Extracted text (via pymupdf)
375242 characters
May 21, 2025
CPA2024004
Page 1 of 2
Report to the Board of Supervisors
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Board Hearing Date:
May 21, 2025 (Continued from April 9, 2025)
Case #/Title:
CPA2024004 – Goldhawk at the Preserve
Supervisor District:
2
Applicant/Owner:
Wendy Riddell, Berry Riddell LLC / Goldfield Ranch Realty Holdings
Request:
Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to amend future
land use designation in the Goldfield Area Plan from The Preserve
Development Master Plan (DMP) to Single Family – Rural (0-1
du/ac). CPA case approval is by Resolution, attached.
Site Location:
Generally located on the northwest side of SR 87 east of the Verde
River - north of the NWC and NEC of Burnt Water Rd. and SR 87 in
the Fort McDowell area
Site Size:
About 1,728 acres
County Island Status:
N/A
Additional
Comments:
The subject site is currently part of the Preserve DMP and contains
a mix of land use designations allowing for multiple residential
densities. The applicant is seeking to change the future land use
designation over the site to Single Family Rural (0-1 du/ac). Staff
notes the requested land use designation is the lowest density
designation within the Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan and
Goldfield Area Plan and would bring the subject site under the same
land use designation that covers the majority of the Goldfield Area
Plan. It is the land use designation corresponding to the Rural-190,
Rural-70 and Rural-43 zoning districts. The applicant has submitted
for a related zone change request, (Z240006is scheduled for the
May 8, 2025 Commission hearing). The lower density land use
designation is necessitated to be consistent with the pending
downzoning request. There are no outstanding concerns from
reviewing agencies.
Staff has received several letters of opposition, an opposition
petition with 115 signatures, and multiple members of the public
spoke in opposition at the Commission hearing. Common themes
from those opposed include concern over environmental impact,
desire to have Rural-190 zoning over the entire Goldfield area,
concern over water and wastewater, concern over traffic and road
May 21, 2025
CPA2024004
Page 2 of 2
maintenance, and impacts on wildlife. Since the Commission
hearing staff received six additional letters of opposition.
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation stated concerns include impacts on
water resources including the Verde River, traffic, power demands,
and culturally important wildlife species. The Nation prefers the
CPA not be considered until accompanied by the zone change.
With consideration of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation and other
interested parties the applicant has requested for the continuance
of this case several times from December 11, 2024 to March 12,
2025 to April 9, 2025 with it now scheduled for the May 21, 2025
Board hearing.
Commission
Recommendation:
On 11/7/24, the Commission voted 7-0 to adopt a motion
recommending the Board of Supervisors approve CPA2024004.
Presented by:
Joseph Mueller, Planner
Reviewed by:
Darren Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager
Attachments:
Continuance Request (1 page)
Additional Opposition Letters (25 Pages)
11/7/24 P&Z Packet (139 pages)
Handout Memo 1 (46 pages)
Handout Memo 2 (2 Pages)
Resolution (2 pages)
Note:
11/7/24 Draft P&Z Minutes can be provided upon request.
wr@berryriddell.com
Direct: (480) 682-3902
March 20, 2025
Via Email to:
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
Attn: Tom Galvin, Chairman of the Board
301 W. Jefferson Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
thomas.galvin@maricopa.gov
Re:
Request for Continuance of a Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment on +/- 1,728-
gross-acres (CPA2024004) pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute § 11-805(J)
Dear Chairman Galvin:
We respectfully request a continuance of Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment (“Major
CPA”) case number CPA2024004 from the April 9, 2025 Board of Supervisors hearing date to the
May 21, 2025, hearing date. The Major CPA request was originally set to be heard by the Board of
Supervisors on December 11th, 2024, and was continued pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes § 11-
805(J). The purpose of the continuance was to allow the Major CPA to be heard concurrently with the
companion rezoning request, case number Z240006. That original purpose remains the same through
this request for continuance. Should our rezoning case not be ready for hearing by May 21, 2025, we
will ask for an additional continuance.
The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, and subsequently the Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation, asked us to continue the Major CPA to allow the Major CPA and rezoning requests
to be heard concurrently by the Board of Supervisors. The alignment of the Major CPA and rezoning
cases will also allow continued discussions with the Community, Nation and all interested stakeholders
regarding the proposals.
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to reach out to me directly.
Very truly yours,
Wendy Riddell
cc: Tom Ellsworth
Stephen Anderson
Larry Lazarus
Jen Pokorski
Randy Haines
Randolph J. Haines
12140 N. Sin Vacas Trail
Fort McDowell, Az. 85264
randyhaines@outlook.com
(602) 390-3070
November 11, 2024
Mr. Darren Gerard, AICP, Planning Manager
Maricopa County Planning & Development
301 W. Jefferson St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Re: Z240006 Zone Change, Goldhawk At The Preserve
CPA2024004
Dear Mr. Gerard:
County Attorney Wayne Peck’s comments at the Nov. 7 Planning and Zoning
Commission hearing on CPA2024004 have important consequences for how Planning and
Development will address the Goldhawk at the Preserve rezoning request, Z240006. Before his
comments fade from memory and he retires, the significance of his analysis should be
memorialized in writing and in the record of Case # Z240006.
Zoning Stipulations Are Unenforceable Except at Subdivision. The bottom line of the
County Attorney’s analysis is that no revocation of a rezoning can be enforced, even if it was a
condition or stipulation imposed and agreed to when that rezoning was originally granted. At the
hearing the County Attorney gave two reasons for this conclusion: First, such zoning
stipulations are “enforced at the time of development, not at the time of zoning. So unless and
until they come in to develop the property there is nothing to enforce.”1 Second, the County
Attorney concluded that Proposition 207, since codified at A.R.S. § 12-1134, makes any
automatic revocation of zoning unenforceable absent the owner’s consent.2
The significant conclusion that follows from the County Attorney’s opinion is that such
stipulations are ineffective and unenforceable unless and until the developer proceeds with the
development and ultimate subdivision approval. In effect, they are not “zoning” stipulations at
1 County Attorney: “As far as the enforceability of any conditions on the zoning case, which is what the Judge was
addressing, those are enforced at the time of development, not at the time of zoning, so that unless and until they
come in to develop the property there is nothing to enforce.” Transcript of Nov. 7, 2024, at 2:47:22 (pending
availability of the official transcript and minutes this is my transcription from the YouTube recording).
2 County Attorney: “Zoning cannot automatically revert. . . . But again, the only way you can change zoning is by
going through the rezoning process. Now that has been made more complicated by something that I know you’ve
all heard of, because we’ve talked about it, and that’s known as Prop. 207. So if you were to attempt to rezone the
property now without the property owner’s permission, the County would be exposed to a claim under Prop. 207.”
Id. at 3:18:32.
2
all, but rather subdivision stipulations. Under the County Attorney’s analysis, such so-called
“zoning” stipulations are effective only “at development,” so they are completely ineffective if
the developer abandons the development and the property is sold to wildcat splitters. Such
purchasers of the not-legally-subdivided land would take free of the stipulations but could not be
deprived of the higher density zoning.
Moreover, such misnamed “zoning” stipulations would also be ineffective against
another developer who acquired the rezoned but unsubdivided land and then sought some other
kind of development or subdivision. Such a subsequent developer could nevertheless claim all
the rights under the effective zoning while being free of the conditions and stipulations. This is
exactly what is occurring now: Goldfield Ranch Realty Holdings and Grayhawk claim they are
not bound by any of the stipulations of Z2012090 but that zoning nevertheless remains in effect.
Their lawyers have so stated, expressly.3 Goldfield Ranch Realty Holdings and its lawyers have
proven the point—“zoning” stipulations are ineffective whenever the developer who agreed to
them sells or abandons the project. Such so-called zoning stipulations do not effectively
condition or restrict the zoning per se, but only that particular subdivision plan, and the zoning
remains effective and irrevocable even if that particular subdivision plan never occurs.
Essential Zoning Conditions Must Be Enforced Prior to Effective Zoning.
Unfortunately Mr. Peck misunderstood the point I was making when he stated that I was merely
urging that all of the stipulations of the current conditional zoning, Z2012090, be included as
stipulations to the rezoning being sought in Z240006.4 How would that make any sense after the
County Attorney just explained that such zoning stipulations are unenforceable?
Rather, because zoning-revocation stipulations are unenforceable, any condition that
Planning and Development deems absolutely essential to the requested rezoning, any sine qua
non condition, must be fully satisfied, in place and in effect (or somehow absolutely guaranteed)
before the rezoning is granted or becomes effective. To effectively prevent wildcat development
of one house per acre in Goldfield Ranch, my suggestion at the Nov. 7 hearing on CPA2024006
was that these sine qua non conditions that must be fully satisfied prior to effective rezoning
should, at minimum, include 1) a Certificate of 100 year Assured Water Supply, 2) physical and
legal availability of adequate electrical power, and 3) emergency fire protection services. There
may be others, such as adequate roads or sewage treatment facilities. Some such conditions
perhaps need not actually be established prior to effective rezoning because they could be
guaranteed by the posting of a sufficient bond. But any condition that cannot be absolutely
3 On July 15 I asked the Berry Riddell firm to provide me a copy of the “written report” required by Stipulation ‘h’
of Z2012090, which GRRH had agreed to file by April 23, 2018. The firm’s response on July 31 was: “The
previous stipulations will not apply as we are starting the process over to get these entitlements. The stipulations put
on this new case will supersede the stipulations in any previous case.” And yet on August 30, in response to my
pointing out that the conditions of the conditional zoning had not been and could not be satisfied, the firm
maintained: “Respectfully, Arizona law is clear that zoning is in place unless otherwise removed by the Board of
Supervisors. That has never occurred here.”
4 County Attorney: “What they will be proposing down the road is to rezone the property, which will do away with
the existing zoning and all those stipulations. So what the Judge is really asking is to ensure when you have the
zoning case, that those stipulations be applied to whatever zoning is put in place as a result of this Comprehensive
Plan Amendment. So I understand his argument, I understand his concerns, but they are misguided at this hearing
where all you’re dealing with is the Comprehensive Plan Amendment . . . .” Id. at 2:47:44.
3
guaranteed by a bond needs to be in place and in effect before the rezoning, and this would
probably include both the water and electricity which under current law and geographical
constraints cannot be guaranteed by any amount of money.
Nothing Precludes Planning and Development From Requiring Satisfaction of
Essential Conditions Prior to Effective Rezoning. The other point that I suggested the County
Attorney confirm for staff was that nothing in his analysis precludes Planning and Development
from requiring satisfaction of such conditions before the rezoning is granted. Although the
County Attorney did not expressly respond to my suggestion the conclusion is driven by his
analysis that the ineffectiveness of zoning-revocation stipulations derives from Proposition 207.
That analysis applies only when there are “existing rights to use, divide, sell or possess private
real property” (A.R.S. § 12-1134(A) (emphasis added)), such as a rezoning that has become an
effective entitlement. But because there is no “existing right” or entitlement to any rezoning,
there is no problem requiring satisfaction of such conditions before the rezoning, rather than
after. Therefore nothing in County Attorney’s analysis prevents Planning and Development
from imposing such conditions at the TAC meeting stage and requiring satisfaction of them
before the rezoning proceeds any further. That’s why I thought it important to clarify the County
Attorney’s analysis now (even though technically not relevant to CPA2024004), rather than
waiting until the Planning and Zoning Commission hears Z240006 sometime next year.
As you mentioned at our meeting on October 16, the developers’ common response is
that they need the rezoning first in order to obtain the financing necessary to provide the
infrastructure. But three facts of this unique situation render that canard inapplicable to
Goldfield Ranch: 1) this particular owner/applicant previously agreed to provide the
infrastructure of water and electricity by April 23, 2018, regardless of financing; 2) the particular
owner/applicant does not need any financing because it is itself a hedge fund and the financer of
what Ellman Companies proposed as an even larger, more expensive development that even
included a sewage treatment plant; and 3) no financing is capable of creating a Certificate of
100-year Assured Water Supply or a statement from SRP if in fact either the water or the
electrical power is legally or physically unavailable. These essential conditions are not as simple
as paving roads. The mere addition of Grayhawk’s brand and its 80 acres to GRRH’s 1,861
acres does not change the significance of these fundamental facts and certainly do not support
any rationalization of why the owner needs rezoning of land that cannot be legally subdivided.
Sincerely,
Randolph J. Haines
cc: Mr. Nick Schlimm, Planner
Mr. Joseph Mueller, Planner
Mr. Larry Lazarus, Esq.
Mr. Stephen Anderson, Esq.
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Rachel Applegate (PND)
Sent:
Thursday, November 7, 2024 4:21 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Subject:
FW: Online Form Submittal: Objection of Planning and Zoning Commission
Recommendation
From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2024 8:41 AM
To: PND PZAppeal <PNDPZAppeal@maricopa.gov>
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Objection of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
Objection of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation Objection Form If the Planning & Zoning Commi ssion recommends approval of a parti cular case it will be placed on a consent agenda for the Board of Supervisors hearing. However, i f
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Objection of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
Objection Form
If the Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval of a particular case it
will be placed on a consent agenda for the Board of Supervisors hearing. However,
if this objection form is received within 15 calendar days following Commission
hearing, then the agenda item will be placed on the regular agenda for the Board of
Supervisors hearing.
Name
Adam Trenk
Email Address
amt@adamtrenk.com
Address
PO BOX 4246
City
Cave Creek
State
AZ
Zip Code
85327
Phone Number
6024023335
Fax Number
Field not completed.
Case Number / Project
Name
CPA2024004 – Goldfield Ranch
2
Planning & Zoning
Commission Hearing Date
11/7/2024
Reason for the Objection of
the Subject Case
Proper procedure has not been followed in this case. Please
see below summary of the legal issues:
From: Hannah Nies
Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 4:51 PM
To: John Kavanagh ; Chase Boeke
Subject: RE: development master plan; extension
Hi Senator Kavanagh,
After we chatted on Monday, we did some additional research
per your request. We were originally under the impression that
this item was on the consent calendar on this week's Maricopa
County Board of Supervisors' agenda. We discovered that this
item is actually on this week's Planning & Zoning Commission
agenda (see here). This allowed us to track down what we
believe is the report to the Planning & Zoning Commission
relating to the project summary, which was prepared by the
Maricopa County Planning & Development Department (see
here). Due to time constraints, we have been unable to review
the entire 139-page report. However, we have reviewed it in
part, and it provides additional context and clarity regarding
what is being considered by the county.
As we originally understood the issue based on the information
provided, the county was taking action to extend a property's
conditional zoning status without complying with the notice and
hearing requirements prescribed in A.R.S. section 11-814,
subsection I. The constituent wanted to know whether this
action was permissible under the statute. However, after review
of the report referenced above, it appears that the item on the
agenda is something slightly different.
The report summarizes the request as a "Major
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to amend future land
use designation in the Goldfield Area Plan from The Preserve
Development Master Plan (DMP) to Single Family – Rural (0-1
du/ac)." See page 1 of report. In two different places in the
exhibits section of the report, an individual named Mr.
Randolph J. Haines (director & secretary of the Goldfield
Property Owners Association) describes the A.R.S. section 11-
814, subsection I issue (once in a letter to the county manager
and once in a letter to the county planner). These excepts are
pasted at the end of this email for your reference.
3
According to Mr. Haines, it seems that the issue is that the
conditional zoning status expired and was extended for a five-
year period. At the time of the extension, there was an
agreement between the board of supervisors and the owner
that the owner would file a status report by April of 2018. In
March of 2019, the owner still hadn't submitted the required
report, so the county manager issued a notice letter requiring
compliance by May 30, 2019. The letter allegedly stated that
the report needed to be completed and considered by the
board of supervisors (at the request of the commission) to
consider whether the property should revert back to its former
zoning classification or whether the conditional zoning status
should be extended for an additional five years. The report has
not yet been submitted (though Mr. Haines is arguing that the
application for a comprehensive plan amendment constitutes a
report), and thus the county has not yet held the hearing to
extend or revoke the property's conditional zoning status as
required under A.R.S. section 11-814, subsection I. According
to Mr. Haines, this major comprehensive plan amendment
constitutes the owner "starting the process over." (Please note
that we were unable to verify the factual accuracy of Mr.
Haines' statements but are assuming for the purposes of this
email that they are true.)
Thus, the issue is not that the county is taking action to extend
the conditional zoning status of a property without complying
with the notice and hearing requirements of A.R.S. section 11-
814, subsection I. Rather, the issue is that the county is not
taking action to hold the hearing to consider whether to extend
the conditional zoning status of the property or whether to
cause the property to revert to its former zoning classification.
So it seems that the underlying question here is: does A.R.S.
section 11-814, subsection I require the county to hold a
hearing to extend the conditional zoning status of the property
for an additional five-year period even though the owner has
not yet submitted the requisite report that the county was
supposed to consider at the hearing?
A.R.S. section 11-814, subsection I provides in its entirety as
follows:
The board may approve a change of zone conditioned on a
schedule for development of the specific use or uses for which
rezoning is requested. If at the expiration of this period the
property has not been improved for the use for which it was
conditionally approved, the board after notification by certified
mail to the owner and applicant who requested the rezoning
4
shall schedule a public hearing to grant an extension,
determine compliance with the schedule for development or
cause the property to revert to its former zoning classification.
(Emphasis added). By using the word "shall," the Legislature
imposed upon county boards of supervisors a duty to act when
a conditional zoning period expires. See State ex rel. Brnovich
v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, 250 Ariz. 127, 132 (2020) ("The
term 'shall' is usually mandatory."). Thus, since it is our
understanding that the five-year extension period granted
under A.R.S. section 11-814, subsection I has expired & the
expiration of the extension is not tied to the submittal of the
report, the county board of supervisors is required under A.R.S.
section 11-814, subsection I to hold the hearing to either
extend the conditional zoning, determine compliance with the
schedule for development or cause the property to revert to its
former zoning classification. The fact that the owner has not
submitted the report does not influence our conclusion that the
county must hold the hearing. However, it is worth noting that
A.R.S. section 11-814, subsection I does not provide a
timeframe by which the county must hold the hearing.
Finally, with this new information, it does not appear that our
conversation regarding protected development right plans is
relevant.
Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
Best,
Hannah Nies
Excerpt from letter from Mr. Haines to the county manager (see
pages 72-73 of report):
As you know the conditional zoning that was granted to the
Ellman Companies for the Preserve at Goldfield Ranch
included a five-year deadline. The hedge fund that foreclosed
on the property, Goldfield Ranch Realty Holdings (GRRH),
sought and obtained a five-year extension of that conditional
zoning in DMP2012004 and Z20120090. One of the conditions
imposed by the Board of Supervisors, and agreed to by GRRH,
was that GRRH must file a comprehensive six-element statuts
report by April 23, 2018. GRRH failed to comply, and in your
capacity as Director of Planning and Development you issued a
default notice on March 21, 2019, requiring compliance by May
30, 2019. As you noted in your default letter, the required
“report shall be scheduled for public hearing by the Maricopa
County Board of Supervisors (Board) upon recommendation by
5
the Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission
(Commission), to consider whether zoning shall be reverted
back to Rural-190 or whether the conditional zoning shall be
maintained for an additional five-year period” (emphasis
added).
Why in the five years since that default has Planning and
Zoning not scheduled a hearing to recommend whether to
revert the zoning back to R-190 or to continue the now
abandoned conditional zoning? Has that hearing been avoided
simply by GRRH refusing to file the report it was required to
file? Well now we have a “report” because GRRH’s application
for a comprehensive plan amendment, stating its intent to
“remove” most of the property from the DMP and “starting the
process over,” cannot be interpreted as anything other than a
report that the status of the conditional zoning project is dead
and abandoned. So what is the process to get this “report” on
Planning and Zoning Commission’s agenda to revert the
zoning to R-190?
We can expect that the GRRH lawyer will object that her
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Narrative CPA2024004 and
rezoning application were not intended to be the required
status report that triggers the required zoning reversion
hearing. But the planning law in Arizona has rejected that
excuse for almost four decades: her “reasoning would permit
the [county] to perpetually avoid urban planning by leaving out
any element or any subdivision of an element” of the report
required by DMP2012004 Condition ‘c’. “A rose by any other
name, however, still smells as sweet, and the County cannot
avoid implementation” of Condition ‘c’ by stating the requested
abandonment is not a status report. Haines v. City of Phoenix,
151 Ariz. 286, 289 (App. 1986).
Excerpt from letter from Mr. Haines to the county planner (see
also pages 96-97):
On April 24, 2013, the County Board of Supervisors required
GRRH to file a written report on the “status of the project”
known as the Preserve DMP. This was one of the conditions of
the conditional zoning that GRRH today calls its “entitlement.”
Z2012090 Condition ‘h’; see also DMP2012004 Condition ‘c’.
The Board of Supervisors also required that “this report shall
be scheduled for public hearing” ‘to consider whether the
zoning shall be reverted back to Rural190 or whether the
conditional zoning shall be maintained for an additional five
year period.” Id.
6
GRRH defaulted on its obligation to file that report for over six
years, even after having been notified of its default by the
Director’s default notice of March 21, 2019. But now we finally
have a partial status report. Undeniably, GRRH now reports
that the status of both the Preserve DMP and the conditional
zoning is: Dead and Abandoned. Having sought “removal” of
almost 80% of the land from the DMP, the remaining 20%
cannot survive on its own except 4 as a zombie. And GRRH
expressly refuses to comply with any of its obligations under
the Conditions because it contends “we are starting the
process over to get these entitlements” so the “stipulation of
the previous case . . . will not apply.”
Undoubtedly GRRH will object that it did not intend its
comprehensive plan amendment to be the report that it agreed
to submit by 2018. But while it is neither sufficiently detailed nor
titled “Report” it satisfies the fundamental purpose for which the
Board of Supervisors required it – to determine whether the
conditional zoning should be extended or reverted to R-190.
Since neither the owner nor anyone else wants the conditional
zoning to be extended and the zombie zoning can serve no
function, nothing more need be said. Neither GRRH nor the
County can evade their obligations under Z2012090 Condition
‘h’ simply by applying a different label to the documents. As the
Court of Appeals held, “A rose by any other name, however,
still smells as sweet, and the city cannot avoid implementation
of the statute by creating a plan and then stating it is not one.”
Haines v. City of Phoenix, 151 Ariz. 286, 289 (App. Div. 1
1986). The only way for the County to comply with the
requirements of its own Condition ‘h’ is for Planning and
Development to put conditional zoning continuation/revocation
on the agenda of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Since the status report now exists and it is already being
scheduled for public hearing before the Planning and Zoning
Commission, it is incumbent on Planning and Development
staff to advise the Planning and Zoning Commission that it has
two jobs to accomplish when it holds its public hearing on this
report: recommend whether to amend the Goldfield Area Plan,
and recommend whether to revert the zoning to R-190 or
continue the zombie zoning, subject to impossible conditions,
for another five years. Perhaps staff might conclude that it has
another ministerial job, to add “Z2012090” and “DMP2012004”
below the caption of CPA2024004.
After more than six years of default the continuation/revocation
hearing is particularly appropriate and necessary now, when
GRRH’s rezoning and CPA applications are pending. The
7
narratives for these two applications rely heavily, if not virtually
exclusively, on comparisons to the purported “entitlement” of
the Preserve DMP and on the characterization of
“downzoning,” lower density or reduction in lots compared to
the Preserve DMP. The claimed existing entitlements are
referenced at least seven (7) times and the downzoning or lot
reduction at least thirteen (13) times in the two applications,
more than the total number of pages in these applications.
Absent these comparisons, GRRH has offered not a single
reason why R-43 zoning and 712 lots on septic tanks, without
adequate water or electricity, is a better plan than the existing
R-190 zoning for which there may be adequate water and
electricity.
GRRH is currently seeking to benefit from the purported
continued existence of the conditional zoning – zoning that
undoubtedly would not exist today but for GRRH’s breach of
Condition ‘h’. It is seeking a current benefit, indeed a windfall,
from its own six-year default. While equity should not allow this
to proceed at all, at minimum it invites and necessitates a
determination of whether those supposed higher density
entitlements should still exist, even as paper zombies that can
function as argumentative red herrings when the defaulting
GRRH’s applications come on for hearing. The time is right to
give the Board of Supervisors what it expected over six years
ago – an opportunity to revert the zombie zoning.
Electronic Signature
Agreement
I agree.
Electronic Signature
Adam Trenk
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Rachel Applegate (PND)
Sent:
Thursday, November 7, 2024 3:28 PM
To:
amt@adamtrenk.com
Cc:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Subject:
RE: 11-7-24 FW: Preserve at Goldfield ranch - Planning and Zoning Agenda Item 11
Case CPA2024004
Good afternoon Adam,
Please note this came in today at 9:00 which was too late for me to provide to the Commission. The agenda
does state to provide documentation at least 24 hours prior to hearing. We will make this e-mail
correspondence as part of the Board of Supervisors report attachments to the case.
Thank you,
Rachel Applegate
Senior Planner
Planning & Development
301 W. Jefferson St. Suite 170 Phoenix, AZ 85003
O: 602-372-0318
[ Maricopa.Gov ]
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube | LinkedIn
From: amt@adamtrenk.com <amt@adamtrenk.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2024 9:00 AM
To: Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: FW: 11-7-24 FW: Preserve at Goldfield ranch - Planning and Zoning Agenda Item 11 Case CPA2024004
From: amt @ adamtrenk. com <amt@ adamtrenk. com> Sent: T hursday, November 7, 2024 9: 55 AM To: APPLEGATER@ mail. maricop a. gov Cc: jack. sellers@ maricopa. gov; district2@ maricopa. gov; district3@ mail. maricopa. gov ; clint . hickm an@ maricopa. gov; district5@ mail. maricopa. gov
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBanner End
From: amt@adamtrenk.com <amt@adamtrenk.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2024 9:55 AM
To: APPLEGATER@mail.maricopa.gov
Cc: jack.sellers@maricopa.gov; district2@maricopa.gov; district3@mail.maricopa.gov; clint.hickman@maricopa.gov;
district5@mail.maricopa.gov
Subject: 11-7-24 FW: Preserve at Goldfield ranch - Planning and Zoning Agenda Item 12
Ms. Applegate,
This email comes in advance of my virtual participation in this morning’s hearing. Please make sure this email is in
the record and that the Planning and Zoning Commissioners receive it. Yours is the only email listed to contact the
Commissioners on the County Website: https://www.maricopa.gov/Directory.aspx?did=311
2
I stand firmly opposed to the recommendation to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment impacting
Goldfield Ranch.
