Mohave County sends 2025 general plan back to planning commission after Golden Valley protests and open‑meeting finding

Mohave County supervisors on Tuesday voted to return the proposed 2025 general plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission for rehearing of several subarea presentations after residents raised water, notice and process concerns and county attorneys substantiated an open‑meeting violation by a P&Z subcommittee. The board directed the commission to rehear the eight subareas before the supervisors take final action.

The decision followed a three‑hour public hearing dominated by Golden Valley residents who urged supervisors to remove a proposed large subdivision called Dorado from the plan, saying it would change a rural area of one‑acre parcels to higher‑density development and risk the local groundwater supply. Opponents pointed to a limited number of Golden Valley Improvement District (GVID) water allocations — 402 allotments cited by speakers — and said the developer had not produced plans for wastewater or how it would acquire water allocations. Supporters, including developer representatives, said the plan updates were needed to accommodate regional growth and to concentrate new housing where infrastructure can be provided.

Planning staff reviewed the map and policy changes proposed for the 2025 plan, including reclassifying some areas to suburban and rural development, adding policies on urban development standards near city limits and stronger water‑conservation language. Matthew Gunderson, the county’s planning and zoning manager, presented the map updates and said several area plans were folded into the countywide plan. County staff said the draft plan had been circulated to adjacent jurisdictions and state agencies as required by state statute.

Several speakers, including Danielle Olikek and Jennifer Esposito, told the board they believed Planning and Zoning subcommittee meetings were not properly noticed and that changes to the Golden Valley maps were introduced without adequate public notice. County Attorney Davis told the board his office had investigated an open‑meeting complaint and ‘‘substantiated the third element’’ — that the subcommittee had not properly noticed or agendized some of its meetings. He told supervisors the substantiation meant there was no discrete legal action to ratify but that the board could direct rehearings.

Supervisor Ron Gould moved to return the general plan to Planning and Zoning for rehearing of the subareas with instructions from the county attorney’s office; the motion carried. Attorney Davis reminded the board that under state general‑plan law any changes proposed by the board must be sent back to the Planning and Zoning Commission before final adoption.

The rehearing will be scheduled so the full commission — rather than the previously convened subcommittee — takes public testimony on the subareas and any board‑directed changes. The supervisors said they will hold a special meeting after the Planning and Zoning rehearings to consider final adoption. No final adoption date was set by the board.