Graham County planning commission sends mixed recommendations on five rezoning requests

The Graham County Planning & Zoning Commission on an April meeting day reviewed five rezoning applications and voted to forward recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on each.

Commissioners recommended favorably on a 1.7‑acre rezoning at 2725 North Shiflett Avenue and on a 12.2‑acre parcel north of Arcadia Avenue and Sonora Skies Road, but they voted to oppose a proposal to convert a Thatcher lot to multifamily duplexes and to oppose a proposed rezoning to allow denser single‑lot splits on South Alder Lane. The commission also forwarded a favorable recommendation for a large, 224.5‑acre request to reclassify farmland to commercial/manufacturing. All recommendations are advisory; the Board of Supervisors will make the final decisions at its next hearing.

The 1.7‑acre application (REZAPN10545087) was filed by property owner Jeff Green to rezone from general agricultural (A) to single‑family residential (R&R) so he and his wife could build a smaller house behind their existing 2,900‑square‑foot home. Green told the commission he and his wife “have considered building a smaller house in the back for us and perhaps renting the house out to one of our children or selling it to one of our children.” A commissioner moved to send a favorable recommendation; the motion was seconded and carried, and staff told Green the item will be scheduled before the Board of Supervisors.

A second favorable recommendation went to Donovan Kerr, who asked to rezone 12.2 acres (APN 10628081, REZ 92725) from Special Development (SD) to AR‑3 (three‑acre agricultural/residential). Kerr said he and his wife bought the parcel to retire near the Saint Paisios monastery, to keep a few animals and to be able to make a minor land split that could yield roughly three‑acre parcels for family members. Kerr told commissioners he hopes to “end up with four parcels, approximately three acres each” and that he is not pursuing commercial uses. The commission voted to forward a favorable recommendation to the board.

At 1998 South Robinson Ranch Road (REZ92925), applicant Guy Nolan asked to rezone a roughly one‑acre parcel from single‑family (R&R) to multifamily so he could remove an existing manufactured home and build two single‑story duplexes (two 2‑bedroom, 2‑bath units each). Nolan described the units as “starter housing” aimed at young professionals or short‑term workers and said the units would be sized and sited to fit the existing neighborhood. Opponents and several commissioners raised questions about septic capacity, reserve areas, proximity to a utility easement, and the absence of public sewer. A county representative who reviewed the file told the commission a septic system design and reserve areas would be required and that the sewer connection is not close. Commissioners moved to send an unfavorable recommendation citing infrastructure and neighborhood‑character concerns; the motion was put to a vote and the commission recorded its recommendation for the Board of Supervisors.

A large proposal by Peter Velasquez (APNs 10752001, 10748001, 10748002A, 10749002C) asked to rezone roughly 224.5 acres from general agricultural (A) to commercial/manufacturing (CM) for future commercial development. Velasquez said portions of the frontage are “hot ground” and no longer productive for farming; he described the land as likely to remain bare unless put to nonagricultural use. Neighbors asked what specific uses were planned and raised traffic and access concerns; Rosa Martinez asked, “What is it gonna be used for? You don't know what it's gonna be used for or anything?” The commission moved and seconded a favorable recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for the commercial rezoning.

The commission also considered RZ3125 (APN 10535180), a 2.5‑acre request by Tom Palmer to rezone from general agricultural (A) to RSV (a smaller‑lot single‑family residential designation described in the applicant’s filing). Palmer did not attend; a staff member read a letter from him saying infrastructure already exists on the site and noting the parcel’s flood‑plain status. Multiple neighbors — including Peter Hanson, Scott Alder and Georgia Luster — urged caution, citing the site’s AO flood‑plain designation, historical flood events, and the drainage that runs through the area. County staff and the county engineer told the commission any residential development in the flood plain would have to meet FEMA requirements, raise finished‑floor elevations and provide retention or engineered drainage solutions; the engineer said that could require community or individual retention and a full subdivision review. After public comment and discussion, commissioners voted to send an unfavorable recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.

The commission’s recommendations are advisory; the Board of Supervisors is the final decision‑maker. The commission noted dates for upcoming supervisor meetings and invited applicants and concerned neighbors to appear before the board for the final hearings.