Coconino supervisors approve Belmont duplex development despite residents' traffic concerns

The Coconino County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously May 19 to adopt Ordinance 2026‑02 and related resolutions authorizing a zone change and a preliminary plat for an 80‑lot duplex subdivision in Belmont, despite sustained public concern about traffic, utilities and emergency access.

The board’s approval covers a change from planned‑community commercial heavy (CH‑10,000) standards to a modified RM‑10a residential standard with a master development plan, plus Resolution 2026‑23 (preliminary plat) and Resolution 2026‑27 (a development agreement that assigns developers a share of traffic‑mitigation costs). Supervisor Tammy Ontiveros moved the ordinance; the motion was seconded and the vote was unanimous.

County staff and the developer said the proposal removes four previously proposed units from a floodplain and will be managed by a homeowners association with private streets and on‑site amenities. Developer Darren Smith said the project is intended as “working class” housing aimed at teachers, nurses and other local employees and that the team has budgeted a mitigation contribution and water studies. “We’re doing everything we can to help with the traffic issues,” Smith said, adding that studies indicate sufficient water supply as the area builds out.

Residents at the public hearing urged caution. Belmont resident Suzanne Martin said she moved there for “peace and quiet and the seclusion” and warned the existing Brannigan Park/roundabout area already struggles with heavy truck traffic and occasional snow‑closure backups. “I can’t imagine what that traffic would bring to our area,” she said, adding that emergency egress is a particular concern.

County Engineer Nate Reisner told supervisors the traffic impact analysis for the Belmont area accounted for current development and planned projects (including nearby townhomes, a proposed Speedway gas station and other commercial activity) and recommended a package of intersection upgrades, including converting a single‑lane roundabout to a dual‑lane roundabout and adding through lanes. Reisner said the model projects intersection performance degradation without improvements by about 2035 and that the county has submitted a concept to ADOT and the Federal Highway Administration for a new interchange and other work. He said staff are pursuing grants and congressional priorities to fund final design and construction.

The development agreement before the board assigns an approximate $600,000 proportional share of the traffic mitigation costs to the project; the county will hold developer fees and apply them toward the agreed improvements or return funds if work does not commence within the contract timeframe. Reisner said county staff will continue counting traffic and coordinating mitigation timing as developments are built out.

After extended questioning about modeling, emergency egress and timelines, supervisors said they were persuaded that the site’s proposed two access points and the regional traffic study justify approval now, while continuing to press staff to pursue funding and design for larger interchange improvements.

The board also noted long‑standing concerns about short‑term rentals and said efforts to secure state legislative changes will continue to try to preserve housing stock for residents.

The ordinance and resolutions take effect as provided in county code; staff said construction timelines put the start of on‑site infrastructure work roughly within the next year, with housing deliveries likely about 20–24 months after that if the developer moves forward as planned.