Graham County planning commission recommends rezoning to allow smaller lots despite neighborhood objections

The Graham County Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3-2 to forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for a rezoning request that would allow multiple dwellings on a parcel outside the city of Safford, after a public hearing in which nearby residents urged the commission to retain the county’s one‑acre minimum lot size.

Neighbors at the hearing raised questions about water, road access and density. “The aquifer — my property operates off the aquifer. Will there be a wall around each and every property? Whom will have the road? Where will the road be and how will it be maintained?” said a resident during public comment (Resident, public commenter). Another nearby resident said the area is largely one‑acre parcels and opposed smaller lots: “So we would like to just keep it as 1‑acre lots minimum.”

The applicant’s representative, who identified himself as a local builder (Applicant, developer/builder), said there is currently a doublewide on the property and the plan would add site‑built homes. He told commissioners the development would provide a road meeting county standards (minimum 24 feet was discussed) and said he planned to put electrical service underground “depending on the pricing.” He also said the developer would not build walls around the lots, noting a quoted cost of about $60 per linear foot.

Planning staff answered several technical questions. Steve, a county planning staff member, told the commission that under current county code one accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is allowed for a relative and cannot be rented; he said a recent state law will require expanded allowance of ADUs starting Jan. 1 and that the livable area limit would increase to roughly 1,000 square feet. “If I understand it correctly, there can be a 1,400–1,500 square foot home, an additional dwelling unit attached, and another additional dwelling unit unattached as long as they can make the septic qualify,” Steve said, adding that some elements of the state change remain to be fully interpreted by staff.

Commissioners discussed infrastructure constraints in the area, including lack of sewer service nearby and reliance on septic systems. One commenter observed that sewer is across the highway and not in the immediate neighborhood. Several residents and the applicant discussed market demand for smaller, more affordable homes in the area.

After public comment and staff presentation, a commissioner moved to forward a favorable recommendation to the Board of Supervisors; the motion was seconded and carried by a 3–2 vote. Commissioners did not identify individual vote names in the public record excerpt. Commissioners noted that the Board of Supervisors will make the final decision; the item will be scheduled for the supervisors’ meeting at 8:00 a.m. on the first Monday of next month for final action.

Why it matters: The change would allow higher residential density on the parcel than current county one‑acre minimums allow and takes on added significance because of pending state ADU changes that staff said will give property owners broader rights to add accessory dwelling units as of Jan. 1. Local residents said the cumulative effect of smaller parcels and expanded ADU rights would change neighborhood character and put pressure on on‑site septic systems and local roads.

The commission’s action was advisory; the Board of Supervisors will hold the final public hearing and decision.