Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Graham County approves multiple rezones and a road name after public hearing; supervisors flag infrastructure concerns
Summary
At a Jan. 7 public hearing the Board of Supervisors approved several rezoning requests and a private-road name. Supervisors praised efforts to bring legacy properties into compliance but raised concerns about road widths, right-of-way and future development triggers for infrastructure improvements.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Graham County Board of Supervisors approved a slate of planning and zoning requests Jan. 7 after public hearings and a unanimous or near-unanimous recommendation from the county planning commission.
The board approved a private-road name request for Markham Trail, allowing the family developer to assign addresses for a small cluster of homes east of Markham Wash. The board also approved several rezoning petitions presented by the planning department:
- Rez 918-24 (APN 106-20-036-306-B, ~0.49 acres): Rezone from single-family residential (R) to multifamily residential (RM) to permit construction of a duplex similar to an adjacent lot. The board approved the rezone after staff and supervisors noted density was consistent with surrounding lot sizes. One supervisor raised that the property was delinquent on a portion of property taxes; the board approved the rezone and a supervisor asked that future rezoning applicants be current on taxes where feasible.
- Rez 916-24 (APN 103-28-021, ~4.3 acres): Rezone from CN (neighborhood commercial) to CM (commercial/manufacturing) to allow construction of a shop to repair copper anodes for Freeport McMoran. The applicant indicated willingness to convey right-of-way for possible future 40th Street alignment; the board approved the rezone.
- Rez 923-24 (portion of a 183-acre family trust; ~16 acres): Rezone to multifamily residential to legalize existing closely spaced homes on the family property and allow estate settlement. The board described this as a legacy compliance action and approved the rezoning.
- Rez 919-24 (10-acre portion of a larger parcel): Rezone to general commercial to place an existing event/wedding venue in the proper zoning. No public opposition was recorded; supervisors discussed a substandard county bridge and a narrow county-maintained road that serves the venue and noted potential infrastructure and safety concerns but approved the rezoning.
- Rez 920-24 (APN 107-58-001, 15-acre portion): Rezone from general to residential manufactured-home zoning to allow small-scale overnight camping/RV hookups tied to a wedding venue; the county planning commission had one opposing vote. Supervisors expressed differing views: some supported the rezone as a way to bring the venue into compliance and allow up to 3–5 overnight RVs; others said the 15-acre rezone was larger than necessary and urged applicants to return with a smaller, more constrained special-use plan and infrastructure commitments. The board approved the rezone on a 2–1 vote.
- Rez 917-24 (APNs 103-26-001 and 103-23-021, ~250 acres combined; rezoning approximately 16 acres within the larger holdings): Rezone from general land use to RM multifamily residential to facilitate future multifamily housing opportunities. The applicant and board discussed the importance of securing right-of-way for future roads (including a 40th Street alignment) and coordinating sewer/water infrastructure; the board approved the rezoning and supervisors noted willingness to pursue right-of-way agreements to support future development.
During discussion supervisors repeatedly emphasized that approval of zoning does not bypass later requirements: any future development will need plan review, engineering approval, septic or sewer approvals, and road improvements where required. Several supervisors urged that if future development exceeds the current small-scale uses (for example, expanding an RV park), the owner must return with detailed plans and infrastructure commitments.
A small number of residents and applicants addressed the board in favor of rezoning to regularize existing uses and prepare property for potential sale or future development. The board recorded mostly unanimous approvals for the items, with one recorded dissent (Rez 920-24).