Please see below in this email:
1) Copied email from Legislative Counsel Hanna Nies describing serious legal issues concerning this matter
2) An emails string send to the County Supervisors concerning the same.
Please also note, aside from the legal issues there is a host of land planning concerns which I believe have been
adequately captured in the other opposition letters, and I echo those sentiments.
-Adam M. Trenk
(1)
From: Hannah Nies <HNies@azleg.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 4:51 PM
To: John Kavanagh <JKavanagh@azleg.gov>; Chase Boeke <CBoeke@azleg.gov>
Subject: RE: development master plan; extension
Hi Senator Kavanagh,
After we chatted on Monday, we did some additional research per your request. We were originally under
the impression that this item was on the consent calendar on this week's Maricopa County Board of
Supervisors' agenda. We discovered that this item is actually on this week's Planning & Zoning
Commission agenda (see here). This allowed us to track down what we believe is the report to the
Planning & Zoning Commission relating to the project summary, which was prepared by the Maricopa
County Planning & Development Department (see here). Due to time constraints, we have been unable
to review the entire 139-page report. However, we have reviewed it in part, and it provides additional
context and clarity regarding what is being considered by the county.
As we originally understood the issue based on the information provided, the county was taking action to
extend a property's conditional zoning status without complying with the notice and hearing
requirements prescribed in A.R.S. section 11-814, subsection I. The constituent wanted to know whether
this action was permissible under the statute. However, after review of the report referenced above, it
appears that the item on the agenda is something slightly different.
The report summarizes the request as a "Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to amend future
land use designation in the Goldfield Area Plan from The Preserve Development Master Plan (DMP) to
Single Family – Rural (0-1 du/ac)." See page 1 of report. In two different places in the exhibits section of
3
the report, an individual named Mr. Randolph J. Haines (director & secretary of the Goldfield Property
Owners Association) describes the A.R.S. section 11-814, subsection I issue (once in a letter to the
county manager and once in a letter to the county planner). These excepts are pasted at the end of this
email for your reference.
According to Mr. Haines, it seems that the issue is that the conditional zoning status expired and was
extended for a five-year period. At the time of the extension, there was an agreement between the board
of supervisors and the owner that the owner would file a status report by April of 2018. In March of 2019,
the owner still hadn't submitted the required report, so the county manager issued a notice letter
requiring compliance by May 30, 2019. The letter allegedly stated that the report needed to be completed
and considered by the board of supervisors (at the request of the commission) to consider whether the
property should revert back to its former zoning classification or whether the conditional zoning status
should be extended for an additional five years. The report has not yet been submitted (though Mr.
Haines is arguing that the application for a comprehensive plan amendment constitutes a report), and
thus the county has not yet held the hearing to extend or revoke the property's conditional zoning status
as required under A.R.S. section 11-814, subsection I. According to Mr. Haines, this major
comprehensive plan amendment constitutes the owner "starting the process over." (Please note that we
were unable to verify the factual accuracy of Mr. Haines' statements but are assuming for the purposes
of this email that they are true.)
Thus, the issue is not that the county is taking action to extend the conditional zoning status of a property
without complying with the notice and hearing requirements of A.R.S. section 11-814, subsection I.
Rather, the issue is that the county is not taking action to hold the hearing to consider whether to extend
the conditional zoning status of the property or whether to cause the property to revert to its former
zoning classification.
So it seems that the underlying question here is: does A.R.S. section 11-814, subsection I require the
county to hold a hearing to extend the conditional zoning status of the property for an additional five-year
period even though the owner has not yet submitted the requisite report that the county was supposed to
consider at the hearing?
A.R.S. section 11-814, subsection I provides in its entirety as follows:
The board may approve a change of zone conditioned on a schedule for development of the specific use
or uses for which rezoning is requested. If at the expiration of this period the property has not been
improved for the use for which it was conditionally approved, the board after notification by certified mail
to the owner and applicant who requested the rezoning shall schedule a public hearing to grant an
4
extension, determine compliance with the schedule for development or cause the property to revert to its
former zoning classification.
(Emphasis added). By using the word "shall," the Legislature imposed upon county boards of supervisors
a duty to act when a conditional zoning period expires. See State ex rel. Brnovich v. Arizona Bd. of
Regents, 250 Ariz. 127, 132 (2020) ("The term 'shall' is usually mandatory."). Thus, since it is our
understanding that the five-year extension period granted under A.R.S. section 11-814, subsection I has
expired & the expiration of the extension is not tied to the submittal of the report, the county board of
supervisors is required under A.R.S. section 11-814, subsection I to hold the hearing to either extend the
conditional zoning, determine compliance with the schedule for development or cause the property to
revert to its former zoning classification. The fact that the owner has not submitted the report does not
influence our conclusion that the county must hold the hearing. However, it is worth noting that A.R.S.
section 11-814, subsection I does not provide a timeframe by which the county must hold the hearing.
Finally, with this new information, it does not appear that our conversation regarding protected
development right plans is relevant.
Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
Best,
Hannah Nies
Excerpt from letter from Mr. Haines to the county manager (see pages 72-73 of report):
As you know the conditional zoning that was granted to the Ellman Companies for the Preserve at
Goldfield Ranch included a five-year deadline. The hedge fund that foreclosed on the property, Goldfield
Ranch Realty Holdings (GRRH), sought and obtained a five-year extension of that conditional zoning in
DMP2012004 and Z20120090. One of the conditions imposed by the Board of Supervisors, and agreed to
by GRRH, was that GRRH must file a comprehensive six-element statuts report by April 23, 2018. GRRH
failed to comply, and in your capacity as Director of Planning and Development you issued a default
notice on March 21, 2019, requiring compliance by May 30, 2019. As you noted in your default letter, the
required “report shall be scheduled for public hearing by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
(Board) upon recommendation by the Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission (Commission),
to consider whether zoning shall be reverted back to Rural-190 or whether the conditional zoning shall be
maintained for an additional five-year period” (emphasis added).
5
Why in the five years since that default has Planning and Zoning not scheduled a hearing to recommend
whether to revert the zoning back to R-190 or to continue the now abandoned conditional zoning? Has
that hearing been avoided simply by GRRH refusing to file the report it was required to file? Well now we
have a “report” because GRRH’s application for a comprehensive plan amendment, stating its intent to
“remove” most of the property from the DMP and “starting the process over,” cannot be interpreted as
anything other than a report that the status of the conditional zoning project is dead and abandoned. So
what is the process to get this “report” on Planning and Zoning Commission’s agenda to revert the zoning
to R-190?
We can expect that the GRRH lawyer will object that her Comprehensive Plan Amendment Narrative
CPA2024004 and rezoning application were not intended to be the required status report that triggers the
required zoning reversion hearing. But the planning law in Arizona has rejected that excuse for almost
four decades: her “reasoning would permit the [county] to perpetually avoid urban planning by leaving
out any element or any subdivision of an element” of the report required by DMP2012004 Condition ‘c’.
“A rose by any other name, however, still smells as sweet, and the County cannot avoid implementation”
of Condition ‘c’ by stating the requested abandonment is not a status report. Haines v. City of Phoenix,
151 Ariz. 286, 289 (App. 1986).
Excerpt from letter from Mr. Haines to the county planner (see also pages 96-97):
On April 24, 2013, the County Board of Supervisors required GRRH to file a written report on the “status of
the project” known as the Preserve DMP. This was one of the conditions of the conditional zoning that
GRRH today calls its “entitlement.” Z2012090 Condition ‘h’; see also DMP2012004 Condition ‘c’. The
Board of Supervisors also required that “this report shall be scheduled for public hearing” ‘to consider
whether the zoning shall be reverted back to Rural190 or whether the conditional zoning shall be
maintained for an additional five year period.” Id.
GRRH defaulted on its obligation to file that report for over six years, even after having been notified of its
default by the Director’s default notice of March 21, 2019. But now we finally have a partial status report.
Undeniably, GRRH now reports that the status of both the Preserve DMP and the conditional zoning is:
Dead and Abandoned. Having sought “removal” of almost 80% of the land from the DMP, the remaining
20% cannot survive on its own except 4 as a zombie. And GRRH expressly refuses to comply with any of
its obligations under the Conditions because it contends “we are starting the process over to get these
entitlements” so the “stipulation of the previous case . . . will not apply.”
6
Undoubtedly GRRH will object that it did not intend its comprehensive plan amendment to be the report
that it agreed to submit by 2018. But while it is neither sufficiently detailed nor titled “Report” it satisfies
the fundamental purpose for which the Board of Supervisors required it – to determine whether the
conditional zoning should be extended or reverted to R-190. Since neither the owner nor anyone else
wants the conditional zoning to be extended and the zombie zoning can serve no function, nothing more
need be said. Neither GRRH nor the County can evade their obligations under Z2012090 Condition ‘h’
simply by applying a different label to the documents. As the Court of Appeals held, “A rose by any other
name, however, still smells as sweet, and the city cannot avoid implementation of the statute by creating
a plan and then stating it is not one.” Haines v. City of Phoenix, 151 Ariz. 286, 289 (App. Div. 1 1986). The
only way for the County to comply with the requirements of its own Condition ‘h’ is for Planning and
Development to put conditional zoning continuation/revocation on the agenda of the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Since the status report now exists and it is already being scheduled for public hearing before the Planning
and Zoning Commission, it is incumbent on Planning and Development staff to advise the Planning and
Zoning Commission that it has two jobs to accomplish when it holds its public hearing on this report:
recommend whether to amend the Goldfield Area Plan, and recommend whether to revert the zoning to
R-190 or continue the zombie zoning, subject to impossible conditions, for another five years. Perhaps
staff might conclude that it has another ministerial job, to add “Z2012090” and “DMP2012004” below the
caption of CPA2024004.
After more than six years of default the continuation/revocation hearing is particularly appropriate and
necessary now, when GRRH’s rezoning and CPA applications are pending. The narratives for these two
applications rely heavily, if not virtually exclusively, on comparisons to the purported “entitlement” of the
Preserve DMP and on the characterization of “downzoning,” lower density or reduction in lots compared
to the Preserve DMP. The claimed existing entitlements are referenced at least seven (7) times and the
downzoning or lot reduction at least thirteen (13) times in the two applications, more than the total
number of pages in these applications. Absent these comparisons, GRRH has offered not a single reason
why R-43 zoning and 712 lots on septic tanks, without adequate water or electricity, is a better plan than
the existing R-190 zoning for which there may be adequate water and electricity.
GRRH is currently seeking to benefit from the purported continued existence of the conditional zoning –
zoning that undoubtedly would not exist today but for GRRH’s breach of Condition ‘h’. It is seeking a
current benefit, indeed a windfall, from its own six-year default. While equity should not allow this to
proceed at all, at minimum it invites and necessitates a determination of whether those supposed higher
density entitlements should still exist, even as paper zombies that can function as argumentative red
herrings when the defaulting GRRH’s applications come on for hearing. The time is right to give the Board
of Supervisors what it expected over six years ago – an opportunity to revert the zombie zoning.
(2)
7
From: amt@adamtrenk.com <amt@adamtrenk.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2024 11:45 AM
To: jack.sellers@maricopa.gov; district2@maricopa.gov; district3@mail.maricopa.gov; clint.hickman@maricopa.gov;
district5@mail.maricopa.gov
Subject: FW: Preserve at Goldfield ranch - Planning and Zoning Agenda Item 12 11-7-24
Dear County Supervisors,
Please see the below copied email sent to your colleague Supervisor Tom Galvin last evening, and draw your
attention to the application for a Major Amendment to the Comprehensive plan which should be taken off the P&Z
agenda for a number of reasons. The below correspondence with attachments summarizes the issues.
The residents who live and enjoy the greater Goldfield Ranch area have a lot at stake. If the County deems the
amendment and later subsequent rezoning as appropriate that decision has time to be made, however the
foundation for the request in its current form is faulty. Should this matter be allowed to proceed as is, it goes
beyond that, and sets a horrific precedent for all of Maricopa County.
Abdicating authority to the County Attorney to keep expired agreements in force in this manner erodes the powers
your constituents have entrusted you with.
I beseech you to see to it that this matter is tabled until the legal questions behind this application can be vetted
and resolved as appropriate.
Sincerely,
Adam M. Trenk, Esq.
From: amt@adamtrenk.com <amt@adamtrenk.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 6:28 PM
To: District2@maricopa.gov
Subject: Preserve at Goldfield ranch - Planning and Zoning Agenda Item 12 11-7-24
Supervisor Galvin,
You are in my thoughts as the poles draw to a close, I hope that you will remain the Supervisor for District 2, the
people are lucky to have you.
I write to you about the following agenda item referenced in the subject of this email:
https://www.maricopa.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/9407?fileID=90892Below
Copied below is an email from legislative counsel to the State Senate describing some legal issues surrounding
the pending matter. Also attached is a letter to the applicant from 2019, which they failed to be responsive to. In
the normal course of things such a failure to respond should have resulted in the expiration of the Development
Master Plan. Unfortunately for the neighbors in this area, the County attorney has taken the position that Goldfield
Ranch Realty Holdings’ failure to apply for an extension was meaningless (despite being a specific criteria for its
survival, as referenced in the attached letter), and it is now being used as a basis for the pending application for a
major comprehensive plan amendment.
If you read the staff report, it is clear that there are serious issues that will impact the region if this is approved. In
what I can only describe is the consequence of intellectual laziness or an effort to appease an applicant (an
occurrence so rare I can hardly believe it is happening here) staff is still recommending approval and suggest these
matters are dealt with at the rezoning phase.
8
Notwithstanding the substantive issues, this is a legal faux pas. There is no way that the development master plan
can remain in place, it expired more than five years ago. A retiring County attorney does not have the authority to
unilaterally determine otherwise. If this is allowed to go through it puts this project one step closer to an uncertain
fruition, inevitably resulting in an economic and legal drag on the county while pitting the interests of private
citizen/residents against the county and a developer. The application for the comprehensive master plan cannot
and should not rely on the contents of the development master plan which is no longer valid.
By virtue of this email, I am asking on behalf of several neighbors with whom I am affiliated through various
common interests in the equestrian community (many of whom have already written letters of opposition) to use
your position of power and have this item pulled from the agenda so that this matter can be more properly vetted.
An application with such sweeping ramifications should not be processed with haste, particularly when it has
such a cloud hanging over it.
Thank you again for your attention to this and thank you in advance for working on behalf of the desert rural
residents of Goldfield Ranch to slow this down and address the inconsistencies in procedure here.
Sincerely,
Adam M. Trenk, Esq
From: Hannah Nies <HNies@azleg.gov>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 1:50 PM
To: John Kavanagh <JKavanagh@azleg.gov>
Cc: Chase Boeke <CBoeke@azleg.gov>; Leigh Anne Timiney <LTiminey@azleg.gov>
Subject: development master plan; extension
Senator Kavanagh:
As we understand it, years ago, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors approved a change of zone
conditioned on a schedule for development of the specific use or uses for which rezoning was requested
under A.R.S. section 11-814, subsection I. We assume that this schedule for development was laid out in
the development master plan (DMP). The DMP expired in 2017, and the property has not been improved
for the use for which it was conditionally approved as outlined in the DMP. We have been told that the
Board of Supervisors is going to "revive" the DMP for the purpose of codifying the DMP's contemplated
zoning. Based on our understanding of what has previously occurred, it does not appear that the board
has complied with the procedures outlined in A.R.S. section 11-814, subsection I relating to extending
conditionally approved zoning.
You have asked us whether the Board of Supervisors may extend conditionally approved zoning (by way
of reviving an expired DMP) without complying with the procedures outlined in A.R.S. section 11-814,
subsection I.
9
The law-making authority of a county is entirely derivative. Hart v. Bayless Inv. & Trading Co., 86 Ariz.
379, 384 (1959). A county only has the powers that are expressly conferred by statute or that are
necessarily implied from the statutory authority. Maricopa Cnty. v. S. Pacific Co., 63 Ariz. 342, 347
(1945). Thus, "[t]he issue must be approached from the affirmative, that is, what constitutional or
statutory authority can the county rely upon to support its questioned conduct?" Maricopa Cnty. v.
Black, 19 Ariz.App. 239, 241 (1973).
A.R.S. section 11-814, subsection I provides in its entirety as follows:
The board may approve a change of zone conditioned on a schedule for development of the specific use
or uses for which rezoning is requested. If at the expiration of this period the property has not been
improved for the use for which it was conditionally approved, the board after notification by certified mail
to the owner and applicant who requested the rezoning shall schedule a public hearing to grant an
extension, determine compliance with the schedule for development or cause the property to revert to its
former zoning classification.
This provision prescribes a process that a county must follow when property has not been improved for
the use for which it was conditionally approved as of the agreed upon expiration date. The board of
supervisors is required to notify the applicant and owner who requested the rezoning and schedule a
public hearing to grant an extension, determine compliance with the schedule for development or cause
the property to revert to its former zoning classification. Thus, the board of supervisors may not extend
conditional zoning approval without complying with this process.
Additionally, based on the information that was provided to us, it is unclear whether the DMP is a
protected development right plan as defined in A.R.S. section 11-1201. If it is indeed a protected
development right plan, the duration and extension of the plan is prescribed under A.R.S. section 11-
1203.
Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
Best,
Hannah Nies
--
John Kavanagh
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Rachel Applegate (PND)
Sent:
Thursday, November 7, 2024 4:21 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Subject:
FW: Online Form Submittal: Objection of Planning and Zoning Commission
Recommendation
From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2024 8:52 AM
To: PND PZAppeal <PNDPZAppeal@maricopa.gov>
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Objection of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
Objection of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation Objection Form If the Planning & Zoning Commi ssion recommends approval of a parti cular case it will be placed on a consent agenda for the Board of Supervisors hearing. However, i f
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Objection of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
Objection Form
If the Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval of a particular case it
will be placed on a consent agenda for the Board of Supervisors hearing. However,
if this objection form is received within 15 calendar days following Commission
hearing, then the agenda item will be placed on the regular agenda for the Board of
Supervisors hearing.
Name
Julianne Schubert
Email Address
Juli@toptierweb.com
Address
12901 N Vista Del Oro
City
Fort McDowell
State
AZ
Zip Code
85264
Phone Number
6313756280
Fax Number
Field not completed.
Case Number / Project
Name
CPA2024004/ The Preserve at Goldhawk
2
Planning & Zoning
Commission Hearing Date
11/7/2024
Reason for the Objection of
the Subject Case
Concerns of limited resources and utilities, such as water, fire
response, electricity and environmental impact due to light
pollution, noise pollution, traffic, disturbance of habitat for bald
eagles and other coveted species, as well as pollution to the
Salt River from the proposed 713 septic systems that will be
located adjacent to the Salt River.
Electronic Signature
Agreement
I agree.
Electronic Signature
Julianne Schubert
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Rachel Applegate (PND)
Sent:
Friday, November 8, 2024 7:08 AM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Subject:
FW: Opposition CPA2024004 Gold Hawk at the Preserve
From: Larry Webster <larry.webster.az@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2024 5:16 PM
To: Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Opposition CPA2024004 Gold Hawk at the Preserve
Hello Mrs. Applegate, me and my wife’s opposition letters are attached. Thank you, Larry Webster
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from
new senders. Always validate the sender first.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Hello Mrs. Applegate, me and my wife’s opposition letters are attached.
Thank you,
Larry Webster
2
3
Larry Webster
Sent from my iPhone
CPA2024004
Page 1 of 8
Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case:
CPA2024004 – Goldhawk at the Preserve
Hearing Date:
November 7, 2024
Supervisor District:
2
Applicant:
Wendy Riddell, Berry Riddell LLC
Owner:
Goldfield Ranch Realty Holdings
Request:
Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) to amend future land use
designation in the Goldfield Area Plan from The Preserve Development
Master Plan (DMP) to Single Family – Rural (0-1 du/ac)
Site Location:
Generally located on the northwest side of SR 87 east of the Verde River -
north of the NWC and NEC of Burnt Water Rd. and SR 87 in the Fort
McDowell area
Site Size:
About 1,728 acres
Density:
(0-1 du/ac)
County Island:
No
County Plan:
Goldfield Area Plan – The Preserve DMP (multiple residential densities)
Municipal Plan:
N/A
Municipal Comments:
None received to date
Support/Opposition:
26 letters representing 24 individuals in opposition
Recommendation:
Approve
CPA2024004
Page 2 of 8
Project Summary:
1.
The applicant is proposing major comprehensive plan amendment (CPA) to remove the subject
site from The Preserve Development Master Plan (DMP) and amend the Goldfield Area Plan’s
future land use designation to Single Family – Rural (0-1 du/ac). This will constitute a major
reimagination of The Preserve DMP, and some surrounding properties. Staff notes that while the
subject request is for about 1,728 acres the overall area for the proposed residential development
covers about 1,941 acres. The remaining acreage not subject to the proposed land use
amendment is already designated for rural densities. The proposed CPA will support the related
zone change case, Z240006, which the applicant is seeking to change the zoning designation
over the site from R1-8 RUPD, Rural-43 RUPD, and Rual-70 RUPD to Rural-43 RUPD.
Regional Vicinity of Subject Site Provided by Applicant
2.
The subject area has an extensive and storied history over the last three decades. The existing
zoning entitlements and DMP over the subject area have been in place in various iterations since
the early 1990s. Recent history on the site revolving the current pursuit began with preapplication
meeting PA2024034, which was held on March 26, 2024. The applicant subsequently applied for
the subject major CPA request, with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting being held
on July 2, 2024. The associated Zone Change with Overlay case, Z240006, was applied for on July
12, 2024.
3.
The narrative asserts that the proposed development meets the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment criteria in the following manner:
CPA2024004
Page 3 of 8
Whether the amendment constitutes an overall improvement to the Comprehensive Plan and is
not solely for the good or benefit of a particular landowner or owners at a particular point in time.
The narrative states that the proposed amendment will allow the site to develop at rural densities.
The applicant argues this is an improvement to the area plan as it will constitute lower density
than current land use designations allow and will result in increased swaths of land that will
remain undisturbed, maintaining the rural nature of the subject area.
Whether the amendment will adversely impact all or a portion of the planning area.
A.
Altering acceptable land use patterns to the detriment of the plan – The narrative states
that the proposed land use designation is more in line with the existing rural residential
development that exists east of the subject site. The narrative also states the proposed
land use will allow for the preservation of natural topography and washes through the site.
B.
Requiring public expenditures for larger or more expensive infrastructure – The narrative
states that all infrastructure for vehicular access, septic, water, among others will be
assumed by the developer. The site will be developed with a private roadway network that
will be maintained by a homeowner’s association.
C.
Adversely impacting planned uses because of increased traffic – The narrative states
that the proposed land use designation will have a lower traffic burden than current land
use designations allow.
D.
Affecting the livability of the area or health or safety of present and future residents –
The applicant states the intent of the request is to allow the site to develop
complementary to the existing land uses.
E.
Adversely impacting the natural environment or scenic quality of the area in
contradiction to the plan – The applicant states that the project will not significantly
impact the natural environment. The narrative further states that each phase will be
thoughtfully designed to minimize the impact on the natural environment.
Animals
The narrative does not speak to potential impact on wildlife populations in the area
despite the site being surrounded by vast natural lands and close to the Verde River to the
west.
Scenic Views
The narrative does not go speak to potential impact on scenic and natural views. Staff
notes the US Forest Service reached out to staff following initial secondary case routing
to express concern the proposal may reduce access to existing trail systems in the Tonto
National Forest. The service did not provide examples of what specific trails they were
concerned about and the narrative remains silent on this matter.
Whether the amendment is consistent with the overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant’s narrative states that the request will be more compatible with the rest of the
Goldfield Area Plan than the existing Preserve DMP because it will create a cohesive and unified
land use designation. The narrative states the proposed land use designation will allow for a
large lot residential development that will compliment the existing Goldfield Ranch residences.
CPA2024004
Page 4 of 8
The extent to which the amendment is consistent with the specific goals and policies contained
within the plan.
The applicant’s narrative contains a substantial list of goals and policies from the Vision 2030
Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan as well as the Goldfield Area Plan. This staff report
identifies which goals and policies the applicant’s narrative addressed.
Vision 2030 Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Element – Goal 1, Policy 22, Policy 27
Transportation Element –Goal 2
Environment Element –Policy 4
Open Space Element – Goal 2
Water Resources Element –Goal 3
Cost of Development Element – Goal 2
Goldfield Area Plan
Land Use Element – Goal L.1, Objective L1.1, Objective 1.2
Economic Development Element – Goal ED1, Objective ED1.1
Growth Area Element – Goal G1.1, Objective G1.2
CPA2024004
Page 5 of 8
2024 Aerial Image
Proposed Land Use Map
CPA2024004
Page 6 of 8
Existing On-Site and Adjacent Zoning / Land Use:
4.
On-site:
R1-8 RUPD, Rural-43 RUPD, Rural-70 RUPD / Undisturbed natural land
North:
State Route 87 then Tonto National Forest (no zoning designation) /
Undisturbed natural land
South:
State Route 87 then Tonto National Forest (no zoning designation) /
Undisturbed natural land
East:
Rural-190 / Sparse single-family residential development
West:
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation (no zoning designation) / Undisturbed
natural land
Utilities and Services:
5.
