Planning commission recommends special‑events permit for Fairview wedding venue with five‑year review

The Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission on Jan. 23 recommended approval of a special‑use permit to allow a private special‑events venue on a 1.15‑acre site at the corner of Fairview and Higley in the Gilbert area.

County planning staff told commissioners the site, zoned Rural‑43, would be limited to a maximum of 15 special events per year, held only on weekends between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m., with shielded, downward‑directed lighting and on‑site parking provided. Staff also recommended a five‑year permit term to allow review of compliance with conditions.

The recommendation followed hours of public comment. Several neighbors said they oppose the venue because of concerns about traffic, on‑street parking, litter and noise. Amanda Gallagher, who said she lives behind Fairview, told the commission the community does not want additional noise or drunken driving and said she spoke with Town of Gilbert staff, who she said oppose the venue’s land‑use change. Scott Hancock, a resident on East Fairview Street, said he had spoken with neighbors who oppose the application and asked the commission to consider enforcement of permit conditions.

Applicant Jim Torgerson said the family has held invitation‑only gatherings and that no charges were collected once the need for a special‑use permit was identified. “We’re simply trying to operate something that is supposed to be the basis of community, marriage, baby showers,” Torgerson said, adding that direct neighbors support the venue and that he and his family have followed staff requests. He said traffic would be directed to Higley Road and that signage and event staff would discourage use of Fairview.

Commissioners asked about enforcement and compliance. Adam Cannon, planning staff, said neighbors may contact the county to request compliance checks and that code enforcement officers can be dispatched during events.

Commissioner Lindblom moved to recommend approval in accordance with staff stipulations; the motion was seconded and the commission recorded a 4–0 recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.

The county record shows letters of support from seven nearby residents and 11 letters of opposition (including late submissions). Town of Gilbert staff registered opposition because the proposal does not match Gilbert’s land‑use designation, but county staff concluded the proposal can be conditioned to limit impacts and recommended approval.

The Board of Supervisors will consider the county’s recommendation at a later date.