Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Commercial Rezone Storage topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning commission recommends rezoning for highway‑front storage units after neighbors raise traffic, safety and dumping concerns

5798019 · August 21, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Graham County Planning and Zoning Commission on not specified recommended approval of a rezoning request by Shauna Taylor to change a 5.5‑acre portion of a 61‑acre parcel along U.S. Highway 191 from general land use to C‑M (commercial manufacturing) for storage units.

The Graham County Planning and Zoning Commission on not specified recommended approval of a rezoning request by Shauna Taylor to change a 5.5‑acre portion of a 61‑acre parcel east of U.S. Highway 191 from general land use to C‑M (commercial manufacturing) to allow construction of self‑storage units along the highway frontage.

Why it matters: Neighbors said the proposed development could increase traffic on Morning Dove Lane, a primarily single‑lane, county‑unmaintained road where families live and children walk to Southridge School District bus stops, and they expressed concerns about illegal dumping. The applicant said all access would be from an existing highway easement about 800 feet south of Morning Dove and that the facility would be fenced, gated, lit in accordance with county standards and limited to smaller metal storage units (no RV or boat storage).

Shauna Taylor, the applicant, said the family plans to build a home on the northern portion of the parcel and place storage units along the highway frontage. Taylor told commissioners she has permission from the Arizona Department of Transportation to use an existing highway easement and that “there will be no entrance to the facility on Morning Dove as it will be completely fenced.” She said the storage facility would start small and expand only if demand warrants it, but later described a buildout scenario of “up to possibly 800 individual units,” while clarifying she would phase construction.

Neighbor Marlene Flowers, who lives at 639 East Morning Dove Lane, objected to the rezoning and said illegal dumping and heavy truck traffic are already problems on Morning Dove. “I really feel that putting a storage unit out there is gonna increase that,” Flowers said, adding that the road is mostly single lane and that families with young children use the lane for school access.

Michael Bertoldo, speaking on behalf of an estate that owns part of Morning Dove Lane, asked that a deed restriction be recorded to prevent future access to the parcel from Morning Dove; he said his family owns the lane and wanted assurance the new development would not be allowed to use the lane in the future.

Taylor answered questions from commissioners about traffic, security and lighting. She said the facility would have perimeter fencing, keyed or code access gates, cameras, lighting designed to comply with county ordinances and that she would explore tenant trash options to reduce roadside dumping. She also said the northern house location is not part of the rezoning request; the rezoning request applies to a narrow strip along the highway.

Commissioners moved and seconded a positive recommendation; following brief discussion about access and possible impacts, the chair called the vote and announced the motion carried. The item will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for final action at its upcoming meeting; the commission reminded applicants and opponents that final consideration occurs at that hearing.

Discussion versus action: the planning commission’s approval is a positive recommendation; the transcript records substantive public comment and applicant responses but no recorded conditions requiring a deed restriction or specific mitigation measures. Any conditions or deed restrictions would need to be pursued at the Board of Supervisors hearing.