Pinal County supervisors cancel proposed zoning-code rewrite after hours of rural opposition

The Pinal County Board of Supervisors voted Feb. 5 to cancel the county's Jan. 6, 2025 draft of a zoning-code update after lengthy public comment from rural residents who said the changes would restrict longtime practices such as keeping livestock and running small agricultural businesses.

Residents and community leaders packed the meeting to object to provisions they said were overly prescriptive, risked "weaponizing" code enforcement, and were drafted without adequate local input. The board approved a motion to remove the Jan. 6 draft from the active process and directed staff to restart outreach and work sessions before reintroducing revisions.

Why it matters: The county-wide zoning code shapes what property owners can do on unincorporated parcels across Pinal County. Opponents said the draft threatened widely held rural practices; supporters of an update said rules need modernization to reflect state law and clearer standards for the county's growth.

Public comment and key themes

Dozens of speakers, many from unincorporated parts of the county, urged supervisors to scrap the draft and start over with more local participation. Several recurring themes emerged during public comment: concern about limits on animals and backyard agriculture, requests to protect longstanding landowner rights and exemptions, complaints that the draft would empower neighbors or developers to bring enforcement against others, and calls for simpler, rural-friendly code structures.

Morris Miniga, chairman of the Pinal County Planning and Zoning Commission, who addressed the board as a member of the commission and a longtime private-sector developer, told supervisors: "It was never ever ever our intention to further regulate any of this stuff." Miniga said the commission spent more than a year on the document and that some proposed changes were required by state statutes.

Other speakers recounted personal or neighborhood experiences they said illustrated the risks of stricter rules. Wade Williams said the county's code enforcement process could be used as a punitive tool: "We don't want the county to come and be the police and be weaponized till each one of us has a dozen things we have to change," he said. Several speakers asked that the county adopt a simpler, point-based or rural-friendly model like Apache County or Apache Junction.

Board response and next steps

Chairman Steve Miller explained the process for the day and reminded attendees of meeting rules; he also noted the county must follow state law when updating local code. Miller said staff will extract budget and procurement information about how the draft was produced and that the board favored a slower, more consultative approach.

Supervisor Suri (referred to in the record as Supervisor Surdy) urged caution and recommended scrapping the current draft: "I say, scrap it all for now," she said, adding the county should "take our time" and form panels and roadshows to gather input. Supervisor McClure and other supervisors said they would convene district-level meetings and planning-commission outreach sessions.

Planning staff and commissioners who prepared the draft told the board the document was intended as a work in progress and that a 90-day public review period was part of the process; the Planning and Zoning Commission had invested hundreds of hours in the rewrite, they said. Commissioners and staff urged retaining the technical updates that align county code with state statutes, while acknowledging the need for better communication.

Votes at a glance (formal actions recorded during the meeting)

- Motion: "Disapprove/cancel the Pinal County zoning ordinance update draft dated 01/06/2025." Outcome: approved by the board; motion carried and the draft was canceled. (Motion text recorded on the transcript; mover and seconder not specified on the public record. Vote tally not specified in the transcript.)

- Purchasing division report (correction that Legacy Wireless Services holds necessary license) and associated contract awards and amendments: approved. (Motion carried; mover not specified in transcript.)

- Consent agenda items A-H (minus item C) approved; item C was pulled and later withdrawn from the consent agenda. (Motion carried.)

- Rezone and Special Use Permit for 4923.7 W. Papago Road (Nirvana Center medical marijuana dispensary): Rezone (item 8) approved (staff recommended 13 stipulations; motion carried; one recorded vocal "nay" during roll-call vote), Special Use Permit (item 9) approved with 15 stipulations (motion carried). Planning recommended approval; no written opposition to the application was presented in the record.

- Abandonment of portions of Sun Road and Buckskin Road (items 10 and 11): both abandonment requests approved to allow property-aligned changes and to accommodate property owners' building permits. (Motions carried.)

- Liquor-license recommendation (item 12): continued to the Feb. 19 board meeting to meet public-posting requirements. (Motion carried.)

- Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Board and Recorder for elections management (item 13): approved to continue the existing agreement executed 09/06/2023. (Motion carried.)

- The board recessed to executive session as agendized and reconvened; the meeting adjourned after the executive session.

What the board directed next

Supervisors asked staff to produce clearer summaries, create district-level listening sessions and focus groups, and bring back a work plan that includes deeper public engagement before any new draft is released. Several supervisors said they wanted a local, rural-sensitive approach and suggested examining other rural codes (several speakers cited Apache County and Apache Junction as models).

