The Chaffey County Board of County Commissioners on Sept. 2 voted to deny a rezone application from Arkansas Valley Sports Group for two lots in the Smelter Town area, rejecting the group’s request to change industrial zoning to permit an outdoor ice facility. The board’s resolution memorialized findings from prior deliberations and reflected concerns that the proposed use, while desirable, was not suitable at that location.

Why it matters: The project was pitched by Arkansas Valley Sports Group as an opportunity to add a community ice facility, create jobs and produce charitable fundraising; opponents and commissioners raised concerns about land‑use conformity and appropriate siting.

Public comment and proponents: Rich Parker, who identified himself as representing Arkansas Valley Sports Group and living at 625 Park Ave., asked commissioners to “reconsider the denial” and argued the project would produce jobs and community benefits. Parker said the nonprofit has experience operating rinks in other communities and had charitable donations and projected economic benefits lined up.

Commissioner findings and motion: County legal and planning staff presented a draft resolution reflecting the factual findings and legal rationale for denial. A commissioner summarized the view as "great project, wrong location," and said the county would welcome similar projects in an appropriate location and in the context of a broader regional recreation planning effort. The commission then moved to approve Resolution 2025‑39 denying the rezone; a motion was made and seconded and the board voted “Aye.”

Effect and next steps: The denial preserves the current industrial zoning for the two Smelter Town lots. Commissioners and staff said the applicant can continue discussions with the county about other potential sites and that the county’s ongoing regional recreation planning process may identify more suitable locations for community recreation facilities.

Meeting context: The denial followed a public comment period and deliberations in which commissioners sought to balance local economic development desires against land‑use code requirements and broader planning considerations.

Details preserved in the record: The board instructed staff to finalize the denial resolution with the factual findings and legal citations discussed in the hearing; the resolution was adopted at the Sept. 2 meeting.