Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Text Amendments topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planners table proposed zoning text amendments on towers, feedlots and other standards to August

Cochise County Planning and Zoning Commission · June 11, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After debate about whether variance authority should shift to the Board of Adjustment and concerns about public appeal access and litigation, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to table proposed text amendments (R26‑02) and asked staff to return with revised language and possibly a work session for August 12.

Staff briefed the commission on proposed text amendments intended to move some development‑standard relief from special‑use requests to the variance process administered by the Board of Adjustment, and to add site development standards to Article 2.51 for uses such as communications towers, agricultural processing, custom butchering, feedlots and auction barns.

Taylor said the amendments would, for example, increase the minimum site area for commercial feedlots from 20 to 40 acres, add setback requirements for holding pens and manure storage, and shift some height or setback relief (such as modest tower height increases) to the Board of Adjustment as variance matters rather than to the commission as special‑use hearings. Staff framed the change as a move to the appropriate statutory authority and to streamline processing for applicants.

Commissioners raised several concerns. Multiple members said they favored keeping an avenue to the Board of Supervisors for appeals and worried that moving these matters to a quasi‑judicial Board of Adjustment (whose decisions then are appealed to Superior Court) would raise costs and legal barriers for applicants and members of the public. County legal counsel explained the statutory appeals path to Superior Court for Board of Adjustment decisions. Commissioners also discussed whether some text changes (for example, feedlot acreage or setback changes) could be adopted separately while leaving the appeals structure in place.

After extended discussion, the commission voted to table docket R26‑02 and directed staff to return with revised draft language and a proposed process (including the possibility of a work session) for consideration at the August 12 meeting. The motion to table was moved and seconded and carried; no text amendments were adopted at this meeting.