Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies proposed RV resort rezone near Blake exit, residents cite water and fire risks
Summary
After hours of public testimony, the Mohave County Board of Supervisors voted to deny a request to rezone roughly 28 acres for an RV resort near the Blake Ranch/I-40 exit. Residents and supervisors cited fractured local wells, evacuation constraints on Du Bois Road and traffic concerns as primary reasons for denying the change.
The Mohave County Board of Supervisors voted Aug. 3 to deny a developer's request to rezone a portion of assessor's parcel 354‑38‑035 from AR‑10 to CRE (commercial recreation) to allow an RV resort near the Blake Ranch/I‑40 interchange. The item drew more than 30 members of the public; speakers repeatedly raised water availability, fire‑evacuation routes and traffic as core objections.
Tom Steno, the project's architect, described revisions to the plan — including a reduced footprint, additional buffers and on‑site fire suppression — and emphasized economic and tax‑base benefits. "It's gonna be a very nice type of place, designed well," Steno said. Owner representative Shane Denmark described water‑storage tanks and onsite hydrants intended for fire response.
Opponents from the surrounding rural community said the area sits on fractured rock aquifers with intermittent wells and high arsenic levels; they argued a new development drawing potable water and adding hundreds of electric and water hookups would stress scarce local supplies. Commenters also described a single ingress/egress (Du Bois Road) that they said would become a choke point during evacuation in a wildfire. Leslie Depew, a nearby resident, said the proposal "goes totally against our small community lifestyle" and urged the board to preserve the rural zoning.
Supervisor Theresa Martin told the board she had weighed both sides but that water availability was decisive: "If you don't have water, you got nothing," Martin said. She moved to deny the rezoning; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote.
County staff and the applicant acknowledged that off‑site traffic improvements and a formal traffic impact study would be required for any large development, and staff described the P&Z process that reduced the requested acreage from an earlier, larger submittal. The applicant's agent said the developer would bear the risk of drilling wells and that a preliminary water study showed "no fatal flaws," but the board sided with residents' concerns about long‑term aquifer reliability and emergency access.
The denial closes the current rezone request; applicants may pursue other options consistent with county law, including different siting or scale, but the board's vote makes approval of the current proposal unlikely without substantial new evidence on water supply, traffic mitigation and wildfire safety.