Water:
On-site wells
Wastewater:
On-site septic
School District:
Fountain Hills Unified School District
Fire:
Goldfield Ranch Fire District (unconfirmed)
Police:
Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
Right-of-Way:
6.
The following table includes existing and proposed half-width right-of-way and the future
classification based upon the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) Major
Streets and Routes Plan.
Street Name
Half-width Existing R/W
Half-width Proposed R/W
Future Classification
State Route 87
320’
320’
Highway
Adopted Plan:
7.
Goldfield Area Plan (adopted December 2007): The Area plan delineates this area to follow The
Preserve DMP, which allows for various residential densities and supports the existing R1-8 RUPD,
Rural-43 RUPD, and Rural-70 RUPD zoning districts. The area plan acknowledges that the DMP
area has existed since 1995 and if it develops as laid forth in the DMP it would drastically alter
the landscape of the planning area.
CPA2024004
Page 7 of 8
Public Participation Summary:
8.
Staff notes that the applicant’s public participation got off to a sluggish start, and initial site
posting, and mail notification did not occur until after the 30-day deadline stated in the application
packet. Further, staff had requested the applicant either place two signs along State Route 87 for
increased visibility or provide documentation from ADOT denial of signage placement. Staff
received no such documentation, and the applicant did not place signage in these two locations.
Staff notes that the applicant was communicative during their public participation process and
did meet minimum statutory requirements. The site was posted with 12 notification signs and all
property owners along with registered areas of interest were notified of the proposed CPA via
USPS. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on October 22, 2024. Results of this meeting
have not yet been shared with staff.
9.
The applicant’s summary report of citizen participation was vague on public interactions and did
not appear to include a comprehensive list of individuals or entities that have reached out to the
applicant team. The report states topics discussed with public include existing entitlements,
proposed density and land use, infrastructure, and timing. Specifics as to questions asked or
responses given to public were not provided.
10.
Staff has received comment from 24 individuals as of the writing of this report. Staff notes that
while not all the individuals in opposition may be opposed to the proposed rural land use
designation itself, they are all vehemently opposed to the proposed residential development that
could bring 700+ homes to the area. Concerns stated from the public are wide ranging but include
traffic and increased maintenance demand on privately maintained roads, impact to sensitive
natural environment that provides habitat for several unique animal and plant species, proximity
to sensitive riparian ecosystems along the nearby Verde River, an overwhelming amount of septic
systems, potential for wildcat development, strain on water resources, strain on electrical
infrastructure, inadequate cellular bandwidth, harm to the natural landscape, and general
CPA2024004
Page 8 of 8
opposition to increased development in the area. Staff notes that several opposition letters
stated frustration that the existing entitlements were not reverted to the former Rural–190 zoning
over the site as per conditions “c” of DMP2012004 and “h” of Z2012090. Staff notes that legal
council concluded these conditions were not appropriate and were outside of the County’s
statutory authority. Thus, the entitlements granted via Z2012090 are still in place. Staff notes
the subject request would in essence bring the land use designation over the subject site back in
line with what it was prior to the DMP approval.
Outstanding Concerns from Reviewing Agencies:
11.
N/A
Staff Analysis:
12.
The project narrative and supporting documents provided by the applicant leave several open
questions about potential impacts to the natural environment, traffic, and wildlife within the
project area. However, staff notes that these concerns may be more relevant to work through via
the associated zone change request rather than the subject CPA request. Staff notes that the
requested land use designation provides the lowest residential density that the Vision 2030 plan
offers and is consistent with most of the Goldfield Area Plan. Staff is of the belief that the
proposed lower density (and lower potential lot yield) is a marked improvement over the existing
land uses that cover the site via The Preserve DMP and will guide the site towards appropriate
development with minimal impacts to wildlife, the natural landscape, and existing residents in the
area.
Recommendation:
13.
Staff recommends the Commission adopt a motion recommending that the Board of Supervisors
approve CPA2024004.
Presented by:
Joseph Mueller, Planner
Reviewed by:
Rachel Applegate, Planning Supervisor
Attachments:
Case Map (1 page)
Site Plan/Land Use Plan (reduced 8.5”x11”, 1 page)
Narrative Report (10 pages)
Legal Description (10 pages)
MCESD comments (3 pages)
United States Forest Service (3 pages)
Opposition Letters and Emails (102 pages)
Opposition Map (1 page)
/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
2
Gross Acres: 1,731 approx.
Generated October 16, 2024 2:42 PM
CPA2024004
Application Name:
Legal Description
Preserve at Goldfield Ranch
Applicant
Case Address
3N 7E 22
WENDY RIDDELL
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:219-16-061
4806823916
zoning@berryriddell.com
Map scale 1:39,241
Supervisor District No.
Preserve at Goldfield Ranch Major CPA
87
AZ
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
STARFIRE RD
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
87
AZ
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
PALO PINTO TR
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
VISTA DEL ORO
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
BOOT HILL PKWY
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
PLEASANT VIEW RD
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
BURNT WATER TR
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
THIRSTY
EARTH TRL
© Copyright, hilgartwilson 2023 - This plan document set is the sole property of hilgartwilson. No alterations to these plans, other than adding "as-built" information, are allowed by anyone.
U:\1000\1008\1008.08 Four Peaks Holdings, LLC Co Grayhawk Development Inc\CORRESP\MEETINGS\24-0917 FMYN Meeting\EXHIBITS\1008-CPA-FIGURE-03-EX AND PROP LU-REV 24-0913.dwg
9/13/2024 5:42:17 PM
N
NOT TO
SCALE
2141 E. HIGHLAND AVE., STE. 250
PHOENIX, AZ 85016
P: 602.490.0535
F: 602.368.2436
Maricopa county, Arizona
Goldhawk at The Preserve
MAJOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
HAS JOINED COLLIERS ENGINEERING & DESIGN
Project Manager:
R.GUBSER, AICP
Project Number: 1008
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE
MAJOR CPA BOUNDARY (1,728.4 ac)
THE PRESERVE AT
GOLDFIELD RANCH DMP
RURAL 0-1 DU/AC
GOLDFIELD RANCH BOUNDARY
RURAL 0-1 DU/AC
MAJOR CPA BOUNDARY (1,728.4 ac)
THE PRESERVE AT GOLDFIELD
RANCH DMP
GOLDFIELD RANCH BOUNDARY
SEPTEMBER 13, 2024
FIGURE 3
EXISTING AND PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE
Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Goldhawk at The Preserve
North of State Route 87 (“SR-87”), East of Fort McDowell
Yavapai Nation, South of Tonto National Forest, and West of
Goldfield Ranch
Application Number: CPA2024004
1st Submittal: May 17, 2024
2nd Submittal: August 12, 2024
Final Submittal: October 4, 2024
Prepared for:
Grayhawk Development
Taylor Tryhus
7377 East Doubletree Ranch Road, Suite 100
Scottsdale, Arizona 85258
A. Executive Summary
The purpose of this request is to seek a Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment (“Major
CPA”) for approximately 1,728.4 acres (the “Site”) to the Rural 0-1 du/ac land use
designation. This Major CPA will accommodate Goldhawk at The Preserve, a proposed
approximate 1,941-acre rural master planned development within the larger 2,078.2-acre
The Preserve at Goldfield Ranch located adjacent to State Route 87 (“SR-87”), east of Fort
McDowell Yavapai Nation, and south of Tonto National Forest, and west of Goldfield
Ranch. A Major CPA is proposed to remove the Site from the Preserve Major Development
Plan (the “Preserve DMP”) to allow the Site to develop at a lower density. Only 1,728.4
acres of the approximate 1,941-acre proposed development are included in the proposed
Major CPA because the remaining +/-212 acres are already designated as Rural 0-1 du/ac.
The entire approximate 1,941-acre development will be included in a Zone Change with
Overlay application that is also being processed.
On-Site and Regional Location
The current Comprehensive Plan Amendment area is comprised of approximately
1,728.4 acres north of State Route 87 (“SR-87”), east of Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation,
and south of Tonto National Forest, and west of Goldfield Ranch.
In 2008, The Preserve at
Goldfield Ranch was partially
entitled for Rural-70, Rural-
43, and R1-8, all with RUPD
and PAD Overlays. Since the
entitlements in 2008, the Site
has remained undeveloped.
The topography of the Site
generally slopes from
northeast to southwest with
washes and ridges
throughout. The development
will work to integrate hillside
regulations with the main
goal being to preserve as
much of the topography as
possible. Concentrating grading in areas upon ridges and within valleys with minimal
natural slope will allow the necessary infrastructure and building envelopes while still
respecting the natural terrain.
CPA Size and Land Use Types
The proposed Major CPA will remove the approximate 1,728.4-acre Site from the
Preserve DMP and reclassify it as Rural 0-1 du/ac. This will unify the uses and densities
by allowing the development of a large lot rural master planned community on the
1,941- acre project site. The lot sizes will range from a minimum of 1 to 5 acres in size.
The lots are planned in a manner to facilitate focused grading where feasible to allow
for abundant open space within the development. Building envelopes and disturbance
limits will be planned within each lot to comply with water use, septic requirements,
grading/drainage, and other development constraints.
Roads/Transportation Systems
Private rural roadways (with public access) exist throughout the property and will be
improved to a rural standard and extended as necessary to provide reliable access to
each lot. The intent is that the newly proposed roadways will connect and intertwine
with the existing roadways. Further, existing private roadway connections will remain to
the adjacent Goldfield Ranch neighborhood ensuring circulation and connectivity.
Suitability with the Surrounding Land Uses
The Site is surrounded by the Tonto National Forest to the north, is bounded on the
west by the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Goldfield Ranch is located to the east, and
the SR-87 is located to the south.
The surrounding context is rural in nature and rich with natural resources. The proposed
CPA is more responsive to the surrounding area.
B. Will the amendment constitute an overall improvement
to the Comprehensive Plan and is not solely for the good
or benefit of a particular landowner or owners at a
particular point in time?
The Site was originally entitled in 2008 to accommodate development of The Preserve at
Goldfield Ranch. Approval of the Major CPA will allow the Site to develop with rural
residential uses, as envisaged in the Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan (the
“Comprehensive Plan”) and the Goldfield Ranch Area Plan. The proposal furthers the
goals of the Comprehensive Plan, while maintaining the rural nature and natural
topography of the Site and surrounding area.
C. Will the amendment adversely impact all or a portion of
the planning area by:
• Altering acceptable land use patterns to the detriment of
the plan;
The proposed master planned community offers a low-density residential use that is
compatible with the surrounding area. As mentioned previously, the Site was originally
entitled in 2008 as part of a larger development of a 951-lot residential community at
approximately .46 du/ac. The proposal responds to the rural land use patterns in the
surrounding context by proposing larger lots, generous open space, and a lower density.
Further, measures have been taken to mitigate the impact of the proposed development
to the surrounding area. To reduce land disturbance, existing private roadways will be
utilized and improved to serve the proposed master planned community, water will be
provided via wells, and wastewater will be provided via septic. The existing washes
flowing through the Site will be preserved to maintain the integrity of the natural
topography. Landscaping materials will be drought-resistant to minimize water use.
• Requiring public expenditures for larger and more
expensive infrastructure;
The development will be accessed through a series of private roads, and the homes will
be serviced through private infrastructure installed by the developer. These facilities will
be maintained by a Homeowners Association (HOA). Specifications and cross-sections of
these facilities will be proposed by the developer and reviewed by Maricopa County as
part of a future site planning process.
• Requiring public improvements to roads, sewer, or water
systems that are needed to support the planned land uses;
Improvements to existing public infrastructure, as determined by Maricopa County, shall
be completed by the developer. All new infrastructure, such as vehicular access, septic
and water, will be provided via private roadways and systems and will also completed by
the developer.
• Adversely impacting planned uses because of increased
traffic;
We do not believe the proposal will have a negative impact on traffic in the area. The
proposal aims to improve existing roadways within our proposed development which
will benefit future residents of the development as well as current residents of Goldfield
Ranch to the east of the Site. It is important to note that the development will have
access to the SR-87 highway. The reduction in density from the existing entitlements will
ultimately lower the impact to traffic as well. A traffic engineer has been engaged to
study traffic flows within, from, and to the proposed development.
• Affect the livability of the area or health or safety of
present and future residents; or
The intent is to develop the Site synergistically with the existing rural uses in the
surrounding area.
• Adversely impacting the natural environment or scenic
quality of the area in contradiction to the plan?
The proposed low-density and low impact development was carefully planned to
respect the natural and cultural resources in the immediate area. The proposed rural
residential community will respect the natural topography by incorporating hillside
regulations and developing around existing washes that traverse the Site. To exalt the
rural nature of the Site and surrounding context, the proposal includes a land plan
comprised of generous open-space tracts and on-lot open space through the limitation
of building envelopes.
D. Is the amendment consistent with the overall intent of
the Comprehensive Plan?
The stated purpose of the Maricopa County Vision 2030 Comprehensive Plan is to
maintain a high quality of life for Maricopa County residents by protecting public health
and safety, promoting stable economic growth, maintaining a healthy environment,
providing adequate community services, and ensuring that tax money is spent
efficiently. The Comprehensive Plan utilizes three core principles to guide future
development to achieve its stated purpose:
1. “Decisions should support implementation of Maricopa County’s mission
statement and strategic priorities;
2. Maintain a disciplined approach where comprehensive plan policies and growth
related decisions are understandable, measurable, consistent, practical and
promote efficiency. Land use decisions are also based on these factors;
3. Avoid future problems by carefully considering past decisions.”
The Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan states, “sensible, balanced and
economically efficient land use patterns are important for Maricopa County to have
successful long-term growth and a high quality of life” tying directly into the stated
purpose discussed above. The proposed CPA will support this by proposing a large lot
rural community that is consistent with the surrounding Goldfield Ranch. The subject
alternative is consistent with the surrounding existing land use designations and
development patterns. If approved, the development will result in land uses that are
sensible, consistent, practical, and balanced across the Goldfield Ranch Area Plan.
Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan aims to reduce contracted expenses on the
County by developing unincorporated areas with “efficient and proper use of the
county’s financial resources” in mind. The Preserve DMP proposed a higher residential
density and recreational amenities that had the potential to incur greater cost to the
County and, in turn, its residents. This proposed large lot rural community includes
mostly private infrastructure with provisions for their maintenance and operation, which
will serve to reduce the overall cost of development and maintenance that could get
passed to the County.
Lastly, the Comprehensive Plan discusses challenges related to the Urban/Rural
interface:
“As growth expands outward new challenges arise where urban and rural areas
converge in what is referred to as urban/rural interface areas. Because these challenges
can affect an area’s quality and livability they must be addressed through reasonable
measures. Some of the challenges include:
• Making consistent decisions regarding land use compatibility;
• Balancing rural residents’ expectations with those of urban residents,
including:
i. Limiting the impacts that horses and other large animals have on
urban/suburban areas and, conversely, limiting the impacts that
urban/suburban development have on the ability to keep horses
and other large animals;
ii. Limiting the impacts that agriculture (i.e. noise, dust, odor) can have
on surrounding suburban/urban development and, conversely,
limiting the impacts of such development on the ability to perform
agriculture;
iii. Determining the proper density and intensity of land uses in
urban/rural interface areas.”
This CPA will promote the existing rural character of the surrounding context. The
previously approved master-planned community was more urban in nature, which
created concern from nearby residents when discussing a plan for the larger area. These
sentiments are recorded in the Goldfield Ranch Area Plan:
“Stakeholders involved in the planning process were very helpful in identifying a variety
of growth-related issues and concerns. A list of some of the more frequently identified
local concerns is included below.
•
Limit residential growth to densities allowed under the existing Rural 190 zoning
•
Discourage commercial/business/industrial development, except home-based
businesses such as limited equestrian facilities
•
Protect the western, rural character of Goldfield Ranch
•
Concerns about impacts of development on water availability
•
Maintain open spaces and provide trails for local recreational activities
The Site is also located within the Comprehensive Plan’s Goldfield Ranch Area Plan (the
“Area Plan”), which advances additional goals and policies designed to preserve the rural
nature of the area. Preservation of the rural nature is achieved through the development
of large lot low-density residential uses that preserve the natural environment, provide
compatible land uses to the adjacent public open space, and respect the existing hillside
and washes.
The proposed master planned community furthers the goals of the Comprehensive Plan
and the Area Plan. As mentioned previously, the Site is surrounded by the Tonto
National Forest to the north, is bounded on the west by the Fort McDowell Yavapai
Nation, Goldfield Ranch is located to the east, and the SR-87 is located to the south. To
preserve the rural and natural character of the surrounding context, the Site is
proposing strictly residential uses, low density, and pockets of natural open space. To
remain respectful of the surrounding uses and follow development patterns in the
surrounding area, the Site does not propose commercial or business uses.
E. To what extent is the amendment consistent with the
specific goals and policies contained within the plan?
Land Use Goals & Policies
Land Use Goal #1: Achieve balanced and efficient development patterns.
Response: The removal of the Site from the Goldfield Ranch DMP responds to
the surrounding context by unifying the uses and densities on the Site with
Goldfield Ranch to the east. The proposal seeks to maintain the rural character of
the surrounding context by developing a large lot low-density residential use.
Land Use Policy #22: Maricopa County supports reducing the impacts of new
development on environmentally sensitive areas, including native wildlife (flora and
fauna) habitat and corridors.
Response: The reduction in density and generous preserved open space will
inherently reduce the impacts on the land.
Land Use Policy #27: Maricopa County supports keeping development out of
delineated floodways and, where necessary, 100-year floodplains.
Response: The proposed development will preserve a majority of the natural
drainage patterns on the Site.
Transportation Goals & Policies
Transportation Goal #2: Contribute to a safe, seamless, and effective transportation
system.
Response: The proposed development will extend, improve, and connect to the
existing roadways contained within Goldfield Ranch to the east. The
improvements will create a safe and effective internal circulation system within
the proposed development and the greater Goldfield Ranch planning area.
Environment Goals & Policies
Environment Policy #4: Maricopa County supports innovative project design and
development techniques that protect important plant and animal habitat and migration
corridors.
Response: The proposed reduction in density and generous preserved open
space will result in less ecosystem disturbance than the previously approved The
Preserve DMP.
Open Space Goals & Policies
Open Space Goal #2: Protect and expand the regional park system proportionately with
population growth.
Response: Density reduction and abundant open space will allow the new
population to utilize private lands within the project mitigating impacts on
surrounding public lands.
Water Resources Goals & Policies
Water Resources Goal #1: Promote and protect public health with a clean water supply.
Response: To ensure a clean and reliable water supply in a water system
operated and maintained by a private water company will provide water to the
future residents of the proposed development.
Energy Goals & Policies
Energy Goal #3: Have balanced and efficient development patterns.
Response: This Major CPA is consistent with the surrounding existing land use
designations and development patterns. If approved, the development will result in land
uses that are sensible, consistent, practical, and balanced across the Goldfield Ranch
Area Plan.
Cost of Development Goals & Policies
Cost of Development Goal #2: New development pays its proper and reasonable share
of the costs of new infrastructure, services, and other public improvements.
Response: The development will fund and primarily utilize private infrastructure.
Goldfield Area Plan
Goal L1: Promote efficient land development that is compatible with adjacent land uses,
is well integrated with the transportation system, and is sensitive to the natural
environment.
Objective L1.1: Accomplish orderly, efficient, and functional development
patterns.
Objective L1.2: Attain high quality residential development that is sensitive to
the natural environment and compatible with adjacent land uses.
Response: This Major CPA is consistent with the surrounding existing land
use designations and development patterns. If approved, the development
will result in land uses that are sensible, consistent, practical, and balanced
across the Goldfield Ranch Area Plan.
Goal ED1: Promote a growing, balanced, efficient, and diversified economy, consistent
with available resources, that enhances quality employment opportunities, improves
quality of life, and is sensitive to the natural and cultural environment.
Objective ED1.1: Support rural, low-density residential land uses, and equestrian
oriented development during the 10 to 15 year horizon of the
Goldfield Area Plan update, to retain the quality of life enjoyed
by this area.
Response: The Subject amendment proposes to maintain a rural character
that is currently enjoyed by adjacent residents. This proposal better aligns
with this goal than the standing approved The Preserve DMP.
Goal G.1: Promote orderly, timely, and fiscally responsible growth in Maricopa County.
Objective G.1.1: Encourage timely, orderly, and fiscally responsible growth
patterns. Encourage and support residential development with gross densities
that reflect the existing zoning of the area.
Objective G.1.2: Ensure that future growth is coordinated in an efficient manner
with stakeholder input.
Response: The proposed development is fiscally responsible by proposing
a sustainable density for the services in the existing area and will not
overburden those public facilities. Concurrent with this application, is a
rezoning request to Rural-43 (“RU-43”). Additionally, this alteration
conforms to the input given by residents during the creation of the
Goldfield Ranch Area Plan. At the time, residents stated they wished to see
a preservation of rural/western character, no commercial or business land
uses, and preservation of habitat/open space.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this request is to seek a Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment for
approximately 1,728.4 acres to allow for an organized and efficient large lot
development with rural infrastructure standards to provide high-end home lots. The
low-density approach will have minimal impacts on the area’s public infrastructure and
shared natural resources.