Context and background

The Jan. 6 draft was intended to modernize and align the county's zoning regulations with state statutes and current land-use issues, staff said. The board authorized a 90-day review period for public input; the process became politically charged after excerpts circulated on social media and local groups organized to oppose the draft.

Speakers (selected) and first recorded appearance

- Steve Miller, Chairman, Pinal County Board of Supervisors (first recorded as meeting chair at 00:72) - Mike McClure, Supervisor, Pinal County Board of Supervisors (first recorded at 00:72) - Sam Goodman, Supervisor, Pinal County Board of Supervisors (first recorded at 414:745) - Supervisor Suri (recorded as "Surdy" in transcript), Pinal County Board of Supervisors (first recorded at 4615:85) - Rich Beatiello (recorded variously as Vitiello/Beatiello), Supervisor, Pinal County Board of Supervisors (first recorded at 5785:215) - Morris Miniga, Chair, Pinal County Planning & Zoning Commission (resident/businessman) (first recorded at 684:230) - John Mott, President, Country Farms Irrigation and Management Company (first recorded at 863:735) - David Long, Director, San Tan Valley Veterans Center (first recorded at 1026:445) - Wade Williams, resident, Country Mini Farms (first recorded at 1143:1849) - Jack Reed, community volunteer, Country Mini Farms (first recorded at 1294:175) - Penny Gauthier, resident, Country Mini Farms (first recorded at 1433:62) - Stephen Kohut, commenter / planning critic (first recorded at 1515:39) - Jennifer Hillsbos, Chair, Pinal County Democratic Party (first recorded at 1642:545) - Tina Dugan, farmer's wife / commenter (first recorded at 1945:085) - Kaylin (Kaylin) Winkelman, Saddle Up Arizona / 1 Happy Horse CEO (first recorded at 2476:59) - Richard Priano, resident (first recorded at 2587:705) - Robert Klob, Vice Chair, Pinal County Planning & Zoning Commission (first recorded at 3319:73) - Bernice Gomez, resident (first recorded at 3227:585) - Roseanne Service, community group representative (first recorded at 3090.055) - Annabelle Patterson, resident (first recorded at 9129.314) - Robin Davis, resident (call to the public) (first recorded at 7947.5347)

Authorities cited in the hearing

- "State statutes" (general references by board and staff to alignment with state law) - Pinal County Zoning Code (2012) and the draft zoning ordinance dated 01/06/2025 (referenced during discussion and by public commenters) - Pinal County Strategic Plan (public commenter referenced specific objectives for land-use preservation)

Clarifying details extracted from the meeting

- Draft cited on the agenda: "Pinal County zoning ordinance update draft dated 01/06/2025." (agenda item 1) - Public comment on item 1 was limited to two minutes per speaker by board direction for that session. - Staff and commission described the draft as a work-in-progress that had a 90-day public review period to accept feedback and revisions. - Several speakers asked for a rural-appropriate model such as Apache County or Apache Junction (both cited frequently by residents) and suggested a simpler point-based system for animal and accessory use allowances. - Staff agreed to produce budget/contracting information on how the draft was developed (requested by board; funding/contracting details to be published later).

Community relevance

- Geographies affected: Entire unincorporated areas of Pinal County, with many speakers from San Tan Valley, Country Mini Farms (Ironwood/Ocotillo), Hidden Valley, Thunderbird Farms, Gold Canyon, Randolph and Apache Junction adjacent areas. - Impact groups: rural landowners, horse/animal owners, small agricultural businesses, planning-and-zoning stakeholders, developers, and county staff. - Implementation risk: medium; supervisors indicated the draft will be reworked and that enforcement remains governed by existing code until new language is adopted.

Meeting context

- Engagement level: very high on item 1 (dozens of speakers, multiple hours of comment); supervisors extended outreach plans and district meetings. - Historical continuity: speakers said code updates dated to 2012 and earlier; multiple commenters referenced prior enforcement actions and a recent court case cited during call to the public (Trout v. Russell) as part of the background of distrust.

Searchable tags: ["zoning","land-use","Pinal County","rural","animal-keeping","planning-and-zoning","public-comment","code-rewrite","community-engagement"]

Ending

Supervisors canceled the Jan. 6 draft and asked staff to return with a revised process that prioritizes district-level outreach, clear plain-language summaries of proposed changes, and specific panels or roadshows that separate rural and urban concerns. The board did not adopt new zoning language at the Feb. 5 meeting and left current code and active enforcement in place pending the new engagement process.