Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Pond Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Coconino County planning panel affirms director’s finding that pond is permitted after neighbors raise water worries
Summary
After extended public comment from Parks residents who called a proposed, large plumbed pool a strain on local groundwater and a likely zoning violation, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4–3 to agree with the Community Development director that a pond is an accepted use on residential property.
The Coconino County Planning and Zoning Commission on June 24 declined to overturn the Community Development director’s determination that a pond on private property is an accepted use, despite hours of public comment from neighbors who said the project would consume large amounts of groundwater and should require a conditional use permit.
Residents and adjacent landowners told the commission the excavation at the center’s property in Parks is not "a simple pond" but a large, plumbed and filtered recreational pool intended for semi-public use. "This is 1,000,000 gallon recreational pool for semi-public, nonprivate use," resident John Trustman said during the meeting, adding that the project has "0 conservation measures" and should have triggered a CUP review.
Neighbors described wells yielding little water, plastic and debris at the excavation, and repeated pumping. "It's just a waste of precious water that we all need here," resident Mike Bode told commissioners, citing low reservoir levels and local supply concerns.
County counsel Angela Lane advised the commission it could not lawfully base the determination on water availability. "Counties are only delegated the authority that [is] specifically granted them by statute...the state retains authority over water, so the county can't consider it," Lane said, explaining the legal constraint.
Commissioners sharply debated the issue. Several members, including Commissioner Hayward and Vice Chair Best, said they shared residents' concerns and urged that the Board of Supervisors consider code changes or performance standards for ponds. But those commissioners also acknowledged that the commission’s authority in the present process is limited to deciding whether the zoning ordinance lists a pond as a permitted use.
Commissioner Williams moved to disagree with the director’s finding, but that motion failed on a roll call. Later a separate motion to agree with the director’s determination passed 4–3 after a corrected vote tally.
The chair and staff said any future commercial or quasi-public uses inconsistent with residential zoning would require separate review: if a property owner pursues uses that require a CUP, the matter would return to the commission. Residents at the meeting urged closer enforcement and a code amendment to create size or use standards for ponds.
The commission’s decision affirms the director’s reading of the current ordinance; several commissioners said they would pursue policy or code changes to address the gap rather than attempt to act beyond their statutory authority tonight.
The commission then moved on to the public-hearing portion of its agenda.