U:\1000\1008\SURVEY\DOCS\CMX\7147-02 PAR A.doc
Page 1 of 5
EXHIBIT “A-1”
GOLDHAWK AT THE PRESERVE
PARCEL A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Parcels 1-32 of “Goldfield Ranch Phase IV” as shown in Book 195 of Maps, Page 24
and Parcels 7-12 of “Goldfield Ranch Phase III” as shown in Book 195, Page 23,
Records of Maricopa County, Arizona, being a portion of Sections 9, 10, 14, 15 and 22,
all in Township 3 North, Range 7 East of the Gila and Salt River Meridian, Maricopa
County, Arizona, more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at a found 3-1/4” United States Department of Interior (U.S.D.O.I) Bureau
of Land Management (B.L.M.) brass cap accepted as the northwest corner of said
Section 10, from which a found 3-1/4” U.S.D.O.I. - B.L.M. brass cap accepted as the
north quarter corner thereof bears North 89 degrees 45 minutes 24 seconds East a
distance of 2644.33 feet;
Thence along the northerly line of the northwest quarter of said Section 10, North 89
degrees 45 minutes 24 seconds East a distance of 2644.33 feet to the north quarter
corner thereof;
Thence along the northerly line of the northeast quarter of said Section 10, North 89
degrees 45 minutes 02 seconds East a distance of 2645.77 feet to the northeast
corner of said Section 10;
Thence along the easterly line of said northeast quarter, South 00 degrees 04 minutes
35 seconds East a distance of 2174.65 feet;
Thence leaving said easterly line and along the easterly line of said Parcel 27, South
09 degrees 58 minutes 25 seconds West a distance of 2328.80 feet to the southeast
corner thereof;
Thence along the northerly line of said parcel 8, South 84 degrees 31 minutes 17
seconds East a distance of 242.50 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave
northerly having a radius of 800.00 feet;
Thence continuing along said northerly line, easterly along said curve through a central
angle of 11 degrees 51 minutes 11 seconds an arc length of 165.50 feet to the
northeast corner thereof and the easterly line of the southeast quarter of said Section
10;
Thence along said easterly line, South 00 degrees 04 minutes 54 seconds East a
distance of 781.58 feet to the southeast corner of said Section 10;
Thence along the westerly line of the northwest quarter of said Section 14, South 00
degrees 06 minutes 40 seconds East a distance of 649.83 feet to the southeast corner
of said Parcel 8;
U:\1000\1008\SURVEY\DOCS\CMX\7147-02 PAR A.doc
Page 2 of 5
Thence leaving said westerly line and along the northerly line of said Parcel 5, South
72 degrees 19 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 1375.27 feet to the northeast
corner thereof;
Thence along the easterly line of said Parcels 5 and 4, South 02 degrees 36 minutes
48 seconds West a distance of 2640.48 feet to the southeast corner of said Parcel 4;
Thence along the southerly line of said Parcel 4 South 69 degrees 45 minutes 47
seconds West a distance of 1260.92 feet to the most southerly corner of said Parcel 4
and the westerly line of the southwest quarter of said Section 14;
Thence along said westerly line, South 00 degrees 06 minutes 54 seconds East a
distance of 1139.39 feet to the southwest corner of said Section 14;
Thence along the easterly line of said Section 22, South 00 degrees 05 minutes 12
seconds East a distance of 659.54 feet to the most southeasterly corner of said Parcel
8;
Thence leaving said easterly line along the southeasterly line of said Parcel 8, South
84 degrees 52 minutes 12 seconds West a distance of 172.91 feet to the beginning of
a tangent curve concave southerly having a radius of 275.00 feet;
Thence continuing along said southeasterly line, southwesterly along said curve
through a central angle of 68 degrees 56 minutes 09 seconds an arc length of 330.87
feet;
Thence continuing along said southeasterly line, South 15 degrees 56 minutes 03
seconds West a distance of 506.56 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave
northwesterly having a radius of 650.00 feet;
Thence continuing along said southeasterly line, southerly along said curve through a
central angle of 34 degrees 28 minutes 02 seconds an arc length of 391.02 feet to the
most southerly corner of said Parcel 8;
Thence along the southeasterly line of said Parcel 7, South 50 degrees 24 minutes 05
seconds West a distance of 1092.22 feet;
Thence leaving said southeasterly line and along the easterly line of said Parcel 12,
South 23 degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds East a distance of 146.67 feet to the
beginning of a tangent curve concave westerly having a radius of 400.00 feet;
Thence continuing along said easterly line, southeasterly along said curve through a
central angle of 43 degrees 31 minutes 12 seconds an arc length of 303.83 feet;
Thence continuing along said easterly line, South 19 degrees 36 minutes 22 seconds
West a distance of 214.90 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave easterly
having a radius of 3500.00 feet;
Thence continuing along said easterly line, southerly along said curve through a
central angle of 03 degrees 19 minutes 38 seconds an arc length of 203.25 feet;
U:\1000\1008\SURVEY\DOCS\CMX\7147-02 PAR A.doc
Page 3 of 5
Thence continuing along said easterly line, South 16 degrees 16 minutes 44 seconds
West a distance of 164.17 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave westerly
having a radius of 400.00 feet;
Thence continuing along said easterly line, southerly along said curve through a
central angle of 24 degrees 11 minutes 05 seconds an arc length of 168.84 feet to the
southeast corner of said Parcel 12;
Thence along the southeasterly line of said Parcel 11, South 40 degrees 27 minutes 51
seconds West a distance of 426.19 feet to the southeast corner thereof;
Thence along the easterly line of said Parcel 10, South 08 degrees 41 minutes 45
seconds West a distance of 1396.65 feet to the southeast corner thereof and a point
on the northerly line of State Highway 87 (Beeline Highway) as described in Docket
7636, Page 783, Records of Maricopa County, Arizona, said point also being the
beginning of a non-tangent curve concave northerly the center of which bears North 07
degrees 59 minutes 36 seconds West having a radius of 14223.95 feet;
Thence along said northerly line and westerly along said curve through a central angle
of 02 degrees 27 minutes 21 seconds an arc length of 609.67 feet to a point on the
southerly line of the southwest quarter of said Section 22;
Thence leaving said northerly line and along said south line, South 89 degrees 50
minutes 23 seconds West a distance of 1068.55 feet to the southwest corner of said
Parcel 10;
Thence leaving said southerly line and along the westerly line of said Parcel 10, North
00 degrees 09 minutes 33 seconds West a distance of 650.18 feet to the northwest
corner thereof;
Thence along the westerly line of said Parcel 11, North 00 degrees 08 minutes 05
seconds West a distance of 1024.81 feet to the northwest corner thereof;
Thence along the southeasterly line of said Parcel 13, North 42 degrees 51 minutes 50
seconds East a distance of 570.01 feet;
Thence continuing along said southeasterly line, North 42 degrees 53 minutes 28
seconds East a distance of 1847.73 feet;
Thence continuing along said southeasterly line, North 68 degrees 29 minutes 44
seconds East a distance of 40.00 feet to the southeast corner of said Parcel 13 and the
beginning of a non-tangent curve concave westerly the center of which bears South 68
degrees 29 minutes 44 seconds West having a radius of 188.96 feet;
Thence along the westerly line of said Parcel 7, northwesterly and westerly along said
curve through a central angle of 78 degrees 06 minutes 10 seconds an arc length of
257.58 feet to the beginning of a reverse curve concave northerly having a radius of
125.00 feet;
Thence continuing along said west line, westerly along said curve through a central
angle of 37 degrees 51 minutes 06 seconds an arc length of 82.58 feet;
U:\1000\1008\SURVEY\DOCS\CMX\7147-02 PAR A.doc
Page 4 of 5
Thence continuing along said west line, North 61 degrees 45 minutes 20 seconds
West a distance of 57.04 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave easterly
having a radius of 250.00 feet;
Thence continuing along said west line, northerly and northeasterly along said curve
through a central angle of 89 degrees 04 minutes 14 seconds an arc length of 388.64
feet;
Thence continuing along said west line, North 27 degrees 18 minutes 54 seconds East
a distance of 244.59 feet to the northwest corner of said Parcel 7 and the beginning of
a non-tangent curve concave northwesterly the center of which bears North 62
degrees 41 minutes 08 seconds West having a radius of 225.00 feet;
Thence along the southwesterly line of said Parcel 9, northerly and northwesterly along
said curve through a central angle of 70 degrees 35 minutes 52 seconds an arc length
of 277.24 feet;
Thence continuing along said southwesterly line, North 43 degrees 17 minutes 00
seconds West a distance of 425.00 feet to the west corner of said Parcel 9;
Thence continuing along the southwesterly line of said Parcel 1, North 43 degrees 16
minutes 58 seconds West a distance of 330.12 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve
concave southwesterly having a radius of 350.00 feet;
Thence continuing along said southwesterly line, northwesterly along said curve
through a central angle of 17 degrees 54 minutes 20 seconds an arc length of 109.38
feet;
Thence continuing along said southwesterly line, North 61 degrees 11 minutes 18
seconds West a distance of 146.70 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave
southerly having a radius of 245.00 feet;
Thence continuing along said southwesterly line, northwesterly along said curve
through a central angle of 43 degrees 11 minutes 15 seconds an arc length of 184.67
feet to the beginning of a reverse curve concave northerly having a radius of 248.48
feet;
Thence continuing along said southwesterly line, westerly along said curve through a
central angle of 52 degrees 53 minutes 42 seconds an arc length of 229.39 feet;
Thence continuing along said southwesterly line, North 51 degrees 28 minutes 51
seconds West a distance of 148.91 feet to a point on the southerly line of the
southwest quarter of said Section 15;
Thence along said southerly line, North 89 degrees 56 minutes 00 seconds West a
distance of 1401.68 feet to the southwest corner of said Section 15;
Thence along the westerly line of said southwest quarter of Section 15, North 00
degrees 06 minutes 48 seconds West a distance of 2632.80 feet to the west quarter
corner of said Section 15;
U:\1000\1008\SURVEY\DOCS\CMX\7147-02 PAR A.doc
Page 5 of 5
Thence along the westerly line of the northwest quarter of said Section 15, North 00
degrees 06 minutes 20 seconds West a distance of 2634.30 feet to the northwest
corner of said Section 15;
Thence along the southerly line said Section 9, South 89 degrees 40 minutes 36
seconds West a distance of 992.76 feet;
Thence leaving said southerly line and along the westerly line of said Parcel 19 and 20,
North 06 degrees 32 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 2494.43 feet to the
northwest corner of said Parcel 20;
Thence along the westerly line of said Parcel 21 and 22, North 06 degrees 54 minutes
24 seconds East a distance of 2702.25 feet;
Thence continuing along said westerly line of Parcel 22, North 05 degrees 45 minutes
45 seconds East a distance of 117.49 feet to the northwest corner thereof and a point
on the northerly line of the northeast quarter of said Section 9;
Thence along said northerly line, North 89 degrees 42 minutes 49 seconds East a
distance of 361.05 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Site area contains 73,157,654 Square Feet or 1,679 Acres, more or less.
The description shown hereon is not to be used to violate any subdivision regulation of
the state, county and/or municipality or any other land division restrictions.
Prepared by: HILGARTWILSON, LLC
2141 E. Highland Avenue, Suite 250
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Project No. 2423
Date: July 2024
7/30/2024
©
2141 E. HIGHLAND AVE., STE. 250
PHOENIX, AZ 85016
P: 602.490.0535 / F: 602.368.2436
7/30/2024
©
2141 E. HIGHLAND AVE., STE. 250
PHOENIX, AZ 85016
P: 602.490.0535 / F: 602.368.2436
7/30/2024
U:\1000\1008\SURVEY\DOCS\CMX\1008 PAR B.doc
Page 1 of 2
EXHIBIT “A-2”
GOLDHAWK AT THE PRESERVE
PARCEL B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Parcel 4 of “Goldfield Ranch Phase III” as shown in Book 195, Page 23, Records of
Maricopa County, Arizona, being a portion of Sections 22 and 23, Township 3 North,
Range 7 East of the Gila and Salt River Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, more
particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at a found 3-1/4” Bureau of Land Management (B.L.M.) brass cap
accepted as the northwest corner of said Section 23, from which a found 3-1/4” United
States Department of Interior - B.L.M. brass cap accepted as the north quarter corner
thereof bears North 89 degrees 47 minutes 05 seconds East a distance of 2640.34
feet;
Thence along the northerly line of the Northwest quarter of said Section 23, North 89
degrees 47 minutes 05 seconds East a distance of 1859.57 feet;
Thence leaving said northerly line, South 00 degrees 12 minutes 55 seconds East a
distance of 1963.01 feet to the northeast corner of said Parcel 4 and the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Thence along the easterly line of said Parcel 4, South 13 degrees 45 minutes 26
seconds West a distance of 926.59 feet to the southeast corner thereof;
Thence along the southeasterly line of said Parcel 4, South 65 degrees 50 minutes 31
seconds West a distance of 1961.84 feet;
Thence along the south line of said Parcel 4, North 85 degrees 39 minutes 11 seconds
West a distance of 40.00 feet to the southwest corner thereof and to the beginning of a
non-tangent curve concave easterly whose center lies South 85 degrees 41 minutes
31 seconds East having a radius of 1500.00 feet;
Thence along the westerly line of said Parcel 4, northerly along said curve through a
central angle of 08 degrees 54 minutes 07 seconds an arc length of 233.05 feet;
Thence continuing along said westerly line, North 13 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds
East a distance of 818.91 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve concave
easterly whose center lies South 76 degrees 44 minutes 40 seconds East having a
radius of 800.00 feet;
Thence continuing along said westerly line, northerly along said curve through a
central angle of 13 degrees 52 minutes 17 seconds an arc length of 193.68 feet;
Thence continuing along said westerly line, North 27 degrees 07 minutes 37 seconds
East a distance of 232.47 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve concave
southeasterly having a radius of 400.00 feet;
U:\1000\1008\SURVEY\DOCS\CMX\1008 PAR B.doc
Page 2 of 2
Thence along the westerly line of said Parcel 4, northeasterly along said curve through
a central angle of 28 degrees 39 minutes 25 seconds an arc length of 200.06 feet;
Thence continuing along said westerly line, North 55 degrees 47 minutes 02 seconds
East a distance of 308.81 feet to the most northerly corner of said Parcel 4;
Thence along the northerly line of said Parcel 4, South 34 degrees 17 minutes 03
seconds East a distance of 39.74 feet;
Thence continuing along said northerly line, South 89 degrees 47 minutes 03 seconds
East a distance of 1245.27 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Site area contains 2,125,432 Square Feet or 48.7932 Acres, more or less.
The description shown hereon is not to be used to violate any subdivision regulation of
the state, county and/or municipality or any other land division restrictions.
Prepared by: HILGARTWILSON, LLC
2141 E. Highland Avenue, Suite 250
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Project No. 1008
Date: July 2024
7/30/2024
©
2141 E. HIGHLAND AVE., STE. 250
PHOENIX, AZ 85016
P: 602.490.0535 / F: 602.368.2436
7/30/2024
Page | 1
Subdivision
Infrastructure
& Planning Program
301 W. Jefferson St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
S u b d i v i si o n @m ar i co p a.g o v
esd .m ar i co p a.g o v
The Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) has completed review
for the Preserve at Goldfield Ranch planning case(s). Please note the following MCESD
requirements for site development:
Drinking Water –
Per the Safe Drinking Water Act, a Community Water System (CWS) is defined as a Public
Water System that serves the same 25 or more year-round residents. A Non-Transient Non-
Community Water System (NTNCWS) is defined as a Public Water System that serves the
same 25 or more persons for at least six months per year.
If a new CWS or NTNCWS is being created, then the following major requirements must be
complete prior to the issuance of a CWS or NTNCWS permit:
1. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) requires new CWS and
NTNCWS to submit an Elementary Business Plan.
•
Please contact ADEQ at capdev@azdeq.gov for more information on this
requirement.
2. New Source Approval is required for both groundwater and surface water sources.
3. Engineering Approval may be required by MCESD Subdivision and/or Treatment
Programs.
4. Certified Operator - All public water systems must obtain the services of a certified
water operator.
A Public Water System application and a New Source Approval application are required and
must be submitted to the MCESD Drinking Water Program.
An Approval to Construct application is required to be submitted to the MCESD’s Treatment
Program for any water treatment facilities.
•
For questions, please contact the Water/Wastewater Treatment Program at (602)
372-2861 or email treatmentplantprogram@maricopa.gov
An Approval to Construct application is required to be submitted to the MCESD’s
Subdivision & Infrastructure Program for all water system infrastructure.
Project Name: Preserve at Goldfield Ranch Primary Contact Name: Wendy Riddell
Planning Application Type: Development
Master Plan - Major Amendment
APN(s): Various
Reviewer: Ryan Hall, P.E.
Email: Ryan.Hall@maricopa.gov
Phone: 602-918-1241
Planner Name: Joseph Mueller
Planning Case #: CPA2024004
Date: June 26, 2024
Water and Waste Management Division
Page | 2
•
For questions, please contact the Subdivision and Infrastructure Program at (602)
506-1058 or email subdivision@maricopa.gov
For additional Drinking Water related questions, please contact the Drinking Water program
at (602) 506-6935 or by email at sdwquestions@maricopa.gov.
Onsite Wastewater –
If the wastewater flow exceeds 24,000 gpd or if an activated sludge treatment process is to
be used, then a wastewater treatment plant may be required.
• Additionally, an Individual Permit through the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) may be required.
•
Please contact the Water/Wastewater Treatment Program at (602) 372-2861 or
email treatmentplantprogram@maricopa.gov for additional information.
For Onsite Wastewater related questions, please contact the Onsite Program at (602) 506-
6666 or by email at septicquestions@maricopa.gov.
Treatment –
An Approval to Construct application is required to be submitted to the Water/Wastewater
Treatment Program for all wastewater treatment facilities.
An Aquifer Protection Permit (APP) is required for all new wastewater treatment facilities or
existing wastewater treatment facilities being modified. The Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) reviews, approves and issues APPs.
•
Please contact ADEQ’s Groundwater Protection Program at (602) 771-4999 or email
azpdes@azdeq.gov for additional information about this requirement.
For treatment related questions, please contact the Water/Wastewater Treatment Program
at (602) 372-2861 or email treatmentplantprogram@maricopa.gov.
Subdivision and Infrastructure –
An Approval to Construct application is required and must be submitted to MCESD’s
Subdivision & Infrastructure Program for water, reclaimed water and/or wastewater system
infrastructure.
An Approval of Sanitary Facilities (Subdivision) application is required to the MCESD’s
Subdivision & Infrastructure Program for Subdivisions with Single Family Residences and
for Condominiums/Town Homes.
Prior to issuance of an Approval of Construction for water infrastructure for subdivisions,
confirmation of an approved Elementary Business Plan (EBP) with the Arizona Department
of Environmental Quality must be verified with the MCESD Subdivision and Infrastructure
Program. The EBP confirms assured water supply for subdivision.
Page | 3
For subdivision related questions, please contact the Subdivision and Infrastructure
Program at (602) 506-1058 or email subdivision@maricopa.gov.
Additional Notes –
*It should be noted that this document does not approve the referenced project. Comments are provided
for the benefit of the applicant for MCESD permit requirements and as an advisory to Maricopa County
Planning and Development Department. Other Maricopa County agencies may have additional
requirements. Final review and approval will be made through Planning and Development Department
procedures. Applicant may need to submit separate applications to the Maricopa County Environmental
Services Department for approval of proposed facilities regulated by the Department. Review of any such
application will be based on current regulations at the time of application.
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Schuster, Gregory - FS, AZ <greg.schuster@usda.gov>
Sent:
Tuesday, June 4, 2024 11:07 AM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Cc:
Quintana, Devin - FS, AZ; Adkins, Richard - FS, AZ; RJ Cardin (PRK)
Subject:
CPA2024004 - Preserve at Goldfield Ranch (adjacent to Lower Sycamore)
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
Mr. Mueller,
Thanks for reaching out on this matter of business.
This rezoning proposal is adjacent to part of the Tonto National Forest that is heavily used by
motorized recreation users on the Mesa Ranger District, Lower Sycamore OHV area. Portions of
Lower Sycamore are currently proposed to be managed as a fee-for-use OHV Permit Zone. (see
below)
The Forest Service requests that the MCo Planning & Development work with developers, the Tonto
National Forest and, if appropriate, MCo. Parks, to identify and retain strategically important public
access and trailhead improvements, especially where legal public easements or rights-of-way already
exist or are planned in the subdivision.
The Tonto’s Land Management Plan has been recently executed. December 2023
Tonto OHV Fee Proposal: Region 3 - Recreation (usda.gov) Current/Active
Thank you for this opportunity to comment
Best,
Greg
2
Greg Schuster
SW Partnerships Office,
Volunteers, and Workforce
Development
Forest Service
Southwestern Region
480-292-0291
Greg.Schuster@usda.gov
2324 E. McDowell Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85006
fs.usda.gov
Caring for the land and serving
people
Best,
Greg
Greg Schuster
SW Partnerships Office,
Volunteers, and Workforce
Development
Forest Service
Southwestern Region
480-292-0291
Greg.Schuster@usda.gov
2324 E. McDowell Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85006
fs.usda.gov
Caring for the land and serving
people
3
From: Joseph Mueller (PND) <Joseph.Mueller@Maricopa.Gov>
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2024 3:24 PM
To: jheekin@agilebroadband.com; emccalvin@fmyn.org; cklopatek@ftmcdowell.org; nphillips@ftmcdowell.org;
GregHarmon@msn.com; azcakes@mac.com; Jack Farmer <jack@santolinafarm.com>; Larry Kratzer (MCSO)
<L_Kratzer@MCSO.maricopa.gov>; ghanna@fs.fed.us; Schuster, Gregory - FS, AZ <greg.schuster@usda.gov>;
michael.byrd@srpmic-nsn.gov; Teresa Retterbush (PRK) <Teresa.Retterbush@Maricopa.Gov>; Scott Wilken
<swilken@azmag.gov>; kcotner@azmag.gov; pe@azland.gov; bfenske@azdot.gov; jgarcia@azdot.gov; Frank
McWilliams (MCSO) <FrankMcWilliams@MCSO.maricopa.gov>; Project Evaluation Program - Game and Fish
<pep@azgfd.gov>; lmalloque@dot.state.az.us; redletter@azdot.gov
Subject: [External Email]CPA2024004 - Preserve at Goldfield Ranch
[External Email]
If this message comes from an unexpected sender or references a vague/unexpected topic;
Use caution before clicking links or opening attachments.
Please send any concerns or suspicious messages to: Spam.Abuse@usda.gov
Good aŌernoon,
We have received a request for a major comprehensive amendment over 1729 acres within the Goldfield Area plan to
change the future land use designaƟon from The Preserve DMP to rural densiƟes.
The proposal covers mulƟple parcels northwest of Highway 87 in the Fort McDowell area.
The technical advisory commiƩee meeƟng will be held on July 2.
Please let me know if you have any quesƟons, comments, or concerns.
Kind regards,
Joseph Mueller
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
301 W Jefferson St Phoenix, AZ 85003
Planner
O: 602-506-7629
MARICOPA.GOV
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube
This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any
unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and
subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the
sender and delete the email immediately.
Randolph J. Haines
12140 N. Sin Vacas Trail
Fort McDowell, Az. 85264
randyhaines@outlook.com
(602) 390-3070
August 8, 2024
Ms. Elyse DiMartino, Planner
Berry Riddell LLC
6750 E. Camelback Road
Suite 100
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
Re: PA2024034 Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preserve at Goldfield Ranch
PA2024034 Zone Change, Goldhawk At The Preserve
Dear Ms. DiMartino:
Thank you for your answers to questions 1-2 and 4-6. But your responses to my
questions 3 and 7-10 are, at best, not responsive. More importantly, they reveal some material
factual errors in your applications that need to be corrected before Planning and Development
can adequately review your proposals and before I can address the planning issues they raise.
The CPA Does Not Simply “Remove” and “Reclassify” a Portion of Preserve DMP
As to your answer to question 3, your first sentence is correct that all of the land in
Goldfield Ranch other than the defunct DMP is classified for planning purposes as Rural 0-1
du/ac, so any land outside of the former DMP does not need a plan amendment to be reclassified
as such. But this still does not explain how, by simply removing any acreage from the former
Preserve DMP, the plan amendment can create “1,940 contiguous acres of the larger 2,434-acre
[former Preserve DMP] Site,” since the largest contiguous acreage of that larger site was only
1679 acres, in Parcel A. Subtraction cannot result in addition. My question was clear: how can
you increase the contiguous acreage simply by “removing” some acreage? To increase the 1,679
contiguous acreage of Parcel A you must add some more contiguous acreage that was not part of
the former Preserve DMP, so my question asked you to identify that additional acreage.
You chose not to answer that question, insisting that “1,940 acres is the project area”
even though the entirety of the defunct Preserve DMP north of SR 87 never included more than
1,728 acres. What is this additional acreage and where does it come from, since it cannot
possibly come from the old Preserve DMP?
2
Your Applications Include Undisclosed Acreage
Although did not identify the additional acreage in your response the answer now
becomes apparent from your rezoning application, which is both factually wrong and
inconsistent with your Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Both the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and the 2007 DMP clearly showed that Parcel B was not contiguous with Parcel A,
and that Parcel B was not contiguous with State Route 87. But the maps in your rezoning
application purporting to show “Existing Zoning” and “Proposed Zoning” both show the new
project to make the former Parcel B contiguous with both Parcel A and SR 87. Of course this
can only be accomplished by adding to the former DMP some acreage located between Parcels A
and B and some acreage located between Parcel B and SR 87. And this is confirmed by the fine
print below both of those maps, which indicates the “Total Area” as consisting of 1,939 acres,
whereas the former Parcels A and B together were only 1679 + 48.8 = 1727.8 acres. The
difference is 212 acres, which is what my question asked you to explain.
The map in your rezoning proposal, the conceptual site plan and the conceptual roadway
plans have added to what was the 2007 Preserve DMP the following six 40+-acre parcels:
(1) Goldfield Ranch Phase III Parcel 1 (40.18 ac)(now 219-16-061 owned by GRRH);
(2) Parcel 3 (50.54 ac) (now 219-16-063K owned by GRRH);
(3) Parcel 5 (41.47 ac)(now 219-16-065A owned by GRRH);
(4) Parcel 12 (41.33 ac)(now 219-16-072 owned by GRRH);
(5) Parcel 13 (40.04 ac)(now 219-16-073 owned by Four Peaks Holdings); and
(6) Parcel 14 (40.32 ac)(now 219-16-074 owned by Four Peaks Holdings).
Total: 253.9 acres
None of these parcels was included in the list of parcels comprising the Preserve DMP
that was approved in 2007. See the attached list, which was excerpted from the Preliminary Plat
Narrative that was filed on December 17, 2007, after the 2006-07 DMP amendment. Also note
that your maps of “existing land use” and “proposed land use” also misrepresent the DMP
because DMP Parcels C and D on the south side of SR 87 were not contiguous as now shown on
your maps. They were discontiguous because the Preserve DMP did not include Goldfield
Ranch Phase 5 Parcel 8, Assessor’s Parcel 219-16-114F, which you have also added to the 2007
Preserve DMP.
These factual misstatements are confirmed by your statement that the larger DMP site
was 2,434 acres, when in fact is was only 2,079 acres. These factual misrepresentations cannot
be attributed to the former owner Ellman Companies because your own current client, Goldfield
Ranch Realty Holdings, filed an application in December, 2012, to extend for five years the
termination date of the 2007 Preserve DMP. Your client’s extension application stated that the
Preserve DMP that was conditionally rezoned in Z2007150 “includes 2,079 acres.” See
Z2012090, “The Preserve at Goldfield Ranch Modification to the Zoning Stipulations,” Project
Narrative Background ¶ 1. Having obtained that extension, your client is now judicially
estopped to claim that the Preserve DMP was actually 355 acres larger than it ever was.
3
The Surreptitious Inclusion of 253 Unidentified Acres Creates Many Factual
Misrepresentations on which Planning and Development staff has Relied
Your undisclosed and unexplained addition of six 40+-acre parcels to both the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the rezoning application means there are a significant
number of material inconsistencies and misrepresentations in these documents. Both the sheer
number of these factual misrepresentations and their interrelationship suggest that these are not
minor or immaterial mathematical errors but are fundamental to the essential purpose and effect
of the requested plan amendment and rezoning:
(1) The effect of the proposed plan amendment is not simply to “remove this approximate
1,728.37-acre portion of the Site from the Preserve DMP and reclassify it as Rural 0-1 du/ac” as
your Comprehensive Plan amendment states. In fact, your CPA also proposes to change the
Goldfield Area Plan for an additional 254 acres that were never included in the 2007 DMP.
(2) The effect of the CPA is not simply “to allow the Site to develop at a lower density”
as you contend. To the contrary, it materially increases the density on approximately 254 acres
that are currently zoned R-190.
(3) The CPA and the rezoning application are both seriously misleading because they use
inconsistent definitions of the “Site.” The CPA defines the “Site” as being the “whole Preserve
at Goldfield Ranch.” The rezoning application defines the “Site” as being “approximately 1,940
acres” “as shown below,” but the map “shown below” includes several parcels totaling more
than 254 acres that were never part of the 2007 Preserve DMP.
(4) Therefore even if the CPA were adopted and limited to amending the Preserve DMP
as you contend, the proposed rezoning could not be approved because it includes 254 acres
whose zoning would be inconsistent with both the Goldfield Area Plan and your proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
(5) The rezoning application misrepresents the “Owner” to be only Goldfield Ranch
Realty Holdings. The true owner of 80 acres (parcels 219-16-073 and 219-16-074) for which the
rezoning is sought is Four Peaks Holdings aka Grayhawk. In fact, didn’t this same undisclosed
owner previously seek, and be denied, essentially this same rezoning (one house per acre on
septic) of this same 80 acres, without claiming it ever to have been part of the Preserve DMP? Is
that rezoning denial the reason why Grayhawk did not want to be identified as one of the Owners
filing this rezoning application?
(6) It is not true that “this downzoning will consist of approximately 1,940 acres of the
Preserve” (Rezoning ¶ A, emphasis added) because it is an upzoning for approximately 254
acres that were never part of the Preserve.
(7) It is not true that “this rezoning of Goldhawk . . . as shown below, is a downzoning
from what was previously approved “(Rezoning ¶ B). To the contrary, it is an upzoning and at
least a fivefold increase in density from what was previously approved for 254 acres.
