Mesa planning board approves zoning modifications for Eastmark site after dispute over Eastmark design-review process

The City of Mesa Planning and Zoning Board approved modifications to zoning conditions for a roughly 36.9-acre site in the Eastmark area on March 26, 2025, after hearing competing statements from the project’s developer and Eastmark’s master developer about the role of Eastmark’s private design-review process.

The board voted to approve the modification of conditions for case ZON24-1019 (related to ZON20-00019) after public testimony and discussion. The motion passed with three yes votes and one abstention by Chair Ayers; Board Member Petersen had been recused earlier in the proceeding and presided over parts of the hearing.

The case drew a dispute over whether Eastmark’s Design Review Committee (DRC) can effectively block a city building permit by rejecting a submittal. Gary Hayes, speaking on behalf of Ryan Companies, told the board that Ryan had followed Eastmark’s prior review process in 2021 and had attempted to work with Eastmark again in 2024 but received a rejection letter. "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, arguing that he needed the board to resolve the zoning issue so permitting could proceed.

Susan Demet of Gammage and Burnham, representing Mesa Proving Grounds, LLC, the Eastmark master developer, urged the board not to modify the stipulations. "The stipulations for this case should not be modified," Demet said, adding that Eastmark and the city have followed a collaborative DRC/DRB review process for every project in Eastmark over the last 14 years and that the planned-community zoning, community plan, and the development agreement establish that collaborative review requirement.

During the hearing, Hayes presented emails and dated submittal materials that, he said, showed Eastmark initially provided conditional design-review comments and later issued a rejection letter (May 13, 2024) stating the applicant must obtain a recorded use-restriction amendment before resubmission. Demet said she had relied on conversations with Brookfield and Mesa Proving Grounds and that, to her knowledge, Eastmark’s DRC approval letters historically have been required before permitting.

Board members asked clarifying questions of both parties. City staff told the board that zoning itself was not the obstacle, according to emails Hayes cited, but Hayes said Eastmark’s rejection prevented him from advancing building permits despite staff advice. The board allowed both the applicant and the master developer to answer questions for clarification before discussion and a vote.

The formal action recorded in the meeting minutes was a motion to approve the modifications to conditions for the case, followed by a second and a voice vote. The board’s action was described by staff as approval with conditions consistent with staff recommendations.

The item combined discussion of process and policy (the interplay of private DRC review and municipal permitting) with a formal zoning action. The board’s approval will allow the applicant to move forward with city processes subject to the modified conditions; the record shows there remain unresolved disputes between Ryan Companies and Eastmark representatives about whether additional Eastmark approvals or a recorded use-restriction amendment are required before city permits can be issued.

The meeting record shows Chair Ayers announced a recusal at the start of the item and Board Member Petersen presided over parts of the discussion. The board adjourned after taking the vote.