissenting vote (chair stated the no vote was a civil protest regarding state preemption).

Items tabled or otherwise continued

- SUB25‑02 (9‑lot subdivision): Applicant and staff jointly requested tabling to the September 10 meeting; the commission voted to table the item.

- SU25‑16 and SU25‑17 (both by Summit Locations): Applicants requested tabling to September 10 to prepare for in‑person attendance; both items were tabled.

Context and next steps

Staff told the commission that several items, including the ADU text amendment and multiple rezonings, will be scheduled before the Cochise County Board of Supervisors (staff noted a Board hearing date on the department calendar). For rezoning requests the commission’s action was a recommendation only; final approval rests with the Board of Supervisors. The truck‑parking special use contains several specific site‑work and operational conditions; staff required permitting and dust‑control measures and prohibited on‑site fueling and loading.

Public comment and notice

Staff summarized public notification for the items: RZ25‑09 (10 mailed notices), RZ25‑10 (6 mailed notices), RZ25‑11 (26 mailed notices, with at least two oppositions in the record), SU25‑19 (13 mailed notices, three responses in opposition). A member of the public, Melissa Avant, spoke during the call to public in favor of accessory dwelling units, saying ADUs \"would really help individuals that have either disabled children or family members\" and expressed support for the ADU changes. Several items scheduled for the September meeting were tabled at the applicants’ request to allow further preparation or in‑person attendance.","At its recent meeting the Cochise County Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval of three rezonings (RZ25‑09, RZ25‑10, RZ25‑11), approved a special use for truck parking (SU‑25‑19) with conditions, voted to adopt staff‑proposed accessory dwelling unit code amendments (R25‑03) and tabled several items to September.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Cochise County planning commission denies special‑use request for Ever After Ranch events venue in Tres Alamos

Planning commission forwards three rezonings and ADU code changes, approves truck parking; tables two special‑use items