4
(8) The CPA Application states that it is for 558 lots but the rezoning states it is for 712
lots.
(9) It is not true that “the Site is comprised of approximately 1,940 acres and is part of
the larger Preserve at Goldfield Ranch” (Rezoning ¶ C) because more than 10% of the Site was
never part of the larger Preserve.
(10) It is not true that “This request is a downzoning that will reduce the number of
approved lots currently permitted on the Site” (Rezoning ¶ J) because it includes a significant
upzoning for 254 acres that will increase the number of approved lots currently permitted on the
Site. There are currently only six (6) “approved lots” on the 254 acres you have attempted to add
to the Preserve DMP Site, because these are only six 40+-acre parcels. Even without considering
zoning limitations each of the current two owners of these six parcels could only create an
additional four lots each without legally subdividing them. And these six 40-acre lots cannot
now be legally subdivided because there is no Certificate of Assured Water Supply and no more
will be issued in the Phoenix AMA. So on these 254 acres this requested rezoning would
increase the density from the current theoretical legal maximum of 14 wildcat subdivided lots to
as many as 250.
(11) It is not true that “the number of approved lots currently permitted on the Site” is
“+/- 1,000 units” because the conditions on that zoning have never been satisfied and by this
application the Owner admits they never will be satisfied. Until those conditions are satisfied,
“the number of approved lots currently permitted on the Site” is theoretically around 400,
because until those conditions are satisfied the underlying unconditional zoning remains R-190.
Planning and Zoning Staff Has Been Misled by these Material Misrepresentations
As noted above, the multiple repetitions of both the current zoning and the acreage of the
defunct 2007 Preserve DMP suggest you must have regarded these representations as highly
material to your applications. This is confirmed by the Pre-Application Meeting Form which
states: “The subject area . . . comprises the majority of the Preserve DMP area,” and “Staff feels
that the proposed RU-70 RUPD may be an improvement to the existing zoning on site.” Both of
these statements indicate that staff was misled by your misstatements that the “subject area” is
entirely part of the Preserve DMP area. Staff was also apparently misled by your representation
as to the existing zoning on approximately 254 acres of the subject site. These P&Z staff
statements indicate that your false comparison to existing zoning is virtually the only reason that
staff might support the rezoning. At the very least, the P&Z staff statements indicate that your
numerous erroneous comparisons to existing zoning is highly material to staff’s reaction.
Rezoning Application Contains Other Material Misrepresentations
Your answers and evasions to my questions confirm there are some other material
misstatements in your applications that you will want to correct before you find them to be
publicly embarrassing, or worse.
5
Rezoning Application ¶ G states that future residents will be served by “the Goldfield
Fire Center.” It appears that there is no such entity and that the name was made up. In fact, and
as you know, there is a Goldfield Ranch Fire District which apparently you have not contacted.
If and when you do, I believe you will learn that it has no fire station, equipment, employees or
volunteers and has no capacity to protect 712 homes.
Rezoning Application ¶ G also states that “the Site is bounded on the . . . east . . . by the
Tonto National Forest.” This is not true. The Site is bounded on the east by Goldfield Ranch.
As noted in our email correspondence, you have not been in contact with the homeowners and
the property owners associations that serve that planned community.
Rezoning Application ¶ H states that there is an “existing approved Analysis of Assured
Water Supply.” This is not true. There purportedly was an Analysis of Assured Water Supply in
June, 2007. But that expired in 2017 per Az.Admin.Code § R12-15-703(F). Your response to
my question # 7 indicates that you have no documents or evidence that your client has made any
effort to extend that Analysis. You also have no evidence that your client made any effort to
comply with its agreement, per Stipulation y of the rezoning extension (Z2012090), to
demonstrate “compliance with Maricopa County Subdivision Regulations 304.2 and 304.3 for
water and wastewater facilities.” Nor has your client submitted a “Certificate of 100 Year
Assured Water Supply,” or any “guarantee that the subdivision can and will receive an adequate
supply of potable water from a water system operated by a certificated water company or
municipality.”
Rezoning Application ¶ H also implies that the property will be served by SRP’s
“existing 12Kv [sic] line and easement to the property.” This is both false and not physically
possible. SRP has advised that the existing 12kV line is only capable of serving approximately
300 homes (of which more than 100 are already being served in Goldfield Ranch) and the
existing “easement” will terminate in 2035. Your response to my question # 9 indicates that you
have no documents or evidence that your client has made any effort to comply with Stipulation i
to the rezoning extension (Z2012090) to “provide written documentation from Salt River Project
(SRP) stating that SRP has the physical and legal capability to serve electricity to the site.”
You should feel no need to apologize, at least to me, for these misstatements. I am not
implying that they were either innocent or intentional, nor suggesting who is responsible for
them. Nor am I expressing any opinion on the merits of your applications, whether they
constitute sound planning and responsible development, or should be approved by the County. I
am hoping, however, that the details I have provided here will facilitate your client, myself and
Planning and Development reaching a mutual understanding of the indisputable facts that are the
background of your requests as they may be amended.
Sincerely,
Randolph J. Haines
cc: Joseph Mueller, Planner
Randolph J. Haines
12140 N. Sin Vacas Trail
Fort McDowell, Az. 85264
randyhaines@outlook.com
(602) 390-3070
August 8, 2024
Ms. Elyse DiMartino, Planner
Berry Riddell LLC
6750 E. Camelback Road
Suite 100
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
Re: PA2024034 Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preserve at Goldfield Ranch
PA2024034 Zone Change, Goldhawk At The Preserve
Dear Ms. DiMartino:
Thank you for your answers to questions 1-2 and 4-6. But your responses to my
questions 3 and 7-10 are, at best, not responsive. More importantly, they reveal some material
factual errors in your applications that need to be corrected before Planning and Development
can adequately review your proposals and before I can address the planning issues they raise.
The CPA Does Not Simply “Remove” and “Reclassify” a Portion of Preserve DMP
As to your answer to question 3, your first sentence is correct that all of the land in
Goldfield Ranch other than the defunct DMP is classified for planning purposes as Rural 0-1
du/ac, so any land outside of the former DMP does not need a plan amendment to be reclassified
as such. But this still does not explain how, by simply removing any acreage from the former
Preserve DMP, the plan amendment can create “1,940 contiguous acres of the larger 2,434-acre
[former Preserve DMP] Site,” since the largest contiguous acreage of that larger site was only
1679 acres, in Parcel A. Subtraction cannot result in addition. My question was clear: how can
you increase the contiguous acreage simply by “removing” some acreage? To increase the 1,679
contiguous acreage of Parcel A you must add some more contiguous acreage that was not part of
the former Preserve DMP, so my question asked you to identify that additional acreage.
You chose not to answer that question, insisting that “1,940 acres is the project area”
even though the entirety of the defunct Preserve DMP north of SR 87 never included more than
1,728 acres. What is this additional acreage and where does it come from, since it cannot
possibly come from the old Preserve DMP?
2
Your Applications Include Undisclosed Acreage
Although did not identify the additional acreage in your response the answer now
becomes apparent from your rezoning application, which is both factually wrong and
inconsistent with your Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Both the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and the 2007 DMP clearly showed that Parcel B was not contiguous with Parcel A,
and that Parcel B was not contiguous with State Route 87. But the maps in your rezoning
application purporting to show “Existing Zoning” and “Proposed Zoning” both show the new
project to make the former Parcel B contiguous with both Parcel A and SR 87. Of course this
can only be accomplished by adding to the former DMP some acreage located between Parcels A
and B and some acreage located between Parcel B and SR 87. And this is confirmed by the fine
print below both of those maps, which indicates the “Total Area” as consisting of 1,939 acres,
whereas the former Parcels A and B together were only 1679 + 48.8 = 1727.8 acres. The
difference is 212 acres, which is what my question asked you to explain.
The map in your rezoning proposal, the conceptual site plan and the conceptual roadway
plans have added to what was the 2007 Preserve DMP the following six 40+-acre parcels:
(1) Goldfield Ranch Phase III Parcel 1 (40.18 ac)(now 219-16-061 owned by GRRH);
(2) Parcel 3 (50.54 ac) (now 219-16-063K owned by GRRH);
(3) Parcel 5 (41.47 ac)(now 219-16-065A owned by GRRH);
(4) Parcel 12 (41.33 ac)(now 219-16-072 owned by GRRH);
(5) Parcel 13 (40.04 ac)(now 219-16-073 owned by Four Peaks Holdings); and
(6) Parcel 14 (40.32 ac)(now 219-16-074 owned by Four Peaks Holdings).
Total: 253.9 acres
None of these parcels was included in the list of parcels comprising the Preserve DMP
that was approved in 2007. See the attached list, which was excerpted from the Preliminary Plat
Narrative that was filed on December 17, 2007, after the 2006-07 DMP amendment. Also note
that your maps of “existing land use” and “proposed land use” also misrepresent the DMP
because DMP Parcels C and D on the south side of SR 87 were not contiguous as now shown on
your maps. They were discontiguous because the Preserve DMP did not include Goldfield
Ranch Phase 5 Parcel 8, Assessor’s Parcel 219-16-114F, which you have also added to the 2007
Preserve DMP.
These factual misstatements are confirmed by your statement that the larger DMP site
was 2,434 acres, when in fact is was only 2,079 acres. These factual misrepresentations cannot
be attributed to the former owner Ellman Companies because your own current client, Goldfield
Ranch Realty Holdings, filed an application in December, 2012, to extend for five years the
termination date of the 2007 Preserve DMP. Your client’s extension application stated that the
Preserve DMP that was conditionally rezoned in Z2007150 “includes 2,079 acres.” See
Z2012090, “The Preserve at Goldfield Ranch Modification to the Zoning Stipulations,” Project
Narrative Background ¶ 1. Having obtained that extension, your client is now judicially
estopped to claim that the Preserve DMP was actually 355 acres larger than it ever was.
3
The Surreptitious Inclusion of 253 Unidentified Acres Creates Many Factual
Misrepresentations on which Planning and Development staff has Relied
Your undisclosed and unexplained addition of six 40+-acre parcels to both the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the rezoning application means there are a significant
number of material inconsistencies and misrepresentations in these documents. Both the sheer
number of these factual misrepresentations and their interrelationship suggest that these are not
minor or immaterial mathematical errors but are fundamental to the essential purpose and effect
of the requested plan amendment and rezoning:
(1) The effect of the proposed plan amendment is not simply to “remove this approximate
1,728.37-acre portion of the Site from the Preserve DMP and reclassify it as Rural 0-1 du/ac” as
your Comprehensive Plan amendment states. In fact, your CPA also proposes to change the
Goldfield Area Plan for an additional 254 acres that were never included in the 2007 DMP.
(2) The effect of the CPA is not simply “to allow the Site to develop at a lower density”
as you contend. To the contrary, it materially increases the density on approximately 254 acres
that are currently zoned R-190.
(3) The CPA and the rezoning application are both seriously misleading because they use
inconsistent definitions of the “Site.” The CPA defines the “Site” as being the “whole Preserve
at Goldfield Ranch.” The rezoning application defines the “Site” as being “approximately 1,940
acres” “as shown below,” but the map “shown below” includes several parcels totaling more
than 254 acres that were never part of the 2007 Preserve DMP.
(4) Therefore even if the CPA were adopted and limited to amending the Preserve DMP
as you contend, the proposed rezoning could not be approved because it includes 254 acres
whose zoning would be inconsistent with both the Goldfield Area Plan and your proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
(5) The rezoning application misrepresents the “Owner” to be only Goldfield Ranch
Realty Holdings. The true owner of 80 acres (parcels 219-16-073 and 219-16-074) for which the
rezoning is sought is Four Peaks Holdings aka Grayhawk. In fact, didn’t this same undisclosed
owner previously seek, and be denied, essentially this same rezoning (one house per acre on
septic) of this same 80 acres, without claiming it ever to have been part of the Preserve DMP? Is
that rezoning denial the reason why Grayhawk did not want to be identified as one of the Owners
filing this rezoning application?
(6) It is not true that “this downzoning will consist of approximately 1,940 acres of the
Preserve” (Rezoning ¶ A, emphasis added) because it is an upzoning for approximately 254
acres that were never part of the Preserve.
(7) It is not true that “this rezoning of Goldhawk . . . as shown below, is a downzoning
from what was previously approved “(Rezoning ¶ B). To the contrary, it is an upzoning and at
least a fivefold increase in density from what was previously approved for 254 acres.
4
(8) The CPA Application states that it is for 558 lots but the rezoning states it is for 712
lots.
(9) It is not true that “the Site is comprised of approximately 1,940 acres and is part of
the larger Preserve at Goldfield Ranch” (Rezoning ¶ C) because more than 10% of the Site was
never part of the larger Preserve.
(10) It is not true that “This request is a downzoning that will reduce the number of
approved lots currently permitted on the Site” (Rezoning ¶ J) because it includes a significant
upzoning for 254 acres that will increase the number of approved lots currently permitted on the
Site. There are currently only six (6) “approved lots” on the 254 acres you have attempted to add
to the Preserve DMP Site, because these are only six 40+-acre parcels. Even without considering
zoning limitations each of the current two owners of these six parcels could only create an
additional four lots each without legally subdividing them. And these six 40-acre lots cannot
now be legally subdivided because there is no Certificate of Assured Water Supply and no more
will be issued in the Phoenix AMA. So on these 254 acres this requested rezoning would
increase the density from the current theoretical legal maximum of 14 wildcat subdivided lots to
as many as 250.
(11) It is not true that “the number of approved lots currently permitted on the Site” is
“+/- 1,000 units” because the conditions on that zoning have never been satisfied and by this
application the Owner admits they never will be satisfied. Until those conditions are satisfied,
“the number of approved lots currently permitted on the Site” is theoretically around 400,
because until those conditions are satisfied the underlying unconditional zoning remains R-190.
Planning and Zoning Staff Has Been Misled by these Material Misrepresentations
As noted above, the multiple repetitions of both the current zoning and the acreage of the
defunct 2007 Preserve DMP suggest you must have regarded these representations as highly
material to your applications. This is confirmed by the Pre-Application Meeting Form which
states: “The subject area . . . comprises the majority of the Preserve DMP area,” and “Staff feels
that the proposed RU-70 RUPD may be an improvement to the existing zoning on site.” Both of
these statements indicate that staff was misled by your misstatements that the “subject area” is
entirely part of the Preserve DMP area. Staff was also apparently misled by your representation
as to the existing zoning on approximately 254 acres of the subject site. These P&Z staff
statements indicate that your false comparison to existing zoning is virtually the only reason that
staff might support the rezoning. At the very least, the P&Z staff statements indicate that your
numerous erroneous comparisons to existing zoning is highly material to staff’s reaction.
Rezoning Application Contains Other Material Misrepresentations
Your answers and evasions to my questions confirm there are some other material
misstatements in your applications that you will want to correct before you find them to be
publicly embarrassing, or worse.
5
Rezoning Application ¶ G states that future residents will be served by “the Goldfield
Fire Center.” It appears that there is no such entity and that the name was made up. In fact, and
as you know, there is a Goldfield Ranch Fire District which apparently you have not contacted.
If and when you do, I believe you will learn that it has no fire station, equipment, employees or
volunteers and has no capacity to protect 712 homes.
Rezoning Application ¶ G also states that “the Site is bounded on the . . . east . . . by the
Tonto National Forest.” This is not true. The Site is bounded on the east by Goldfield Ranch.
As noted in our email correspondence, you have not been in contact with the homeowners and
the property owners associations that serve that planned community.
Rezoning Application ¶ H states that there is an “existing approved Analysis of Assured
Water Supply.” This is not true. There purportedly was an Analysis of Assured Water Supply in
June, 2007. But that expired in 2017 per Az.Admin.Code § R12-15-703(F). Your response to
my question # 7 indicates that you have no documents or evidence that your client has made any
effort to extend that Analysis. You also have no evidence that your client made any effort to
comply with its agreement, per Stipulation y of the rezoning extension (Z2012090), to
demonstrate “compliance with Maricopa County Subdivision Regulations 304.2 and 304.3 for
water and wastewater facilities.” Nor has your client submitted a “Certificate of 100 Year
Assured Water Supply,” or any “guarantee that the subdivision can and will receive an adequate
supply of potable water from a water system operated by a certificated water company or
municipality.”
Rezoning Application ¶ H also implies that the property will be served by SRP’s
“existing 12Kv [sic] line and easement to the property.” This is both false and not physically
possible. SRP has advised that the existing 12kV line is only capable of serving approximately
300 homes (of which more than 100 are already being served in Goldfield Ranch) and the
existing “easement” will terminate in 2035. Your response to my question # 9 indicates that you
have no documents or evidence that your client has made any effort to comply with Stipulation i
to the rezoning extension (Z2012090) to “provide written documentation from Salt River Project
(SRP) stating that SRP has the physical and legal capability to serve electricity to the site.”
You should feel no need to apologize, at least to me, for these misstatements. I am not
implying that they were either innocent or intentional, nor suggesting who is responsible for
them. Nor am I expressing any opinion on the merits of your applications, whether they
constitute sound planning and responsible development, or should be approved by the County. I
am hoping, however, that the details I have provided here will facilitate your client, myself and
Planning and Development reaching a mutual understanding of the indisputable facts that are the
background of your requests as they may be amended.
Sincerely,
Randolph J. Haines
cc: Joseph Mueller, Planner
g{x cÜxáxÜäx tà ZÉÄwy|xÄw etÇv{
II.
Description of Proposal
The Project is in conformance with the approved Development Master Plan Amendment,
dated December 19, 2007, comprised of four independent parcels totaling 2,079 acres,
located within the Goldfield Ranch community. Refer to the Vicinity Map, in Appendix A for
specific location and information. The Project is sensitive to the desert environment by
recognizing the constraints of the topography coupled with the existence of numerous
washes and therefore provides ample open space corridors.
The Project encompasses four distinct parcels separated into 31 Development Parcels. The
approved Development Master Plan for the Project allows development of up to 1,000 lots.
This Preliminary Plat request proposes development of 951 Single Family lots, including 487
semi-custom residential lots and 464 custom residential lots.
Parcel A is 1,680 acres of 24 Development Parcels consisting of a mix of semi-custom
and custom residential lots. The lots will be a minimum of 8,000 square feet for the
semi-custom lots and 43,560 square feet for the custom lots. This Preliminary Plat
request includes 487 semi-custom lots and 375 custom lots in Parcel A.
Parcel A may also include a community clubhouse, sales/welcome center, Water
Reclamation Facility (WRF) and water campus. The WRF and water campus provide
service for both Parcels A and B. The sales/welcome center will be located within the
community clubhouse on Parcel A-4. A Special Use Permit will be submitted
separately for the WRF, water campuses and community clubhouse.
Parcel B is 49 acres of one Development Parcel consisting of custom residential home
sites with a minimum lot area of 65,000 square feet. This Preliminary Plat request
includes 10 custom home sites within parcel B.
Parcel C is 263 acres of three Development Parcels consisting of custom residential
home sites with a minimum lot area of 65,000 square feet. This Preliminary Plat
request includes 53 custom home sites within Parcel C.
Parcel D is 88 acres of three Development Parcels of custom residential home sites
with a minimum lot area of 65,000 square feet. This Preliminary Plat request
includes 26 custom home sites within Parcel D. Parcel D also has a water campus
facility providing service for both Parcel C and Parcel D.
PAGE 4
The Project provides ample active and passive open spaces with an extensive trail system.
Unimproved trails of natural material connect intermittently with the improved private
collector road shared-use trail system. In excess of 30% of the Project will be open
space. The open spaces will complement the existing surrounding area maintaining a
residential development consistent with Goldfield Ranch. Additionally, the custom lots
have a disturbance limit which defines the boundary between where development can
occur and the conservation area of each lot.
g{x cÜxáxÜäx tà ZÉÄwy|xÄw etÇv{
IV. Location and Accessibility
The Project is approximately five miles east of the intersection of Shea Boulevard and State
Route 87 (SR-87), within unincorporated Maricopa County at the northeastern fringe of the
Phoenix Metropolitan area.
The property lies within portions of Sections 10 through 24, Township 3 North, Range 7 East,
of the Gila and Salt River Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona.
Primary access to the Project is from SR-87 via existing 80-foot Road Easement and Public
Utility Easements, recorded with the 1977 Goldfield Ranch Records of Survey, known as
Burntwater Road and Palo Pinto Trail located on the north side of SR-87, along with Calle Sin
Nombre and Pleasant View Drive on the south side of SR-87. As part of the overall
circulation pattern for the Project, improvements to the existing access points shall be per
the requirements of Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) or as
otherwise approved by MCDOT.
The Maricopa County Tax Assessor Parcel Numbers for the properties within the Project are
as follows:
219-16-064
219-16-067
219-16-068
219-16-069
219-16-070
219-16-071
219-16-072
219-16-075
219-16-076
219-16-077
219-16-078
219-16-079
219-16-080
219-16-081
219-16-082
219-16-083
219-16-084
219-16-085
219-16-086
219-16-087
219-16-088
219-16-089
219-16-090
219-16-091
219-16-092
219-16-093
219-16-094A
219-16-095
219-16-096
219-16-097A
219-16-098
219-16-099
219-16-100
219-16-101
219-16-102
219-16-103
219-16-104
219-16-105
219-16-106
219-16-107
219-16-108
219-16-109
219-16-110
219-16-111
219-16-112A
219-16-114C
219-16-116D
219-16-117
219-16-118
PAGE 7
87
AZ
87
AZ
87
AZ
Fort
McDowell
Yavapai
Nation
Tonto
National
Forest
Fountain
Hills
Salt
Verde
River
The Preserve at
Goldfield Ranch
Saguaro
Lake
McDowell
Mountain Community
Regional Park
River
Goldfield
Ranch
PARCEL A
PARCEL B
PARCEL C
PARCEL D
Randolph J. Haines
12140 N. Sin Vacas Trail
Fort McDowell, Az. 85264
randyhaines@outlook.com
(602) 390-3070
August 30, 2024
Mr. Nicholas Schlimm, Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development
301 W. Jefferson St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Re: Z2024006 Zone Change, Goldhawk At The Preserve
Dear Mr. Schlimm:
I am a 23-year owner and resident of 10 acres in Goldfield Ranch (Parcel 219-16-057d),
which is adjacent to the land currently subject to a rezoning application Z2024006, now
apparently called “Goldhawk At The Preserve.” I am also a member of the Board of Directors of
the Goldfield Property Owners Association (“GPOA”) which is resonsible to maintaining all of
the originally platted roads and roadway easements in Goldfield Ranch. I am writing in my
capactiy as the Secretary of GPOA but not on behalf of the Board because it has not had an
opportunity to meet and authorize any action since learning of the existence of Z2024006. The
questions I pose here are necessary for GPOA to intelligently consider how it should respond to
Z2024006, so you can be assured that your answers will be promptly communicated to the
GPOA Board for its consideration.
1.
Why has GPOA not been officially notified? Doesn’t the County require that
all affected homeowners associations be notified of any rezoning request? Goldfield Ranch is a
“Planned Community” within the meaning of A.R.S. § 33-1802(4) and GPOA is the only
“Association” within the meaning of A.R.S. § 33-1804(2). As the Secretary of GPOA I can
confirm that it has received no official, unofficial or even casual notification of the initation of
Z2024006, even though it was apparently filed over six weeks ago. Can you please explain how
this can occur, and how can this rezoning application move forward in any respect until the
affected Association is notified?
2.
Please include GPOA in any TAC meeting. As the “local authority” over the
roads (see Question 4 below) GPOA should be included in any TAC meeting. Please advise of
the schedule.
3.
What is the hearing schedule and deadline for comments and objections? I
have heard third-hand that something may be scheduled for November. Please advise me of all
scheduled or even tentative hearing dates and the dates by which comments, questions and
2
objections should be filed so that staff has adequate time to consider them before preparing any
report or recommendation.
4.
Who will be responsible for both improving and maintaining the roads? The
rezoning “Narrative” states that “Private rural roadways (with public access) exist throughout the
property and will be improved and extended as necessary to provide reliable access to each lot.”
All of the main “backbone” collector roads exist on land that is privately owned but subject to
recorded ingress and egress easements in favor of the general public. GPOA has both a legal
opinion and an expert traffic engineer’s opinion that under A.R.S. §§ 28-101(43) and 28-627
GPOA is the “local authority” with the power and responsibility to regulate the usage of these
easements and the obligation to maintain the roadway access on them. So who will be
responsible for making and financing the “improvements” the rezoning applicant promises?
Given GPOA’s responsibility and obligation to maintain the easements that the developer
intends to use, the answer to this question is critical to GPOA’s consideration of its response to
the proposed rezoning. The Board may need more than thirty or sixty days to formulate its
response once an answer is obtained because it may need to engage a lawyer to advise as to the
Board’s legal obligations and a traffic engineer to quantify the nature of extent of those
obligations. The answer is not likely to be as simple as it sounds because even if the rezoning
applicant says it intends to be responsible for improving and maintaining the easements this
leaves the very difficult questions of (1) what security will be provided to GPOA to ensure the
applicant’s performance, (2) how will GPOA be relieved of any responsibility, and (3) who will
be responsible for maintenance after the developer is gone?
5.
Who will pay assessments on acreage not platted for homes? GPOA finances
its road maintenance by levying assessments on a per-acre basis. The conceptual site plan shows
a lot of acreage that is not platted for homes. Who will own this acreage and pay the per-acre
assessments?
6.
How can GRRH “improve” roads on land it does not own? As noted, all of
the originally platted roadway easements exist on land owned by the adjacent landowners and
only GPOA has authority to maintain the easements. The rezoning applicant Goldfield Ranch
Realty Holdings does not own the land underlying at least half of the main Burnt Water access to
this development on parcel 219-16-062a. How does GRRH have any authority to “improve” this
road?
7.
Will the County require the roads to be improved to County standards?
