Board of Supervisors overturns Planning & Zoning denial for Wild Horse guest lodging and event center

The Cochise County Board of Supervisors voted 2–1 on Oct. 21 to approve an appeal by Mario and Angela Robles that reverses a Planning & Zoning Commission denial of a special use permit for a guest lodging and event center near Benson.

The action affects a southern portion of a roughly 108‑acre property; staff said the special use would apply to 40 acres in the southern parcels and would allow up to 15 guest lodging units, an event facility, specialty farming and outdoor recreation. The board decision followed more than two hours of public testimony from neighbors and the applicant, and a detailed staff presentation on the project’s scope and the appeals process.

The Robleses told the board their proposal is designed to “keep revenue local” and to preserve the property’s rural character while creating lodging, farm‑to‑table dinners and equestrian services. Angela Robles said the plan’s financial projections estimate roughly $865,000 in revenue in year one under a moderate scenario and over $1 million in a best‑case scenario.

Opponents — many of whom live on Ocotillo Road and adjacent properties — urged the board to uphold the Planning & Zoning Commission’s 5–2 denial. Neighbors raised concerns about noise from outdoor events, night‑time activity, water consumption, emergency response times and the condition of county roads and washes leading to the property. Several speakers said the proposal’s size, parking and event‑scale descriptions in application materials were inconsistent or confusing.

Planning staff told the board the applicant met submittal requirements but said notification and property posting had produced multiple written responses: staff mailed notices to 11 property owners and received three in favor and eight in opposition, plus three additional opposing responses from outside the formal notice area. Staff had recommended conditional approval; the Planning & Zoning Commission had voted not to approve the special use, citing neighborhood opposition and area plan consistency issues.

Board discussion focused on three practical questions raised repeatedly by neighbors: whether approving the appeal would allow later expansion onto the other 68 acres, how water use would be handled, and whether the county should remand the application back to the commission to allow further local discussion. Planning staff told the board that any additional lodging units beyond the approved 15 on the southern parcels would require a new special use application or a modification; lodging on the northern acreage would likely require a separate special use application.

Neighbors cited water and flood concerns. The applicants’ materials estimated annual water use of 500,000–800,000 gallons; opponents argued a proposed wading pool of roughly 0.84 acres could cause evaporation losses that would exceed the applicant’s estimate. Neighbors also described multiple washes on the approach road that can flood suddenly; one speaker cited a recent fatality in a wash during a storm, and others described long emergency response times of 20–30 minutes for incidents in that area.

Noise was a major point of contention. The application referenced peak sound levels near 100 decibels for amplified events; neighbors said they could hear a small gathering on a recent weekend and feared louder events would travel across the valley. Supervisors discussed standard sound‑level attenuation over distance and noted that proposed hours and commitments — including moving receptions indoors after 10 p.m. and constructing an insulated event building — would reduce sound impacts compared with continuous outdoor amplified music.

Supervisor Crosby, who moved to approve the appeal, argued the county needs economic development and that the project includes reasonable mitigation measures. Other board members expressed concern about the degree of neighborhood opposition and the level of local engagement. One supervisor said remanding the matter to the Planning & Zoning Commission for further review and additional community discussion was an option the board could use; another supervisor said the appeals process exists precisely to allow the board to review commission decisions.

After an amendment to the agenda motion (striking language that offered both “approve or deny” and leaving a single motion to approve the appeal), the board voted to approve the appeal by a 2–1 margin. By the board’s action the special use authorization for the specified lodging and event uses is granted subject to the standard conditions the county places on special uses and any conditions the board may include in its final action.

Neighbors urged the board to consider road improvements, stricter conditions on event scale and additional protections for water resources and dark‑sky policies. Several participants requested the board remand the matter so the commission and neighbors could meet again; the board instead adopted the approval. The board did not delineate voter‑referendum, tax, or other funding consequences as part of this vote.

The project, as described in staff materials and applicant exhibits, will now proceed with the special use authorization granted by the board. Any future changes or increases in lodging units beyond the authorized 15 or extension onto additional acreage would require further county review and a separate application process.