Advisory group reviews Land Use, Growth and Development chapter; zoning, inholdings and water top concerns

Advisory members reviewed the Land Use, Growth and Development draft, questioned mapping and statutory requirements, and raised concerns about water availability, inholdings, aggregate mining mapping and who will pay for infrastructure as development increases.

Staff stated an important planning fact plainly: “Coconino County does not have a future land use map.” The advisory group discussed how the county instead relies on zoning, character descriptions and, in some localities, area plans (for example, the Belmont area plan) to guide future development and rezoning decisions. Staff said the draft preserves character descriptions tied to zoning and that those descriptions are used when the county evaluates a rezoning application.

Mapping private land and ranch parcels

Advisory members asked staff to produce a clearer overlay showing parcels used for ranching. In the draft maps staff presented, private land comprised a relatively small slice of the county — staff said privately owned parcels represent roughly 12 percent of county acreage on the displayed land‑ownership map — and staff described an effort to overlay assessor parcel data that the county’s GIS team could use to show parcels identified as ranch use. The group asked staff to follow up with more detailed parcel-level mapping for ranch lands.

Aggregate mining and statutory requirements

Staff said Arizona statute requires the comprehensive plan to identify known aggregate (construction materials) sources and to note potential conflicts between mines and nearby sensitive uses. The staff-provided map used data from the Arizona Geological Survey and the state mining inspector; staff noted that federal‑land aggregate sites were not included in that dataset and said they would check whether additional agency data could be obtained or whether the plan text should explicitly say federal sites are not mapped.

Zoning, conservation subdivisions and housing

Staff reiterated that the county’s zoning code and subdivision ordinance include options such as conservation subdivision (cluster) design and accessory dwelling units. Staff said accessory dwelling units are currently allowed in the county’s residential zoning districts and that conservation-subdivision clustering is incentivized in the subdivision ordinance to encourage leaving sensitive areas as open space.

Advisory members asked how the county prevents incompatible commercial development near residential areas, and staff explained that rezoning requires public hearings and findings tied to the comprehensive plan and that the county’s land-use character descriptions and zoning are used to evaluate compatibility. Members asked for clearer language about commercial development impacts (drainage, water demand, roads) and requested the economic-development chapter be cross-referenced.

Water, improvement districts and funding

Multiple advisory members said water availability is foundational to land‑use decisions. Staff noted improvement districts (self‑taxing districts for water, roads, fire protection and similar infrastructure) are a statutory tool communities may use to raise local funds for improvements. Members asked for clearer text about financing, ownership and long-term maintenance responsibilities for roads, water and recreation infrastructure.

What happens next

Staff said they will follow up with the advisory group on: a more explicit statement that the county lacks a countywide future land‑use map, an overlay showing parcels identified as ranch use, clarifications on aggregate-mine data sources (federal vs. state mapping), and cross-references to the water and economic-development chapters. The group scheduled follow-up review meetings in the coming weeks.

Ending

After completing discussion of the land-use chapter, the advisory group agreed to reconvene to review additional chapters and to accept written public comments and chat messages for later inclusion.