Stipulations M(4) and P to what the developer contends is the “existing Rural-190, Rural-70,
Rural-43 and R1-8 with Residential Unit Plan of Development Overlays and Planned Area
Development Overlays” require that all roadways must meet County standards, including the
MCDOT Roadway Design Manual. Will these same standards be required for this rezoning?
What if the originally platted easements cannot physically be improved to County
standards? The easements were platted in 1977 only to provide physical access to 40+-acre
parcels of raw land, not to 712 homes on one-acre lots. Some of the easements are in existing
washes and some of them are on narrow ridges so that it is physically impossible to maintain 80-
3
foot wide easements. In 1977 the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors determined that the
existing roads and easements in Goldfield Ranch Phase I and II “have not been opened, laid out
and constructed in a manner acceptable to Maricopa County” so it rejected the offer of
dedication of these roads to the County (see attachment), and would presumably make the same
determination as to the roads in Phase III and IV.
8.
When will GPOA be paid the $2.336 million? In Stipulation L(2) to the
rezoning extension, Z2012090, the current owner Goldfield Ranch Realty Holdings agreed to
make a “contribution to regional transportation infrastructure” in the amount of “$3,281 per
residential dwelling unit.” For the 712 dwellings currently contemplated by this rezoning, that
amounts to $2,336,000. As noted above, GPOA is the “local authority” under state law
responsible for the regional transportation infrastructure. This involves not only the roads within
the parcels to be rezoned but also the adjacent land in Goldfield Ranch. The rezoning proposal
states that “existing private roadway connections will remain to the adjacent Goldfield Ranch
neighborhood ensuring circulation and connectivity throughout.” This means that the 712 homes
on the rezoned property will be utilizing roads such as Burnt Water, Northwoods Pass, Thirsty
Earth, Starfire and Vista Del Oro in the adjacent subdivision Goldfield Ranch Phase II. The cost
of maintaining these roads is paid by assessments levied against the owners of land in Phase II
on a per-acre basis. The Phase II landowners will need to be compensated for the additional
financial burden imposed on them by the rezoning of another subdivision. Until an adequate
traffic study is performed and until we know whether County standards will also be imposed on
these collector roads it is impossible to determine whether the existing stipulation for $2.3
million will be sufficient.
But in addition to the adequacy of the amount there is the critical question of when it will
be paid or at least secured. For two reasons, imposing this obligation as a subdivision stipulation
or even a zoning condition is insufficient. First, this owner/rezoning applicant has already
demonstrated it does not consider itself bound by its stipulations. Second, even if it regarded
stipulations as binding contracts there is nothing to guarantee it will not simply default. GPOA
cannot afford to run the risk of being required to maintain the roads for a 712 dry lot wildcat
subdivision that could result if the rezoning became effective before the owner/developer
defaulted on its obligations.
9.
Why rezone for a subdivision that cannot be created? Finally, although not
directly related to roads, there is the elephant in the room: Why should any rezoning should be
granted or even considered for a subdivision that cannot be approved or created? Arizona law
requires a Certificate of Assured Water Supply before a landowner can submit a subdivision plat
for approval and prohibits a County from approving a subdivision without such a Certificate.
A.R.S. §§ 45-576(A) & (B). We have known for well over a year that there will be no more
Certificates issued for the Phoenix Active Management Area. Although the rezoning application
claims to have an Analysis of Assured Water Supply that was issued in 2007 it expired in June,
2017, per Ariz.Admin.Code § R12-15-703(f) and in any event the AzDWR has announced that
such Analyses have no further significance unless a Certificate application was pending.
Since this rezoning applicant cannot even apply for approval of the proposed subdivision,
why should the County even consider this rezoning? State law currently prohibits the existing
4
40+ acre parcels from being legally subdivided, so wouldn’t the only effect of such rezoning be
to disable the County from preventing a wildcat subdivision of at least 712, if not 1,940, dry one-
acre lots? GPOA has struggled for more than 20 years to create and maintain roads and
easements that can adequately serve homes on five- and ten-acre parcels but is neither designed
nor equipped to handle the density and traffic generated by one-acre wildcat lots. Why is the
County even considering this rezoning that cannot result in an approved subdivision?
I look forward to your informative answers to these fundamental background questions so
that the GPOA Board can begin to consider how to respond. Usually I would direct such
questions to the applicant or its lawyer or planner but, as noted, the developer’s answers have
been evasive and uninformative at best and even then are very slow in response. Moreover, I
expect that the answers from the County would be far more reliable and based on solid,
verifiable authority. Again, I am not expressing any position or opinions on behalf of the GPOA
Board, but merely gathering reliable information for it to consider. So I look forward to your
answers and enjoy a great Labor Day weekend.
Sincerely,
Randolph J. Haines
GPOA Director/Secretary
cc: Ms. Elyse DiMartino, Planner
ii;';t(; I 1
cntp4:l3fs 5:ltl
il;'. '
tli t ,.'
Liil :i Hl.a()t{l)l.D
Rl ll'H:l Tri
H.rri(.(tp!
r (!untJ-
t.
,{.d at Fr,1,ort ,n
8, .,d Ot Sugatu,rc._
ountu uf fl[uriruPit
6tate nf Ariznttu
(0ffirr uf tftr Olsrh
o
$tatr of Ariznrtu lrs.
6nunl11 rrf II{uriroPut-
-
/ lilrr';r 1]lorrtrlll,
/,.r, /,7 / , t/,7,y .//',r/ t ir.
ft.,trr i l,
,1 t:ili: r.\
,; I- t lrt. ll,
S('i't(,ll)(
t I , l i'-:
'//r.r/' ,7 //,. fro,,rr/ ,/'.'l'/,.rutr(t,t do
lo. Il,i r il(
l s ir t rrrc :tttd corrcct
('\t rarct
rr : r,t "rr1lt'rvisors'
nrct'titlg ltt'lrl
,\rrt)lr l l O" r) l
iii.Slrl lr; I,!
i{l-il_r tl,iLi lrl l)l-Ci\Ul)I
\: ' .r. lrr',i '
()l: R(),1DliA)' I lSl:l!LN-'tS:
3rr Eitnrau fi[lerrof . J./,,,,. /e,eu,to' t*
,r, y lr, ,r,/ o r,r/ o1/rterl de Q7i.a/ 9-,/ t1 tln 1lad
,y .'/,,1,". r,u, r.
(Jrr,. ,r/ /lrnrr;-r, t/,.(/*, nty ,(/L/
r/,,.,
lith
,/,,y,/ sL'ptrlnl)cr, l!77
,r,/ ?
cr,,r of i6r tiiaiiS",i,K*
rt
" ^{li, 1 v.isz}, .,:1i-.'
""; 's#lilz
,r
t).
lr I ,, , ,. -,it
L>'l
i d
t -.-
:
;
n
:'
/
!J!r r/ fu(ut.rr,
\t t, tlUr,,,
(.0unt)' !.t,iltttt.
r
I iIc
Randolph J. Haines
12140 N. Sin Vacas Trail
Fort McDowell, Az. 85264
randyhaines@outlook.com
(602) 390-3070
September 6, 2024
Ms. Elyse DiMartino, Planner
Berry Riddell LLC
6750 E. Camelback Road Suite 100
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
Re: CPA2024006 Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preserve at Goldfield Ranch
Z2400006 Zone Change, Goldhawk At The Preserve
Dear Ms. DiMartino:
Thank you for your response to my letter of August 8 (copy attached), and I am
especially thankful for your acknowledgement of the myriad factual errors in your applications
regarding the acreage that was included in the old Preserve DMP. Your acknowledgements
clarify much of the confusion. But your corrections raise some additional questions to which I
hope you will be equally responsive.
1.
Will you be amending your applications to correct or eliminate the
misstatements of the acreage included in the Preserve DMP? I think you will agree that these
misstatements are highly material, consisting of at least 212 acres. I understand your comment
that “it is very typical for applications to be refined through the process with staff.” Does this
mean that you will be filing amended applications to “refine” your descriptions of both what was
in the old Preserve DMP and what are the current land use designations? When can I expect to
see that amendment? I do have some very substantive planning and zoning issues to raise with
your applications and I would prefer to address them to the final, refined application rather than
one that is admittedly factually inaccurate.
2.
Will your amended applications eliminate the 212 acres that were never part
of the Preserve DMP and that are not being “downzoned”? I appreciate your contention that
staff was not “mislead” [sic] in understanding that the purported “downzoning” from the existing
Preserve DMP zoning is “the only reason” for your comprehensive plan amendment and “the
only reason that staff might support the rezoning” (emphasis in original). Given that that is the
only reason you have suggested for this plan amendment and rezoning, will your amended
applications simply remove the 212 acres that were mistakenly included? Not only would this be
consistent with the only purpose of the plan amendment and rezoning but would actually
enhance that purpose “to allow the Site to develop at a [even lower] density.”
2
3.
It is legally and factually incorrect that the Preserve DMP was a zoning
“entitlement.” Another category of factual misstatements is the repeated references to the
Preserve DMP as being some kind of zoning “entitlement.” Your Comprehensive Plan
Amendment narrative application makes at least three references to the Preserve DMP as being
some kind of “entitlement.” And you flatly state this alleged “entitlement” was a zoning
entitlement defined by Maricopa County zoning classifications “Rural-70, Rural-43, and R1-8,
all with RUPD and PAD Overlays” (CPA p. 1). And your response to Question 11 makes clear
you regard this as a “zoning” entitlement when you state that “Arizona law is clear that zoning is
in place unless otherwise removed by the Board of Supervisors.”
But the Preserve DMP never included any zoning entitlement. To the contrary, it was
never more than a “conditional zoning” entitlement. Arizona statutes and Supreme Court
holdings are clear that conditional zoning is legally distinct from zoning. Conditional zoning is
authorized by a separate statute, A.R.S. § 11-814(I), that is separate and distinct from the
statutory authorizations of both the zoning power and the rezoning power, A.R.S. §§ 11-811(A)
& 11-813(B), (C) & (D). Because Arizona counties do not have home rule, this specific
authorization for counties to engage in conditional zoning was necessary to authorize that power,
distinct from both the general zoning power and the rezoning power. The Supreme Court has
made clear that conditional zoning is something that occurs at an entirely different time than a
zoning or rezoning. The holding of Pioneer Trust Company v. Pima County, 168 Ariz. 61, 811
P.2d 22 (1991) is that the time to seek a referendum on a conditional zoning is within 30 days of
the grant of the conditional zoning, not the much later time when the actual zoning amendment is
made. The analysis in that opinion also makes unmistakably clear that the grant of conditional
zoning is legally distinct from the grant of final zoning: “If the Board grants a request for
conditional approval, rezoning is subject to the satisfaction of all rezoning conditions and to the
adoption of a rezoning ordinance. . . . After conditional approval, the Board may adopt a
rezoning ordinance only when ‘all rezoning conditions have been satisfied . . . .’” Id. at 65. And
the Arizona Court of Appeals has specifically held that “conditional zoning requests that have
not been completed cannot run in perpetuity,” and that there is no “vested right in conditional
zoning” unless and until there has been “actual construction or establishment of the use . . .
accomplished in reliance on or in conformance with a previously issued permit authorizing the
commencement of the use or construction.” Fidelity National Title Ins. Co. v. Pima County, 171
Ariz. 427, 428 & 430, 431 P.2d 426 (App. Div. 2 1992).
Because it was conditional zoning only, it is factually and legally incorrect to refer to the
Preserve DMP as any kind of “entitlement.” No statute, regulation or case law defines
conditional zoning as being an entitlement. This is not just a technical or semantic difference
because in plain language the “entitlement” language is facetious or entirely misleading. I could
just as easily claim that as a 35+ year old natural born citizen I have an entitlement to exercise
the executive powers of the United States, conditioned only upon my being elected.
All the references to entitlements, zoning rights and zoning classifications should be
eliminated from the plan amendment and rezoning applications. At minimum, they cannot be
used without acknowledgement that they are merely conditional, which for planning purposes
means they are at best hypothetical, not actual or vested.
3
4.
A conditional zoning subject to conditions that cannot or will not be satisfied
is a nullity for both planning and zoning purposes. While in some circumstances the
distinction between a zoning entitlement and a conditional zoning might be a mere legal
formality or technicality, it is something altogether different when the conditions cannot be
satisfied, or are known to be unrealistic or practically impossible.
A conditional zoning has no existence in the absence of the conditions. A conditional
zoning does not become unconditional zoning when the conditions become impossible, or upon
expiration of the time limit for their accomplishment, or simply upon the owner’s declaration
that they no longer apply. Your repeated statement that “a stipulation of the previous case will
not apply as we are starting the process over” means that the entire “previous case” does not
apply since the Preserve DMP cannot exist without its conditions. And “starting over” must
mean starting as if the Preserve DMP never existed. That means satisfaction of the conditions is
at best unrealistic or practically impossible. One of the most significant conditions that your
applications implicitly acknowledge to be unrealistic is the approval of a proposed wastewater
treatment facility.
A comprehensive plan amendment requires a comparison of the proposed amendment
and the existing plan, and a demonstration that the amendment “constitutes an overall
improvement.” That comparison requires a comparison of apples to apples. Owners and
planners may have strong and strongly differing opinions whether apples are better than oranges,
but the answer is not debatable. The comparison must be between realities that are realistically
possible. We can debate whether a horse constitutes an overall improvement compared to a
mule, but it would be a meaningless exercise to debate whether a horse is an overall
improvement to a unicorn or Pegasus. Debating fantasies may be an entertaining exercise for
fans of J.R.R. Tolkein but they serve no purpose in the planning process.
What is a conditional zoning plan when its conditions are unrealistic? For planning
purposes it is not just an inchoate hypothetical, it is a null set. The unrealistic conditions mean it
is not a plan at all. For planning purposes the statute A.R.S. § 11-814(I) means the only possible
realistic plan when zoning conditions become unrealistic or impossible is reversion to the former
zoning classification. So when your proposed comprehensive plan amendment is compared to
the Preserve DMP (which is a specific subset of the Goldfield Area Plan, which is a subset of the
Comprehensive Plan), the comparison must be to the plan for that land when it has reverted to
the former zoning classification. That would have to be the Goldfield Area Plan.
The CPA application fails to satisfy the requirement of demonstrating an overall
improvement to the existing plan. The Preserve DMP with the assumption its conditions can
ever be satisfied has become the fantastic unicorn with which no realistic comparisons can be
made. Where is your consideration of whether your plan amendment is an overall improvement
of the Preserve DMP on the realistic assumption that its conditions will never be satisfied?
Planning must deal with realistic possibilities, not theoretical legal null sets such as a conditional
zoning whose conditions have become unrealistic or fantastic.
I look forward to your amended applications correcting or eliminating the admitted errors
and misstatements, removing the 212 acres that were never part of the Preserve, and including an
4
analysis of how your plan amendment constitutes an overall improvement to R-190, or any
improvement to a conditional zoning subject to impossible conditions.
Sincerely,
Randolph J. Haines
cc: Joseph Mueller, Planner
2
Randolph J. Haines
12140 N. Sin Vacas Trail
Fort McDowell, Az. 85264
randyhaines@outlook.com
(602) 390-3070
August 8, 2024
Ms. Elyse DiMartino, Planner
Berry Riddell LLC
6750 E. Camelback Road
Suite 100
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
Re: PA2024034 Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preserve at Goldfield Ranch
PA2024034 Zone Change, Goldhawk At The Preserve
Dear Ms. DiMartino:
Thank you for your answers to questions 1-2 and 4-6. But your responses to my
questions 3 and 7-10 are, at best, not responsive. More importantly, they reveal some material
factual errors in your applications that need to be corrected before Planning and Development
can adequately review your proposals and before I can address the planning issues they raise.
The CPA Does Not Simply “Remove” and “Reclassify” a Portion of Preserve DMP
As to your answer to question 3, your first sentence is correct that all of the land in
Goldfield Ranch other than the defunct DMP is classified for planning purposes as Rural 0-1
du/ac, so any land outside of the former DMP does not need a plan amendment to be reclassified
as such. But this still does not explain how, by simply removing any acreage from the former
Preserve DMP, the plan amendment can create “1,940 contiguous acres of the larger 2,434-acre
[former Preserve DMP] Site,” since the largest contiguous acreage of that larger site was only
1679 acres, in Parcel A. Subtraction cannot result in addition. My question was clear: how can
you increase the contiguous acreage simply by “removing” some acreage? To increase the 1,679
contiguous acreage of Parcel A you must add some more contiguous acreage that was not part of
the former Preserve DMP, so my question asked you to identify that additional acreage.
You chose not to answer that question, insisting that “1,940 acres is the project area”
even though the entirety of the defunct Preserve DMP north of SR 87 never included more than
1,728 acres. What is this additional acreage and where does it come from, since it cannot
possibly come from the old Preserve DMP?
Response:
Thank you for pointing this out, Randy. After looking at the numbers again, we confirmed the larger
acreage is actually +/-2,079 acres per the 2007 The Preserve at Goldfield Ranch DMP boundary, not
2,434 acres.
3
You are correct, the additional acreage does not come from the 2007 DMP. Our new project area
includes Parcel A and Parcel B of the 2007 Preserve DMP. Parcel A was +/-1,679 acres and Parcel B
was +/-49 for a total of +/-1,728 acres. We have added +/- 212 acres to the project area by including lots
1, 3, 5, 13, and 14, making the project area a total of +/-1,940 acres.
Your Applications Include Undisclosed Acreage
Although did not identify the additional acreage in your response the answer now
becomes apparent from your rezoning application, which is both factually wrong and
inconsistent with your Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Both the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and the 2007 DMP clearly showed that Parcel B was not contiguous with Parcel A,
and that Parcel B was not contiguous with State Route 87. But the maps in your rezoning
application purporting to show “Existing Zoning” and “Proposed Zoning” both show the new
project to make the former Parcel B contiguous with both Parcel A and SR 87. Of course this
can only be accomplished by adding to the former DMP some acreage located between Parcels A
and B and some acreage located between Parcel B and SR 87. And this is confirmed by the fine
print below both of those maps, which indicates the “Total Area” as consisting of 1,939 acres,
whereas the former Parcels A and B together were only 1679 + 48.8 = 1727.8 acres. The
difference is 212 acres, which is what my question asked you to explain.
Response:
While it is true that Parcel A and Parcel B are not contiguous, our project area is contiguous. Our
project area includes Parcel A and Parcel B from the DMP, along with lots 1,3,5,13, and 14 that
were not part of the DMP. Lots 1,3,5,13, and 14 are +/-212 acres.
The map in your rezoning proposal, the conceptual site plan and the conceptual roadway
plans have added to what was the 2007 Preserve DMP the following six 40+-acre parcels:
(1) Goldfield Ranch Phase III Parcel 1 (40.18 ac)(now 219-16-061 owned by GRRH);
(2) Parcel 3 (50.54 ac) (now 219-16-063K owned by GRRH);
(3) Parcel 5 (41.47 ac)(now 219-16-065A owned by GRRH);
(4) Parcel 12 (41.33 ac)(now 219-16-072 owned by GRRH);
(5) Parcel 13 (40.04 ac)(now 219-16-073 owned by Four Peaks Holdings); and
(6) Parcel 14 (40.32 ac)(now 219-16-074 owned by Four Peaks Holdings).
Total: 253.9 acres
None of these parcels was included in the list of parcels comprising the Preserve DMP
that was approved in 2007. See the attached list, which was excerpted from the Preliminary Plat
Narrative that was filed on December 17, 2007, after the 2006-07 DMP amendment. Also note
that your maps of “existing land use” and “proposed land use” also misrepresent the DMP
because DMP Parcels C and D on the south side of SR 87 were not contiguous as now shown on
your maps. They were discontiguous because the Preserve DMP did not include Goldfield
Ranch Phase 5 Parcel 8, Assessor’s Parcel 219-16-114F, which you have also added to the 2007
Preserve DMP.
4
Response:
You are correct that lots 1,3,5,13, and 14 were not part of the DMP, but are part of the project
area. Please note that these lots are +/-212 acres. Lot 12, however, was in the original DMP.
We believe this is where the discrepancy is regarding the 253.9 acres and the +/-212 acres.
These factual misstatements are confirmed by your statement that the larger DMP site
was 2,434 acres, when in fact is was only 2,079 acres. These factual misrepresentations cannot
be attributed to the former owner Ellman Companies because your own current client, Goldfield
Ranch Realty Holdings, filed an application in December, 2012, to extend for five years the
termination date of the 2007 Preserve DMP. Your client’s extension application stated that the
Preserve DMP that was conditionally rezoned in Z2007150 “includes 2,079 acres.” See
Z2012090, “The Preserve at Goldfield Ranch Modification to the Zoning Stipulations,” Project
Narrative Background ¶ 1. Having obtained that extension, your client is now judicially
estopped to claim that the Preserve DMP was actually 355 acres larger than it ever was.
Response:
You are correct that the larger acreage was +/-2,079 acres, not 2,434 acres. Thank you again for bringing this to
our attention.
5
The Surreptitious Inclusion of 253 Unidentified Acres Creates Many Factual
Misrepresentations on which Planning and Development staff has Relied
Your undisclosed and unexplained addition of six 40+-acre parcels to both the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the rezoning application means there are a significant
number of material inconsistencies and misrepresentations in these documents. Both the sheer
number of these factual misrepresentations and their interrelationship suggest that these are not
minor or immaterial mathematical errors but are fundamental to the essential purpose and effect
of the requested plan amendment and rezoning:
(1) The effect of the proposed plan amendment is not simply to “remove this approximate
1,728.37-acre portion of the Site from the Preserve DMP and reclassify it as Rural 0-1
du/ac” as your Comprehensive Plan amendment states. In fact, your CPA also proposes
to change the Goldfield Area Plan for an additional 254 acres that were never included in
the 2007 DMP.
Response:
You are correct that the additional +/-212 acres (lots 1, 3, 5, 13, and 14) were not included in the 2007
DMP. However, they are part of the Goldfield Area Plan and already have a Rural 0-1 du/ac land use.
Therefore, the land use for those lots did not need to be amended. Further, we are not making any
changes to the Area Plan.
(2) The effect of the CPA is not simply “to allow the Site to develop at a lower density”
as you contend. To the contrary, it materially increases the density on approximately 254 acres
that are currently zoned R-190.
Response:
They are zoned Rural-190 but have an Area Plan land use of Rural 0-1 du/ac. There is no change to the
Goldfield Area Plan as the CPA did not include the additional parcels. However, the rezoning
application does increase the density of the additional +/-212 acres from Rural-190 to Rural-43 but it
still conforms to the Goldfield Area Plan and overall reduces the density of the previous Preserve at
Goldfield Ranch project area.
(3) The CPA and the rezoning application are both seriously misleading because they use
inconsistent definitions of the “Site.” The CPA defines the “Site” as being the “whole Preserve
at Goldfield Ranch.” The rezoning application defines the “Site” as being “approximately 1,940
acres” “as shown below,” but the map “shown below” includes several parcels totaling more
than 254 acres that were never part of the 2007 Preserve DMP.
Response:
The “Site” for the Major CPA and Rezoning will be different because the “Site” for the Major CPA must
represent only the Major CPA area and the Rezoning “Site” can only represent the area being rezoned.
The Major CPA application is only the +/-1,728 acres (Parcels A and B of the 2007 DMP) while the
rezoning includes the +/-1,728 acres plus the +/-212 acres that were not part of the 2007 Preserve DMP
but are a part of the Rezone
6
(4) Therefore even if the CPA were adopted and limited to amending the Preserve DMP
as you contend, the proposed rezoning could not be approved because it includes 254 acres
whose zoning would be inconsistent with both the Goldfield Area Plan and your proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Response:
We are struggling to understand your statements here…The Goldfield Area Plan land use
designation is Rural 0-1 du/ac which is consistent with our rezoning request. It is true that the
Major CPA does not include the additional +/-212 acres because the land use designation on the
additional +/-212 acres is consistent and does not need to be amended to permit a rezone of Rural-
43 (RU-43).
(5) The rezoning application misrepresents the “Owner” to be only Goldfield Ranch Realty
Holdings. The true owner of 80 acres (parcels 219-16-073 and 219-16-074) for which the
rezoning is sought is Four Peaks Holdings aka Grayhawk. In fact, didn’t this same undisclosed
owner previously seek, and be denied, essentially this same rezoning (one house per acre on
septic) of this same 80 acres, without claiming it ever to have been part of the Preserve DMP? Is
that rezoning denial the reason why Grayhawk did not want to be identified as one of the Owners
filing this rezoning application?
Response:
You are correct that both entities are ownership for the rezoning application. Because the application
form did not provide the space needed to include both entities, separate ownership authorization letters
were attached to the application page provided to you.
(6) It is not true that “this downzoning will consist of approximately 1,940 acres of the Preserve”
(Rezoning ¶ A, emphasis added) because it is an upzoning for approximately 254 acres that
were never part of the Preserve.
Response:
When taken in totality, this is a downzoning of a significant portion of the previous Preserve at Goldfield
Ranch site.
(7) It is not true that “this rezoning of Goldhawk . . . as shown below, is a downzoning from what
was previously approved “(Rezoning ¶ B). To the contrary, it is an upzoning and at least a
fivefold increase in density from what was previously approved for 254 acres.
Response:
We respectfully disagree. Overall, this is a downzoning of a significant portion of the previous Preserve
at Goldfield Ranch site.
7
(8) The CPA Application states that it is for 558 lots but the rezoning states it is for 712
lots.
Response:
You are correct that the 558 lots were proposed during the pre-application stage was accidentally
carried over into some of the CPA application documents. The application documents that our team has
shared with you should not have that discrepancy. These same documents were submitted to County staff
as well.
(9) It is not true that “the Site is comprised of approximately 1,940 acres and is part of the larger
Preserve at Goldfield Ranch” (Rezoning ¶ C) because more than 10% of the Site was never
part of the larger Preserve.
