Mesa Planning and Zoning Board approves zoning modification for Eastmark-area parcel amid dispute over Eastmark design review process

The Mesa Planning and Zoning Board on March 26, 2025 approved a modification of zoning conditions for a roughly 36.9-acre parcel in the Eastmark area, despite a dispute between the project applicant and the Eastmark master developer about whether the Eastmark Design Review Committee must review the project.

The board voted to approve item 3A — described in the meeting as case ZON24-ten19 (modifications to conditions for case ZON204-00019) — with the chair recused from the decision. Vice Chair Pitcher, Board Member Petersen, Board Member Blakeman and Board Member Farnsworth voted in favor; Chair Ayers abstained.

The decision matters because the parties disagree on whether Eastmark’s private design review process can block a city building permit and whether the applicant must resubmit to the Eastmark Design Review Committee (DRC) before receiving city approvals. The applicant, representing Ryan Companies, told the board the DRC had provided conditional approvals previously and that Eastmark later rejected a more recent submittal, preventing the applicant from obtaining building permits.

Gary Hayes, representing Ryan Companies, said the project had previously gone through Eastmark’s design review in 2021 and received a conditional approval. Hayes told the board he then received a May 13 rejection letter from Eastmark’s reviewer that said the applicant must record a use restriction amendment before resubmitting. Hayes said he contacted city staff and was told there was no zoning issue, but that the DRC refusal was preventing a building-permit submittal. "I'm stuck and I need to unstick this process and I can't have Eastmark using a private cause of action, for lack of a better term, to hold up my permit from the city of Mesa," Hayes said.

Susan Demet of Gammage & Burnham, representing Eastmark and Mesa Proving Grounds LLC (the master developer), urged the board not to modify the stipulations. Demet said the Eastmark–City of Mesa collaborative DRC/DRB process has governed every Eastmark project for 14 years and argued the project should follow that established process. "We want to publicly state that the position of Eastmark and the master developer for Eastmark is that the stipulations for this case should not be modified, that this project should follow the same Eastmark and City of Mesa collaborative DRB or DRC review process that's been followed for the last 14 years for every single other project within Eastmark," Demet said.

Board members asked both sides for clarifying information about emails and prior conditional approvals. Hayes referenced a chain of emails from January through May 2024 and said those messages showed Eastmark staff initially provided comments and conditional review materials and later issued a rejection tied to the recorded-use-restriction requirement. Demet said her understanding, based on conversations with Brookfield and Eastmark representatives, was that Eastmark had not received a complete DRC submittal in the current review and that Eastmark historically required an approval letter from the DRC for Eastmark projects.

During the meeting staff confirmed the board may ask questions of both the applicant and members of the public for clarification but not to litigate a private dispute. After hearing both sides the board moved to approve the zoning modification requested in item 3A. The motion as read referenced modifications to conditions 2 and 3 for the related case; the transcript did not record the name of the member who made the motion or the member who seconded it.

The board closed the public hearing on the item after receiving questions and voted to approve the modification with the chair recused.

Votes at a glance: Motion to approve item 3A (case ZON24-ten19; modifications to conditions for case ZON204-00019) — Outcome: approved. Vote: Vice Chair Pitcher — yes; Board Member Petersen — yes; Board Member Blakeman — yes; Board Member Farnsworth — yes; Chair Ayers — abstain/recused.

The transcript records disagreement between Ryan Companies and the Eastmark master developer about whether Eastmark’s design-review process can require a recorded-use-restriction amendment prior to resubmission; the board’s action modified city zoning conditions but did not resolve the private-party dispute recorded in the correspondence cited in the meeting.