Residents of Golden Valley packed the auditorium and spoke at length objecting to a proposed change to the county’s 2025 general plan that would reintroduce a Dorado-area designation and surrounding suburban development.

At issue: a proposal by Engle Homes (and affiliates) to revise land-use designations for a large property known locally as the Dorado site. Staff told the commission the Dorado area had appeared in earlier plans (including a 1995 plan) and that, following public meetings and a revised submittal from the developer, staff recommended changes that include surrounding the Dorado parcel with a one-acre buffer of suburban residential lots and eliminating medium-density residential from the developer’s revised plan.

"The revised proposal from Engle got rid of any medium density residential within the development and then placed a buffer of 1 acre lots kind of around the perimeter," a county staff presenter said. The staff presentation and subcommittee discussion led to the item appearing on the commission's agenda for formal action.

Multiple residents said they were unaware of a January 15 subcommittee meeting where a developer presentation occurred. Danielle Oley, a Golden Valley resident who reviewed county postings, said the January meeting did not appear on the county calendar in an accessible way and that no agenda or backup documents were available online prior to that gathering. She and other speakers cited Arizona’s open meeting law and said the public lacked adequate notice of the presentation that led to the plan revision.

"If you look at this meeting, this was on January 15 ... it doesn't say who it was posted by the time or when it was posted," Oley said. "That meeting took place at 1PM ... but it says it was posted as 10AM to 12PM and there was no agenda listed." She said she intends to pursue an open-meetings complaint if the county cannot explain the notice record.

Developers and supporters told the commission the revised plan reflected concessions intended to address neighbor concerns. Travin Pennington and Tyler Engle of Engle Homes said the developer had reduced density in key areas, set aside acreage for parks and for possible future sheriff/fire sites, and added a one-acre perimeter buffer designed to reduce direct impacts on existing one-acre lots.

"We’ve taken a 172 acres of the perimeter of this property and put one-acre lots or designated as that suburban residential all the way around the perimeter of this property," Travin Pennington said, adding the developer removed 158 acres of medium-density residential from its earlier proposal.

Residents voiced technical objections about infrastructure. Speakers asked whether the Golden Valley aquifer could support additional homes and whether proposed sewer treatment plants would produce odor or other problems. Commissioners and staff replied that any new sewer plant would require Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) permits, design review and public-notice steps; staff said ADEQ regulation and county review govern treatment-plant approval and operation.

"There is a very long approval process. We’d have to hire a sewer engineer to design the right size system and get approved by the county and the state," a developer representative told the commission when asked about treatment-plant performance and odor control. Staff added that future wastewater and engineering submittals will be subject to review and that those processes allow public comment.

The commission heard several emotional appeals: residents said roads, schools, fire protection and water supplies were not adequate for the level of development the plan could permit. Developers argued the area has infrastructure advantages relative to other parts of the county and said the general-plan update is intended to guide future growth rather than to immediately authorize parcels or construction.

Staff said the subcommittee meetings were discussion forums and that no votes were taken at those advisory meetings. Commission members noted the procedural distinction: subcommittee discussion informs staff recommendations, and the Planning and Zoning Commission is the body that takes formal action and provides a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.

Outcome: The commission moved forward with the item as agendized (the formal recommendation and any subsequent Board of Supervisors action will be recorded in the county’s public record). The transcript records extended public testimony and a divided array of views. Staff indicated they would continue to accept comments and that formal project-level permits (including ADEQ reviews for any wastewater facilities) will follow the general-plan process, if the commission’s recommendation is adopted by the Board of Supervisors.

Provenance: Public comments and developer statements are recorded in the meeting transcript from multiple speakers and county staff explaining the sequence of subcommittee meetings, the April change to the draft plan and the procedure for permit review.