Response:
You are correct that only +/-1,728 acres were part of the Preserve.
(10)
It is not true that “This request is a downzoning that will reduce the number of
approved lots currently permitted on the Site” (Rezoning ¶ J) because it includes a significant
upzoning for 254 acres that will increase the number of approved lots currently permitted on the
Site. There are currently only six (6) “approved lots” on the 254 acres you have attempted to add
to the Preserve DMP Site, because these are only six 40+-acre parcels. Even without considering
zoning limitations each of the current two owners of these six parcels could only create an
additional four lots each without legally subdividing them. And these six 40-acre lots cannot
now be legally subdivided because there is no Certificate of Assured Water Supply and no more
will be issued in the Phoenix AMA. So on these 254 acres this requested rezoning would
increase the density from the current theoretical legal maximum of 14 wildcat subdivided lots to
as many as 250.
Response:
While we appreciate your analysis of the Arizona Subdivision statutes and Arizona water law, here we
are speaking specifically about the approved zoning entitlements.
(11)
It is not true that “the number of approved lots currently permitted on the Site” is
“+/- 1,000 units” because the conditions on that zoning have never been satisfied and by this
application the Owner admits they never will be satisfied. Until those conditions are satisfied,
“the number of approved lots currently permitted on the Site” is theoretically around 400,
because until those conditions are satisfied the underlying unconditional zoning remains R-190.
Response:
Respectfully, Arizona law is clear that zoning is in place unless otherwise removed by the Board of
Supervisors. That has never occurred here. Are you suggesting that we could build 400 lots
without meeting the conditions of the zoning?
Planning and Zoning Staff Has Been Misled by these Material Misrepresentations
As noted above, the multiple repetitions of both the current zoning and the acreage of the
8
defunct 2007 Preserve DMP suggest you must have regarded these representations as highly
material to your applications. This is confirmed by the Pre-Application Meeting Form which
states: “The subject area . . . comprises the majority of the Preserve DMP area,” and “Staff feels
that the proposed RU-70 RUPD may be an improvement to the existing zoning on site.” Both of
these statements indicate that staff was misled by your misstatements that the “subject area” is
entirely part of the Preserve DMP area. Staff was also apparently misled by your representation
as to the existing zoning on approximately 254 acres of the subject site. These P&Z staff
statements indicate that your false comparison to existing zoning is virtually the only reason that
staff might support the rezoning. At the very least, the P&Z staff statements indicate that your
numerous erroneous comparisons to existing zoning is highly material to staff’s reaction.
Response:
Please understand that it is very typical for applications to be refined through the process with staff, for
example correcting acreages. We will continue to work on the details of this application. We respectfully
reject the suggestion that we have mislead staff in any way and that this is an “upzoning”.
Rezoning Application Contains Other Material Misrepresentations
Your answers and evasions to my questions confirm there are some other material
misstatements in your applications that you will want to correct before you find them to be
publicly embarrassing, or worse.
5
Rezoning Application ,r G states that future residents will be served by "the Goldfield
Fire Center." It appears that there is no such entity and that the name was made up. In fact, and
as you know, there is a Goldfield Ranch Fire District which apparently you have not contacted.
If and when you do, T believe you will learn that it has no fire station, equipment, employees or
volunteers and has no capacity to protect 712 homes.
Response:
You are correct that this should have said Goldfield Ranch Fire District, not Center. As part of the
Rezoning and Major CPA processes, we will be having discussions with the Fire District as well as
all of the utility providers.
Rezoning Application ,r G also states that "the Site is bounded on the ... east ... by the
Tonto National Forest." TI1is is not true. The Site is bounded on the east by Goldfield Ranch.
As noted in our email correspondence, you have not been in contact with the homeowners and
the property owners associations that serve that planned community,
Response:
You are correct, it was intended to be a more general statement; however, we understand how it could
easily be misinterpreted.
As part of the application process, we sent out notification letters to the required property
owners and interested parties provided by County staff. We will be doing robust outreach and
holding a neighborhood meeting as we continue to move through these processes. We are happy
to hold additional individual meetings with you and any other interested neighbors.
Rezoning Application ,r H states that there is an "existing approved Analysis of Assured
Water Supply." This is not true. There purportedly was an Analysis of Assured Water Supply in
June, 2007. But that expired in 2017 per Az.Admin.Code § Rl2-15-703(F). Your response to
my question # 7 indicates that you have no documents or evidence that your client has made any
effort to extend that Analysis. You also have no evidence that your client made any effort to
comply with its agreement, per Stipulation y of the rezoning extension (Z2012090), to
demonstrate "compliance with Maricopa County Subdivision Regulations 304.2 and 304.3 for
water and wastewater facilities." Nor has your client submitted a "Certificate of 100 Year
Assured Water Supply," or any "guarantee that the subdivision can and will receive an adequate
supply of potable water from a water system operated by a certificated water company or
municipality."
Response:
Unfortunately, your understanding here is flawed. The extension for the Analysis of Assured Water
Supply was approved. The approval is provided herein.
Rezoning Application ,r JI also implies that the property will be served by SRP's
"existing 12Kv [sic] line and easement to the property." This is both false and not physically
possible. SRP has advised that the existing 12kV line is only capable of serving approximately
5
300 homes (of which more than 100 are already being served in Goldfield Ranch) and the
existing "easement" will terminate in 2035. Your response to my question# 9 indicates that you
have no documents or evidence that your client has made any effort to comply with Stipulation i
to the rezoning extension (22012090) to "provide written documentation from Salt River Project
(SRP) stating that SRP has the physical and legal capability to serve electricity to the site."
Response:
We have been engaged in discussions with SRP regarding this topic.
You should feel no need to apologize, at least to me, for these misstatements. I am not
implying that they were either innocent or intentional, nor suggesting who is responsible for
them. Nor am I expressing any opinion on the merits of your applications, whether they
constitute sound planning and responsible development, or should be approved by the County. I
am hoping, however, that the details I have provided here will facilitate your client, myself and
Planning and Development reaching a mutual understanding of the indisputable facts that are the
background of your requests as they may be amended.
We appreciate you bringing these items to our attention and for doing this exercise. We are happy to
continue to have dialogue with you and believe you will be significantly happier with this proposal
than the last.
Sincerely,
cc: Joseph Mueller, Planner
PAGE 4
g{x cÜxáxÜäx tà ZÉÄwy|xÄw etÇv{
II.
Description of Proposal
The Project is in conformance with the approved Development Master Plan Amendment,
dated December 19, 2007, comprised of four independent parcels totaling 2,079 acres,
located within the Goldfield Ranch community. Refer to the Vicinity Map, in Appendix A for
specific location and information. The Project is sensitive to the desert environment by
recognizing the constraints of the topography coupled with the existence of numerous
washes and therefore provides ample open space corridors.
The Project encompasses four distinct parcels separated into 31 Development Parcels. The
approved Development Master Plan for the Project allows development of up to 1,000 lots.
This Preliminary Plat request proposes development of 951 Single Family lots, including 487
semi-custom residential lots and 464 custom residential lots.
Parcel A is 1,680 acres of 24 Development Parcels consisting of a mix of semi-custom
and custom residential lots. The lots will be a minimum of 8,000 square feet for the
semi-custom lots and 43,560 square feet for the custom lots. This Preliminary Plat
request includes 487 semi-custom lots and 375 custom lots in Parcel A.
Parcel A may also include a community clubhouse, sales/welcome center, Water
Reclamation Facility (WRF) and water campus. The WRF and water campus provide
service for both Parcels A and B. The sales/welcome center will be located within the
community clubhouse on Parcel A-4. A Special Use Permit will be submitted
separately for the WRF, water campuses and community clubhouse.
Parcel B is 49 acres of one Development Parcel consisting of custom residential home
sites with a minimum lot area of 65,000 square feet. This Preliminary Plat request
includes 10 custom home sites within parcel B.
Parcel C is 263 acres of three Development Parcels consisting of custom residential
home sites with a minimum lot area of 65,000 square feet. This Preliminary Plat
request includes 53 custom home sites within Parcel C.
Parcel D is 88 acres of three Development Parcels of custom residential home sites
with a minimum lot area of 65,000 square feet. This Preliminary Plat request
includes 26 custom home sites within Parcel D. Parcel D also has a water campus
facility providing service for both Parcel C and Parcel D.
The Project provides ample active and passive open spaces with an extensive trail system.
Unimproved trails of natural material connect intermittently with the improved private
collector road shared-use trail system. In excess of 30% of the Project will be open
space. The open spaces will complement the existing surrounding area maintaining a
residential development consistent with Goldfield Ranch. Additionally, the custom lots
have a disturbance limit which defines the boundary between where development can
occur and the conservation area of each lot.
PAGE 7
g{x cÜxáxÜäx tà ZÉÄwy|xÄw etÇv{
IV.
Location and Accessibility
The Project is approximately five miles east of the intersection of Shea Boulevard and State
Route 87 (SR-87), within unincorporated Maricopa County at the northeastern fringe of the
Phoenix Metropolitan area.
The property lies within portions of Sections 10 through 24, Township 3 North, Range 7 East,
of the Gila and Salt River Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona.
Primary access to the Project is from SR-87 via existing 80-foot Road Easement and Public
Utility Easements, recorded with the 1977 Goldfield Ranch Records of Survey, known as
Burntwater Road and Palo Pinto Trail located on the north side of SR-87, along with Calle Sin
Nombre and Pleasant View Drive on the south side of SR-87. As part of the overall
circulation pattern for the Project, improvements to the existing access points shall be per
the requirements of Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) or as
otherwise approved by MCDOT.
The Maricopa County Tax Assessor Parcel Numbers for the properties within the Project are
as follows:
219-16-064
219-16-086
219-16-104
219-16-067
219-16-087
219-16-105
219-16-068
219-16-088
219-16-106
219-16-069
219-16-089
219-16-107
219-16-070
219-16-090
219-16-108
219-16-071
219-16-091
219-16-109
219-16-072
219-16-092
219-16-110
219-16-075
219-16-093
219-16-111
219-16-076
219-16-094A
219-16-112A
219-16-077
219-16-095
219-16-114C
219-16-078
219-16-096
219-16-116D
219-16-079
219-16-097A
219-16-117
219-16-080
219-16-098
219-16-118
219-16-081
219-16-099
219-16-082
219-16-100
219-16-083
219-16-101
219-16-084
219-16-102
219-16-085
219-16-103
87
87
McDowell
Mountain Community
Regional Park
Fort
McDowell
Yavapai
Nation
The Preserve at
AZ
Goldfield Ranch
Fountain
Hills
PARCEL A
AZ
Goldfield
Ranch
PARCEL D
Tonto
National
Saguaro
Lake
PARCEL C
PARCEL B
Forest
AZ
87
River
Randolph J. Haines
12140 N. Sin Vacas Trail
Fort McDowell, Az. 85264
randyhaines@outlook.com
(602) 390-3070
September 30, 2024
Ms. Jennifer Pokorski, County Manager
Maricopa County
301 W. Jefferson St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Re: Z2024006 Zone Change, Goldhawk At The Preserve
Dear Ms. Pokorski:
I am a 23-year owner and resident of 10 acres in Goldfield Ranch (Parcel 219-16-057d),
adjacent to the land currently subject to rezoning application Z2024006, now apparently called
“Goldhawk At The Preserve.” I am also a member of the Board of Directors of the Goldfield
Property Owners Association (“GPOA”) which is resonsible for maintaining all of the originally
platted roads and roadway easements in the five subdivisions known as Goldfield Ranch. I am
writing to you to raise four major concerns about zoning application Z2024006. Three of these
issues implicate County-wide and State-wide issues beyond the level of Planning and
Development staff.
1.
Planning and Development has ignored resident questions for over a month.
On August 30 I wrote to the Planner handling this zoning application, Nicholas Schwimm, to ask
some rather simple procedural and policy questions (see attached). I have received no reaponse,
either from the Planner or the owner/applicant, not even an acknowledgement. So, for example,
I have not even been able to learn the deadlines and schedule for this zoning application, or
whether the County will require the roads to be improved to County standards. Is Planning and
Development responsive only to developers?
2.
Scheduling a hearing on the owner’s abandonment of conditional zoning. As
you know the conditional zoning that was granted to the Ellman Companies for the Preserve at
Goldfield Ranch included a five-year deadline. The hedge fund that foreclosed on the property,
Goldfield Ranch Realty Holdings (GRRH), sought and obtained a five-year extension of that
conditional zoning in DMP2012004 and Z20120090. One of the conditions imposed by the
Board of Supervisors, and agreed to by GRRH, was that GRRH must file a comprehensive six-
element statuts report by April 23, 2018. GRRH failed to comply, and in your capacity as
Director of Planning and Development you issued a default notice on March 21, 2019, requiring
compliance by May 30, 2019. As you noted in your default letter, the required “report shall be
scheduled for public hearing by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (Board) upon
recommendation by the Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission (Commission), to
2
consider whether zoning shall be reverted back to Rural-190 or whether the conditional zoning
shall be maintained for an additional five-year period” (emphasis added).
Why in the five years since that default has Planning and Zoning not scheduled a hearing
to recommend whether to revert the zoning back to R-190 or to continue the now abandoned
conditional zoning? Has that hearing been avoided simply by GRRH refusing to file the report it
was required to file? Well now we have a “report” because GRRH’s application for a
comprehensive plan amendment, stating its intent to “remove” most of the property from the
DMP and “starting the process over,” cannot be interpreted as anything other than a report that
the status of the conditional zoning project is dead and abandoned. So what is the process to get
this “report” on Planning and Zoning Commission’s agenda to revert the zoning to R-190?
We can expect that the GRRH lawyer will object that her Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Narrative CPA2024004 and rezoning application were not intended to be the
required status report that triggers the required zoning reversion hearing. But the planning law in
Arizona has rejected that excuse for almost four decades: her “reasoning would permit the
[county] to perpetually avoid urban planning by leaving out any element or any subdivision of an
element” of the report required by DMP2012004 Condition ‘c’. “A rose by any other name,
however, still smells as sweet, and the County cannot avoid implementation” of Condition ‘c’ by
stating the requested abandonment is not a status report. Haines v. City of Phoenix, 151 Ariz.
286, 289 (App. 1986).
3.
Why consider zoning when no subdivision can be approved without a 100-
year Certificate of Assured Water Supply? GRRH has admitted that it has no Certificate of
Assured Water Supply. Arizona has announced both that no more Certificates will be issued for
the Phoenix Active Management Area, and that the old Analyses of Assured Water Supply are
no longer effective. Arizona law therefore prohibits any legal subdivision of the old Preserve
40+-acre parcels. A.R.S. § 45-576(B). Indeed, the law even prohibits the owner without a
Certificate from “presenting the plat for approval” of a subdivision. A.R.S. § 45-576(A). Why
is the County even considering a rezoning for a purported “master planned community” that
cannot be created, or even applied for? Does the County intend to violate or evade state law and
endanger the Phoenix-area water supply? Or is GRRH’s “planned community” scenario merely
a charade?
4.
Will the County facilitate evasion of the Groundwater Management Act by
approving wildcat subdivisions or build-to-rent scams? Since the existing 40+-acre parcels
cannot be subdivided, there remain only two possible purposes of creating R-43 zoning to allow
one house per acre. If there can be no Development Master Plan under the Subdivision
Regulations, what kind of “planned community” could result? One possibility is a build-to-rent
shanty town, where the owner does not technically subdivide and sell the homes but rather
maintains title and merely builds short-term rentals. Obviously this creates as much overuse of
the aquifer as would subdivision. Maricopa County should not facilitate this evasion of the
Groundwater Management Act before the State can close this loophole (see attached). The other
possibility is even more frightening: once the property is rezoned for one house per acre the
owner could sell the 40+-acre parcels for amateur speculators to split five times each, and then
those parcels can be split five times again. Once the R-43 zoning has been granted the County
3
will have lost ability to prevent the wildcatting into about 1700 one-acre parcels, and the County
will lack any ability to require responsible development. No one will be responsible for
maintaining the roads or providing adequate water or sewage, much less fire protection. Does
Z2024006 court another Rio Verde disaster? Or does the County even appreciate that GRRH’s
zoning-only approach would permit that result? When it was pointed out that the land cannot be
subdivided without a now-impossible Certificate of Assured Water Supply, the GRRH planner
responded “here we are speaking specifically about the approved zoning entitlements,”
suggesting GRRH has no intent to proceed with a Development Master Plan despite its nice
sounding but vague “master planned community” language.
It's time the County starts dealing with these issues, and the normal process of a resident
posing questions to staff planners does not seem to be working. I request an in-person meeting
with the County Manager, the Planning and Development Director, and the two assigned
Planners Nicholas Schlimm and Joseph Mueller. I am available any time Wednesday, Thursday
or Friday this week. I look forward to hearing from you, and am always available to answer any
questions or provide any additional documentation or history that you may find helpful.
Sincerely,
Randolph J. Haines
cc: Ms. Elyse DiMartino, Planner
Mr. Ellsworth, Director, Planning and Development
Mr. Nicholas Schlimm, Planner
Mr. Joseph Mueller, Planner
Randolph J. Haines
12140 N. Sin Vacas Trail
Fort McDowell, Az. 85264
randyhaines@outlook.com
(602) 390-3070
August 30, 2024
Mr. Nicholas Schlimm, Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development
301 W. Jefferson St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Re: Z2024006 Zone Change, Goldhawk At The Preserve
Dear Mr. Schlimm:
I am a 23-year owner and resident of 10 acres in Goldfield Ranch (Parcel 219-16-057d),
which is adjacent to the land currently subject to a rezoning application Z2024006, now
apparently called “Goldhawk At The Preserve.” I am also a member of the Board of Directors of
the Goldfield Property Owners Association (“GPOA”) which is resonsible to maintaining all of
the originally platted roads and roadway easements in Goldfield Ranch. I am writing in my
capactiy as the Secretary of GPOA but not on behalf of the Board because it has not had an
opportunity to meet and authorize any action since learning of the existence of Z2024006. The
questions I pose here are necessary for GPOA to intelligently consider how it should respond to
Z2024006, so you can be assured that your answers will be promptly communicated to the
GPOA Board for its consideration.
1.
Why has GPOA not been officially notified? Doesn’t the County require that
all affected homeowners associations be notified of any rezoning request? Goldfield Ranch is a
“Planned Community” within the meaning of A.R.S. § 33-1802(4) and GPOA is the only
“Association” within the meaning of A.R.S. § 33-1804(2). As the Secretary of GPOA I can
confirm that it has received no official, unofficial or even casual notification of the initation of
Z2024006, even though it was apparently filed over six weeks ago. Can you please explain how
this can occur, and how can this rezoning application move forward in any respect until the
affected Association is notified?
2.
Please include GPOA in any TAC meeting. As the “local authority” over the
roads (see Question 4 below) GPOA should be included in any TAC meeting. Please advise of
the schedule.
3.
What is the hearing schedule and deadline for comments and objections? I
have heard third-hand that something may be scheduled for November. Please advise me of all
scheduled or even tentative hearing dates and the dates by which comments, questions and
2
objections should be filed so that staff has adequate time to consider them before preparing any
report or recommendation.
4.
Who will be responsible for both improving and maintaining the roads? The
rezoning “Narrative” states that “Private rural roadways (with public access) exist throughout the
property and will be improved and extended as necessary to provide reliable access to each lot.”
All of the main “backbone” collector roads exist on land that is privately owned but subject to
recorded ingress and egress easements in favor of the general public. GPOA has both a legal
opinion and an expert traffic engineer’s opinion that under A.R.S. §§ 28-101(43) and 28-627
GPOA is the “local authority” with the power and responsibility to regulate the usage of these
easements and the obligation to maintain the roadway access on them. So who will be
responsible for making and financing the “improvements” the rezoning applicant promises?
Given GPOA’s responsibility and obligation to maintain the easements that the developer
intends to use, the answer to this question is critical to GPOA’s consideration of its response to
the proposed rezoning. The Board may need more than thirty or sixty days to formulate its
response once an answer is obtained because it may need to engage a lawyer to advise as to the
Board’s legal obligations and a traffic engineer to quantify the nature of extent of those
obligations. The answer is not likely to be as simple as it sounds because even if the rezoning
applicant says it intends to be responsible for improving and maintaining the easements this
leaves the very difficult questions of (1) what security will be provided to GPOA to ensure the
applicant’s performance, (2) how will GPOA be relieved of any responsibility, and (3) who will
be responsible for maintenance after the developer is gone?
5.
Who will pay assessments on acreage not platted for homes? GPOA finances
its road maintenance by levying assessments on a per-acre basis. The conceptual site plan shows
a lot of acreage that is not platted for homes. Who will own this acreage and pay the per-acre
assessments?
6.
How can GRRH “improve” roads on land it does not own? As noted, all of
the originally platted roadway easements exist on land owned by the adjacent landowners and
only GPOA has authority to maintain the easements. The rezoning applicant Goldfield Ranch
Realty Holdings does not own the land underlying at least half of the main Burnt Water access to
this development on parcel 219-16-062a. How does GRRH have any authority to “improve” this
road?
7.
Will the County require the roads to be improved to County standards?
Stipulations M(4) and P to what the developer contends is the “existing Rural-190, Rural-70,
Rural-43 and R1-8 with Residential Unit Plan of Development Overlays and Planned Area
Development Overlays” require that all roadways must meet County standards, including the
MCDOT Roadway Design Manual. Will these same standards be required for this rezoning?
What if the originally platted easements cannot physically be improved to County
standards? The easements were platted in 1977 only to provide physical access to 40+-acre
parcels of raw land, not to 712 homes on one-acre lots. Some of the easements are in existing
washes and some of them are on narrow ridges so that it is physically impossible to maintain 80-
3
foot wide easements. In 1977 the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors determined that the
existing roads and easements in Goldfield Ranch Phase I and II “have not been opened, laid out
and constructed in a manner acceptable to Maricopa County” so it rejected the offer of
dedication of these roads to the County (see attachment), and would presumably make the same
determination as to the roads in Phase III and IV.
8.
When will GPOA be paid the $2.336 million? In Stipulation L(2) to the
rezoning extension, Z2012090, the current owner Goldfield Ranch Realty Holdings agreed to
make a “contribution to regional transportation infrastructure” in the amount of “$3,281 per
residential dwelling unit.” For the 712 dwellings currently contemplated by this rezoning, that
amounts to $2,336,000. As noted above, GPOA is the “local authority” under state law
responsible for the regional transportation infrastructure. This involves not only the roads within
the parcels to be rezoned but also the adjacent land in Goldfield Ranch. The rezoning proposal
states that “existing private roadway connections will remain to the adjacent Goldfield Ranch
neighborhood ensuring circulation and connectivity throughout.” This means that the 712 homes
on the rezoned property will be utilizing roads such as Burnt Water, Northwoods Pass, Thirsty
Earth, Starfire and Vista Del Oro in the adjacent subdivision Goldfield Ranch Phase II. The cost
of maintaining these roads is paid by assessments levied against the owners of land in Phase II
on a per-acre basis. The Phase II landowners will need to be compensated for the additional
financial burden imposed on them by the rezoning of another subdivision. Until an adequate
traffic study is performed and until we know whether County standards will also be imposed on
these collector roads it is impossible to determine whether the existing stipulation for $2.3
million will be sufficient.
But in addition to the adequacy of the amount there is the critical question of when it will
be paid or at least secured. For two reasons, imposing this obligation as a subdivision stipulation
or even a zoning condition is insufficient. First, this owner/rezoning applicant has already
demonstrated it does not consider itself bound by its stipulations. Second, even if it regarded
stipulations as binding contracts there is nothing to guarantee it will not simply default. GPOA
cannot afford to run the risk of being required to maintain the roads for a 712 dry lot wildcat
subdivision that could result if the rezoning became effective before the owner/developer
defaulted on its obligations.
9.
Why rezone for a subdivision that cannot be created? Finally, although not
directly related to roads, there is the elephant in the room: Why should any rezoning should be
granted or even considered for a subdivision that cannot be approved or created? Arizona law
requires a Certificate of Assured Water Supply before a landowner can submit a subdivision plat
for approval and prohibits a County from approving a subdivision without such a Certificate.
A.R.S. §§ 45-576(A) & (B). We have known for well over a year that there will be no more
Certificates issued for the Phoenix Active Management Area. Although the rezoning application
claims to have an Analysis of Assured Water Supply that was issued in 2007 it expired in June,
2017, per Ariz.Admin.Code § R12-15-703(f) and in any event the AzDWR has announced that
such Analyses have no further significance unless a Certificate application was pending.
Since this rezoning applicant cannot even apply for approval of the proposed subdivision,
why should the County even consider this rezoning? State law currently prohibits the existing
4
40+ acre parcels from being legally subdivided, so wouldn’t the only effect of such rezoning be
to disable the County from preventing a wildcat subdivision of at least 712, if not 1,940, dry one-
acre lots? GPOA has struggled for more than 20 years to create and maintain roads and
easements that can adequately serve homes on five- and ten-acre parcels but is neither designed
nor equipped to handle the density and traffic generated by one-acre wildcat lots. Why is the
County even considering this rezoning that cannot result in an approved subdivision?
I look forward to your informative answers to these fundamental background questions so
that the GPOA Board can begin to consider how to respond. Usually I would direct such
questions to the applicant or its lawyer or planner but, as noted, the developer’s answers have
been evasive and uninformative at best and even then are very slow in response. Moreover, I
expect that the answers from the County would be far more reliable and based on solid,
verifiable authority. Again, I am not expressing any position or opinions on behalf of the GPOA
Board, but merely gathering reliable information for it to consider. So I look forward to your
answers and enjoy a great Labor Day weekend.
Sincerely,
Randolph J. Haines
GPOA Director/Secretary
cc: Ms. Elyse DiMartino, Planner
ii;';t(; I 1
cntp4:l3fs 5:ltl
il;'. '
tli t ,.'
