Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rural Land Use Ranching topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advisory group highlights ranch‑land preservation, paper subdivisions and need for implementation tools
Summary
Advisory members and county staff reviewed data showing most private parcels are assessed as ranch land, discussed the legacy of undeveloped "paper" subdivisions and property abandonment in Valley, and urged clearer implementation tools such as conservation easements, density transfer and targeted impact‑fee studies.
Coconino County planning staff told advisory members the county assessor's land‑use codes show 77 percent of private parcels are coded as ranch land, prompting a broad discussion on how to preserve large‑acreage ranches, address abandoned parcels and update policies on older subdivisions that lack infrastructure.
Staff displayed a map and pie chart showing that 77 percent of private land is categorized as ranch land and that about 23 percent is other private uses. Participants raised the Grand Canyon Subdivision and other legacy platted areas as examples of ‘‘paper subdivisions’’ where lots were recorded decades ago but roads, water and sewer were not built. Staff explained those subdivisions were platted under earlier regulations and that today the county requires infrastructure or bonds before accepting plats. A staff presentation noted the Grand Canyon Subdivision contains several thousand parcels created in 1969–1970s and that many roads were never constructed.
Committee members argued the plan should better acknowledge the economic pressures facing ranch families, including succession and the need for funding mechanisms to keep large ranch properties intact. Speakers suggested policy tools to explore in implementation: conservation easements, transfer of development rights or density banking, and partnerships with state and federal conservation programs. Staff said the comprehensive plan update will include an implementation section and an action list; they noted the current plan included action items but they were not prioritized. Several participants urged the county to develop an implementation work plan that could include programmatic support and prioritized actions to preserve ranch lands.
On funding and mitigation, staff explained how impact‑fee studies operate and that a study would be necessary before the county could adopt a formal impact‑fee structure to charge new development for infrastructure impacts; staff said engineering and financial analysis would be required and that grants sometimes fund these studies. No formal policies were adopted at the meeting.
