Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pima County board continues contentious rezoning request on West Bountiful Lane to June 3 for more study and neighbor talks
Summary
A request to rezone a 3.3-acre parcel on West Bountiful Lane from SR to SR-2 (allowing two lots instead of one) was continued to June 3 after neighbors raised concerns about grading, wash impacts, fire access and view loss. The board directed staff to work with applicants and adjacent owners to craft mitigating conditions.
The Pima County Board of Supervisors voted to continue a contested rezoning request for a 3.3-acre property on West Bountiful Lane until the board’s June 3 meeting and asked staff to prepare a report comparing the impacts of keeping the current SR zoning versus approving SR-2.
The applicants, Deborah and TJ Reicher, asked to rezone the SR (Suburban Ranch) parcel to SR-2 so two homes could be built where SR would otherwise allow a single residence. The county planning staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval subject to special conditions; the commission’s recommendation was a narrow 5-4 vote.
Several immediate neighbors who said they live adjacent to the parcel urged the board to continue the matter so staff could work with all parties to reduce potential damages. Neighbors raised concerns about unpermitted grading by prior owners, erosion of the wash that runs along the properties, potential increased lighting and noise, fire and emergency access on the site’s easement road, and loss of views. One neighbor described investing $15,000 in plantings and riprap to stabilize eroded slopes and warned that increased grading could worsen erosion.
Applicants said they planned two single-family homes, one for themselves and one for their daughter and son-in-law. They told the board the property is typical for the area and that the rezoning would actually trigger more restrictive conservation conditions under county policy than would developing under the existing SR rules.
After public testimony and a staff briefing in which staff said the parcel lies in a transition area (some nearby lots are higher-density CR3/CR4 while others remain SR), Chair Scott moved to continue the matter to June 3. The board voted 4-1 to continue; Supervisor Hines cast the lone ‘no’ vote.
The continuance directs staff to prepare a report for the board on the pros and cons of remaining SR versus rezoning to SR-2, and—if rezoning remains the recommendation—work with the applicant and adjoining landowners to craft conditions addressing wash protection, grading limits, lighting, building color, height and emergency access.
Why this matters: The case concerns how Pima County balances property-owner interests, neighborhood preservation and conservation-land requirements. The board’s decision to continue gives staff and neighbors time to refine protections before a final decision.
Provenance: Planning staff report, applicant testimony and multiple neighbors’ public comments took place during the hearing; the board voted to continue to June 3 with explicit direction to staff to prepare options and draft conditions.