Liil :i Hl.a()t{l)l.D
Rl ll'H:l Tri
H.rri(.(tp!
r (!untJ-
t.
,{.d at Fr,1,ort ,n
8, .,d Ot Sugatu,rc._
ountu uf fl[uriruPit
6tate nf Ariznttu
(0ffirr uf tftr Olsrh
o
$tatr of Ariznrtu lrs.
6nunl11 rrf II{uriroPut-
-
/ lilrr';r 1]lorrtrlll,
/,.r, /,7 / , t/,7,y .//',r/ t ir.
ft.,trr i l,
,1 t:ili: r.\
,; I- t lrt. ll,
S('i't(,ll)(
t I , l i'-:
'//r.r/' ,7 //,. fro,,rr/ ,/'.'l'/,.rutr(t,t do
lo. Il,i r il(
l s ir t rrrc :tttd corrcct
('\t rarct
rr : r,t "rr1lt'rvisors'
nrct'titlg ltt'lrl
,\rrt)lr l l O" r) l
iii.Slrl lr; I,!
i{l-il_r tl,iLi lrl l)l-Ci\Ul)I
\: ' .r. lrr',i '
()l: R(),1DliA)' I lSl:l!LN-'tS:
3rr Eitnrau fi[lerrof . J./,,,,. /e,eu,to' t*
,r, y lr, ,r,/ o r,r/ o1/rterl de Q7i.a/ 9-,/ t1 tln 1lad
,y .'/,,1,". r,u, r.
(Jrr,. ,r/ /lrnrr;-r, t/,.(/*, nty ,(/L/
r/,,.,
lith
,/,,y,/ sL'ptrlnl)cr, l!77
,r,/ ?
cr,,r of i6r tiiaiiS",i,K*
rt
" ^{li, 1 v.isz}, .,:1i-.'
""; 's#lilz
,r
t).
lr I ,, , ,. -,it
L>'l
i d
t -.-
:
;
n
:'
/
!J!r r/ fu(ut.rr,
\t t, tlUr,,,
(.0unt)' !.t,iltttt.
r
I iIc
Randolph J. Haines
12140 N. Sin Vacas Trail
Fort McDowell, Az. 85264
randyhaines@outlook.com
(602) 390-3070
October 7, 2024
Mr. Joseph Mueller, Planner
Maricopa County Planning & Development
301 W. Jefferson St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Re: CPA2024004 Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preserve at Goldfield Ranch
Dear Mr. Mueller:
We are owners and residents, for over 23 years, of land (APN 219-16-057d) included in
the Goldfield Area Plan that is affected by the Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment that has
been filed by Grayhawk Development, CPA2024004. This is our reponse to the Final Submittal
dated October 4, 2024.
Executive Summary:
(1) We support the proposed plan amendment to the extent it eliminates The Preserve
DMP as constituting any part of the Goldfield Area Plan northwest of SR 87.
(2) The Goldfield Area Plan as amended should not include any of Grayhawk
Development’s narrative regarding the purpose or effect of the amendment or its conepts for a
“rural master planned community,” much of which is legally or factually incorrect and
impossible.
(3) The application and narrative filed on behalf of Goldfield Ranch Realty Holdings
LLC (GRRH”) should be regarded as an incomplete status report required by Z2012090
Condition ‘h’ and DMP 2012004 Condition ‘c’. Therefore this “report shall be scheduled for
public hearing by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (Board), upon recommendation by
the Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission (Commission), to consider whether the
zoning shall be reverted back to Rural-190 or whether the conditional zoning shall be maintained
for an additional five year period.” The Board of Supervisors and Condition ‘h’ require this
hearing, and GRRH’s pending applications implicitly ask for it and require it, now.
1.
Appropriate to Amend the Goldfield Area Plan to Eliminate Preserve DMP.
The “Executive Summary” of the “Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Preserve at
Goldfield Ranch” states that the proposal is solely “to remove the Site from the Preserve Major
2
Development Plan (the “Preserve DMP”) to allow the Site to develop at a lower density.” That
proposal should be adopted, but without the precatory language attempting to predetermine what
it “allows.”
The proposed amendment can be accomplished simply by amending Figure 14 located at
unnumbered page 131 of the Goldfield Area Plan to eliminate all of the cross-hatching north of
State Route 87. This Figure 14 is referenced only on page 23, which is part of the factual
“Inventory and Analysis” and not part of any of the eight plan elements required by A.R.S. § 11-
804(B) & (C). Thus its function is only to be a factual statement of the current state of the
“inventory,” and the proposed amendment is both appropriate and necessary to make this
inventory consistent with GRRH’s abandonment of the Preserve DMP and refusal to be bound
by its conditions and requirements.
The only other textual statement of the Goldfield Area Plan that should be amended to
accommodate this proposal would be to delete the first sentence after the heading “The Preserve
Development Master Plan” on page 88. This sentence has become factually incorrect because
the Preserve DMP is no longer “a 2,200-acre Development Master Plan,” and it will no longer
“guide the development” of those 2,200 acres, which are incorrectly stated to be “located in the
eastern [sic; western] half of the planning area.”
2.
Narrative References to the Purpose or Effect of the Amendment, or to any
Conceptual Master Planned Community, Are Inappropriate to Include in the Amended
Goldfield Area Plan.
The Grayhawk/GRRH CPA narrative is replete with statements about the purpose or
effect of the plan amendment and descriptions of a hypothetical conceptual planned community
for which no plan or application exists. Many of these statements are factually incorrect, the
conceptual master planned community is illegal and impossible under the current state of the
facts and law, and in any event has no role in the factual description of the current “inventory” of
the planning area.
For example, the narrative repeatedly states it is intended “to allow the Site to develop at
a lower density.” “Lower” than what? Lower than an inchoate conditional zoning that included
about 30 conditions that the owner never achieved and now repudiates? What informative or
planning purpose could such a statement possibly serve? Does it help anyone to know that the
amended plan would allow development at a lower density than the number of angels that can
dance on a pin? And the statement is positively misleading because the proponents’ proposed
density is equal to but not lower than the planning category of density for the rest of Goldfield
Ranch – zero to one dwelling unit per acre – and is in fact more than four times higher than the
existing unconditional zoning density for all of Goldfield Ranch – one dwelling per 4.3 acres.
The narrative also repeatedly describes the Preserve DMP as being “entitled” to higher
density zoning, or as having “entitlements” since 2008. This is factually false and legally
impossible. The zoning for the Preserve DMP was always conditional and since GRRH never
satisfied those conditions it never became choate. Absent an extension, which has not been
sought much less granted after 2013, state law prohibits any protected development right for
longer than 10 years, A.R.S. § 11-1203(A). Such rights automatically “terminate[] at the end of
3
the applicable period” by operation of law unless there has been a building permit or footings or
foundations for principal structures, A.R.S. § 11-1203(D). GRRH’s lawyer will undoubtedly
argue that her claim of “entitlements” refers to something other than the “protected development
right” referenced in that statute, but how could an “entitlement” be anything else? It smells as
sweet, indeed apparently even better because she thinks an entitlement can last longer than ten
years. Such references to “entitlements” are incorrect descriptions of the existing inventory.
The narrative also includes numerous references to a conceptual “rural master planned
community” that would be inappropriate to include in an amended Goldfield Area Plan. No such
“planned community” has been approved or even applied for and such references to hypothetical
zoning changes are not appropriate to include is an amended Comprehensive Plan or adopted
area plan.
As demonstrated by the example of the zombie Preserve DMP, Maricopa County has
long deemed Development Master Plans to function as a part of a Comprehensive Plan or an area
plan. But the narrative’s references to a conceptual “rural master planned community” are not to
a DMP. No such DMP has even been applied for. And under the facts and law as they exist
today, GRRH cannot even apply for such a DMP. It has no Certificate of Assured Water Supply,
and A.R.S. § 45-576(A) requires any “person who proposes to offer subdivided lands” for sale
must first have such a Certificate “before presenting the plat for approval” by the County. At
least until GRRH has presented a plat for approval its descriptions for an imaginary Never Never
Land have no place in the Goldfield Area Plan.
These many references to the hypothetical “master planned community” appear to be
intended only to pre-approve the pending rezoning application, or at least to include some
language within the amended comprehensive plan to support an argument that the rezoning is
consistent with the amended comprehensive plan, as required by A.R.S. §§ 9-462.01(F) & 11-
804(D) and Haines v. City of Phoenix, 151 Ariz. 286, 289 (App. Div. 1 1986). There is no basis
in law, County regulations, or County practice to include in a comprehensive plan language
intended solely to support an argument that some future rezoning would be consistent.
3.
Planning and Development Must Put Continuation/Revocation of the
Conditional Zoning On Planning and Zoning’s Agenda.
On April 24, 2013, the County Board of Supervisors required GRRH to file a written
report on the “status of the project” known as the Preserve DMP. This was one of the conditions
of the conditional zoning that GRRH today calls its “entitlement.” Z2012090 Condition ‘h’; see
also DMP2012004 Condition ‘c’. The Board of Supervisors also required that “this report shall
be scheduled for public hearing” ‘to consider whether the zoning shall be reverted back to Rural-
190 or whether the conditional zoning shall be maintained for an additional five year period.” Id.
GRRH defaulted on its obligation to file that report for over six years, even after having
been notified of its default by the Director’s default notice of March 21, 2019. But now we
finally have a partial status report. Undeniably, GRRH now reports that the status of both the
Preserve DMP and the conditional zoning is: Dead and Abandoned. Having sought “removal”
of almost 80% of the land from the DMP, the remaining 20% cannot survive on its own except
4
as a zombie. And GRRH expressly refuses to comply with any of its obligations under the
Conditions because it contends “we are starting the process over to get these entitlements” so the
“stipulation of the previous case . . . will not apply.”
Undoubtedly GRRH will object that it did not intend its comprehensive plan amendment
to be the report that it agreed to submit by 2018. But while it is neither sufficiently detailed nor
titled “Report” it satisfies the fundamental purpose for which the Board of Supervisors required
it – to determine whether the conditional zoning should be extended or reverted to R-190. Since
neither the owner nor anyone else wants the conditional zoning to be extended and the zombie
zoning can serve no function, nothing more need be said. Neither GRRH nor the County can
evade their obligations under Z2012090 Condition ‘h’ simply by applying a different label to the
documents. As the Court of Appeals held, “A rose by any other name, however, still smells as
sweet, and the city cannot avoid implementation of the statute by creating a plan and then stating
it is not one.” Haines v. City of Phoenix, 151 Ariz. 286, 289 (App. Div. 1 1986). The only way
for the County to comply with the requirements of its own Condition ‘h’ is for Planning and
Development to put conditional zoning continuation/revocation on the agenda of the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
Since the status report now exists and it is already being scheduled for public hearing
before the Planning and Zoning Commission, it is incumbent on Planning and Development staff
to advise the Planning and Zoning Commission that it has two jobs to accomplish when it holds
its public hearing on this report: recommend whether to amend the Goldfield Area Plan, and
recommend whether to revert the zoning to R-190 or continue the zombie zoning, subject to
impossible conditions, for another five years. Perhaps staff might conclude that it has another
ministerial job, to add “Z2012090” and “DMP2012004” below the caption of CPA2024004.
After more than six years of default the continuation/revocation hearing is particularly
appropriate and necessary now, when GRRH’s rezoning and CPA applications are pending. The
narratives for these two applications rely heavily, if not virtually exclusively, on comparisons to
the purported “entitlement” of the Preserve DMP and on the characterization of “downzoning,”
lower density or reduction in lots compared to the Preserve DMP. The claimed existing
entitlements are referenced at least seven (7) times and the downzoning or lot reduction at least
thirteen (13) times in the two applications, more than the total number of pages in these
applications. Absent these comparisons, GRRH has offered not a single reason why R-43 zoning
and 712 lots on septic tanks, without adequate water or electricity, is a better plan than the
existing R-190 zoning for which there may be adequate water and electricity.
GRRH is currently seeking to benefit from the purported continued existence of the
conditional zoning – zoning that undoubtedly would not exist today but for GRRH’s breach of
Condition ‘h’. It is seeking a current benefit, indeed a windfall, from its own six-year default.
While equity should not allow this to proceed at all, at minimum it invites and necessitates a
determination of whether those supposed higher density entitlements should still exist, even as
paper zombies that can function as argumentative red herrings when the defaulting GRRH’s
applications come on for hearing. The time is right to give the Board of Supervisors what it
expected over six years ago – an opportunity to revert the zombie zoning.
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Adam Schubert <adam.schubert@mac.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, October 23, 2024 11:23 AM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Cc:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Re: Opposition to The Preserve at Goldhawk
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
I would also like to add that the Cell Tower in our area is a satellite for fountain hills which is already stressed. When
fountain hills has events the service in town as well as our service is barely usable as is. This poses serious safety
concerns with being able to reach authorities, fire, and ems in case of emergencies.
On Oct 23, 2024, at 6:04 AM, Joseph Mueller (PND) <Joseph.Mueller@Maricopa.Gov> wrote:
Adam,
Thank you for providing public comment on the case. Your email has been documented and will be
included with the staff report provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as the Board of
Supervisors.
As mentioned on the phone, case CPA2024004, the comprehensive plan amendment to redesignate the
land use over the site from The Preserve DMP to Rural Densities, is on the 11/7/24 Planning and Zoning
Commission hearing. That hearing will be at 205 W Jefferson St and will start at 9:30 am (several other
cases are on the same agenda).
The associated zone change case, Z240006, has not yet been scheduled for hearing. Nicholas Schlimm,
the case planner assigned to that case, is copied on this email.
Kind regards,
<image001.png>
Joseph Mueller
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
301 W Jefferson St Phoenix, AZ 85003
Planner
O: 602-506-7629
MARICOPA.GOV
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube
2
From: Adam Schubert <adam.schubert@mac.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 10:02 PM
To: Joseph Mueller (PND) <Joseph.Mueller@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Opposition to The Preserve at Goldhawk
Hi Joseph We spoke on the phone and I wanted to send over an email with my points for opposition. - The land use in t he area is now here near a 1 acre per dwelling unit. The proposal woul d be completely non conformi ng to the surr ounding homes.
Hi Joseph
We spoke on the phone and I wanted to send over an email with my points for opposition.
- The land use in the area is nowhere near a 1 acre per dwelling unit. The proposal would be
completely non conforming to the surrounding homes.
- The disturbance of the ecosystem. This land is rich with wildlife. Owls, Coyote, Sonoran
Toads, Red Tailed Hawks, Eagles, Snakes, Horses, Bobcats, Mountain Lions and even Big
Horn Sheep have all been seen here.
- The securement of power is a concern with gigantic high voltage lines ruining the natural land
not to mention the devastation the required access roads to construct these will cause. Both
through the Indian reservation or god forbid through the national forest from the other direction.
- Waste management - We have had a hard time finding locations for the septic systems on
our 5+ acre parcels so I am not sure how they will find suitable locations for individual septic
systems in 1 acre plots and what the effect of this runoff will be since all these washes feed into
the verde river.
- Road access and traffic. Adding this many homes here will surely create significant traffic
increase in and out of fountain hills and through the reservation as a shortcut. The turning
lanes on 87 will be backed up with people waiting to turn into the new community. Also they
seem to want to use our existing roads which we pay for to allow residents to come through our
roads into the back of their community. Now my home and everyone on vista del oro will have
people speeding by to get to their houses in the back.
- DARK SKY. Another major concern is the light pollution. This area is teaming with desert
wildlife that flourishes at night. As well as a peaceful environment where the existing residents
have lived peacefully. The light pollution from that many houses in that kind of density along
with street lights and walking paths will surely light up the night sky like a city destroying the
natural dark sky we have here.
- Water Source. I was under the impression that the AZ water council said they will not be
granting any more subdivision permits for communities relying solely on ground water since all
of the water in the area is allocated for the next 100 years. How can we be guaranteed they will
not be pumping so much water out from under us that all of our wells run dry and we end up like
Rio Verde?
- Fire Services. I am concerned that the impact of the sheer density of this community will
further stress the fire services we barely have as is and we will then be required to create our
own sub station at our own expense.
3
- a concerned neighbor
Adam Schubert
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Adam Schubert <adam.schubert@mac.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, October 22, 2024 10:02 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Subject:
Opposition to The Preserve at Goldhawk
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Hi Joseph
We spoke on the phone and I wanted to send over an email with my points for opposition.
- The land use in the area is nowhere near a 1 acre per dwelling unit. The proposal would be completely non
conforming to the surrounding homes.
- The disturbance of the ecosystem. This land is rich with wildlife. Owls, Coyote, Sonoran Toads, Red
Tailed Hawks, Eagles, Snakes, Horses, Bobcats, Mountain Lions and even Big Horn Sheep have all been
seen here.
- The securement of power is a concern with gigantic high voltage lines ruining the natural land not to mention
the devastation the required access roads to construct these will cause. Both through the Indian reservation or
god forbid through the national forest from the other direction.
- Waste management - We have had a hard time finding locations for the septic systems on our 5+ acre
parcels so I am not sure how they will find suitable locations for individual septic systems in 1 acre plots and
what the effect of this runoff will be since all these washes feed into the verde river.
- Road access and traffic. Adding this many homes here will surely create significant traffic increase in and
out of fountain hills and through the reservation as a shortcut. The turning lanes on 87 will be backed up with
people waiting to turn into the new community. Also they seem to want to use our existing roads which we pay
for to allow residents to come through our roads into the back of their community. Now my home and
everyone on vista del oro will have people speeding by to get to their houses in the back.
- DARK SKY. Another major concern is the light pollution. This area is teaming with desert wildlife that
flourishes at night. As well as a peaceful environment where the existing residents have lived peacefully. The
light pollution from that many houses in that kind of density along with street lights and walking paths will surely
light up the night sky like a city destroying the natural dark sky we have here.
- Water Source. I was under the impression that the AZ water council said they will not be granting any more
subdivision permits for communities relying solely on ground water since all of the water in the area is allocated
for the next 100 years. How can we be guaranteed they will not be pumping so much water out from under us
that all of our wells run dry and we end up like Rio Verde?
2
- Fire Services. I am concerned that the impact of the sheer density of this community will further stress the
fire services we barely have as is and we will then be required to create our own sub station at our own
expense.
- a concerned neighbor
Adam Schubert
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Amy Glennon <amyglennon@comcast.net>
Sent:
Friday, October 18, 2024 7:35 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Subject:
Goldhawk Development
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Hello Joseph-
As homeowners in Goldfield Ranch we’d like to register our strong opposition to the zoning changes proposed
by Greyhawk Developers. Such a development would destroy the community we have built here at Goldfield
Ranch and tax our water and infrastructure resources to the limit, not to mention creating dangerous highway
congestion. The current 4.4 acre limit on lots allows for adequate water distribution, fire prevention and
maintenance of the natural Sonoran Desert environment native to this area. Further development would
destroy native plant and animal habitats.
Thank you for your attention,
Ty and Amy Glennon
12315 N Vista Del Oro
Fort McDowell, AZ 85264
650-207-1978
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Anne J. Earley <cayetanodesigns@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, September 24, 2024 12:21 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Subject:
Goldfield Ranch Zone Change cas Z240006
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for Maricopa County Planning and Zoning
Mr. Mueller,
My name is Anne Earley, I am a third generation Arizonan who grew up on a large ranch in southern Arizona. I tell you this
because when I decided to move from Tucson to the Phoenix area it was my criteria to find as rural an area as possible and
purchase as much land as I could afford. Initially my husband and I looked in the Rio Verde area but very quickly became
aware of the water issues and the lack of adequete planning to maintain a rural/suburban ranch environment. Consequently
our realtor brought us out to Goldfield Ranch east of Fountain Hills. We found a five acre lot that appealed to us and met
our needs. The fact that the subdivision had deed restrictions limiting the development to one house to four acres plus The
surrounding Tonto National forest on three sides of the subdivision and the Yavapai reservation on the west side also
appealed. We were told that all of Goldfield ranch was subject to the same deed restrictions. So three years ago we
purchased our property and began working to build our final home. We have just been informed that a portion of our
subdivision which had not been open to purchase is now trying to get the original house per land restrictions set aside and
new plans that include a golf course and a house per land plan of as little as one house per acre. This change will create an
array of new issues, many of them much like Rio Verde. in addition to which the changes would require tremendous
infrastructure changes, far greater demands on electric and water. To my knowledge the current homeowners in Goldfield
Ranch do not expect the area known as the Preserve to remain undeveloped but we all believed and expected that the same
house per acreage original plan would remain the same as the rest of Goldfield. Those of us who moved to Goldfield did so
because we preferred that rural environment, we were willing to drive the extra distance, drill our own wells, even organize
our own volunteer fire department. Allowing the dramatic increase in the number of houses in the Preserve will not only
impact our existing wells and electric needs it will seriously impact the Yavapai reservation, the Verde and Salt rivers. We do
not believe that this change will benefit the area in any way except to make the developers more money. Goldfield ranch has
been in existence for multiple decades and has been a good neighbor to the national forest, the reservation and the Verde
and Salt Rivers. Basically the community works, changing the original plan of the community will create many new issues like
fire fighting, electric, water, light pollution, runoff and a good deal more traffic on the Beeline which will impact law
enforcement and emergency services. As a soon to be new resident of Maricopa county and a woman whose family has
valued Arizona greatly and contributed greatly to the beauty and historical preservation of this state I humbly ask you to deny
the changes the current owners of the Preserve wish to instate and retain the one house to four acres original plan and deny
the building of a truly unneeded golf course.
Thank you for your time and please consider the requests of myself and my neighbors carefully.
Sincerely,
Anne J. Earley
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Barry Wilkens <barry.wilkens@asu.edu>
Sent:
Friday, August 30, 2024 11:22 AM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND); Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Cc:
terryjwilkens@gmail.com; County Managers Office; Barry Wilkens
Subject:
Goldhawk proposal Case# CPA2024004
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
Dear Joseph and Nicholas,
I am writing this email in response to the proposed Zoning amendment case CPA 2024004 Goldhawk
development. Being a homeowner with property adjoining part of this development I have a number of concerns
and objections with regard to the rezoning request.
1) In 2017 it was my understanding that the zoning on the “Preserve” reverted back to R190 (approx.
4.5 acres) as the property owner had not begun anything over a 10 year period. If the renewing of
the Preserve high density zoning was allowed at that time it was not done with a public hearing.
2) I question the proposed use of wells (groundwater) for upwards of 1000 new homes first because
of our limited groundwater sources and secondly in light of the 2023 moratorium on new
developments without plans and studies of assured water supply.
3) The current source of electrical power crossing the Fort McDowell reservation allows for approx..
300 homes (we already have 140+) and it is my understanding that the tribe is not willing to
increase the capacity through their easement as they also are not in favor of a high density
development bordering their land.
4) I also question the feasibility and possible eƯects on our groundwater sources of 1000+ separate
septic systems as proposed.
5) I strongly object to the unfairness of requiring those of us who built our own homes under the
Maricopa county requirements of hillside, wash and flood plain avoidance and what will certainly
be a major infraction of those requirements when a developer tries to cram building envelops on
to 1 acre lots. The topography out here is scabland at best with very little level buildable areas on
a typical R190 lot let alone 1 acre lots. The county topo maps with 20’ elevation graduations do
not fairly represent the unevenness of the topography out here. I’m hoping that before any
decisions are made that both members of the planning and zoning boards will visit the lands in
question to see first hand the diƯiculty of creating usable 1acre building lots while preserving the
natural contours and flora of the desert landscape.
6) Finally I strongly object to a high density development in our area as, speaking for the majority of
my neighbors, we moved here specifically for the open, rural and natural desert environment
allowing us to pursue a lifestyle with hobbies and interests compatible with the peaceful
and serene Sonoran desert as described in the document published by your departments called
“2020 An Eye to the Future the Goldfield Area Plan” Goldfield-Area-Plan-PDF (maricopa.gov) This is
one of a very few areas like it in the Phoenix Metro area. Please let us keep it this way.
2
Please also inform all of us when the public hearings are happening. The signs posted out here
give no dates but I have heard rumors of meetings in both November and December.
Thank you for your consideration and eƯorts in this matter.
Barry and Terry Wilkens
11608 N Burntwater Rd
Fort McDowell 85264
Ph 480 285 9054
APN 21916066D
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Barry Wilkens <barry.wilkens@asu.edu>
Sent:
Monday, July 8, 2024 8:39 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Subject:
"Preserve Application" CPA2024004
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
Hello Joseph,
I am a resident of Goldfield Ranch in Fort McDowell and I have some questions regarding an application for
rezoning in my neighborhood. The project # CPA2024004 is a proposed “master planned community” on 1700+
acres, some of which is adjacent to my property. I went to the portal mentioned in the announcement of the
hearing ( in November) but there was only 1 page with information about the application but no info about the
proposed project itself. Where can I get more information about what is proposed for the project including
information about where utilities (water, sewer, power etc) will be sourced from.
Thanks,
Barry Wilkens
480 285 9054
11608 N Burntwater Rd
Fort McDowell 85264
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Debbi White <debswoj52@gmail.com>
Sent:
Friday, September 6, 2024 7:50 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Cc:
nicholas.schlimm@maricopa.go
Subject:
Goldfield Ranch Zone Change Case Z240006
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
I am a 17 year resident of Goldfield Ranch. I have seen many changes over the years. Some changes I liked, some
changes I did not like. Progress always happens.
The changes proposed in this new zoning is remarkably bad for Goldfield Ranch, no matter how it is dressed up or
proposed.
I am 100% against this zone change in Goldfield Ranch.
Sincerely,
Debbi White Wojtysiak
13322 N. Vista Del Oro
Fort McDowell, AZ 85264
Dr Michael and Teresa Muul
21625 E Northwood Pass
Ft McDowell, AZ, 85264-4308
Omfdr@aol.com
Dear Joseph Mueller
Subject: Environmental, Infrastructural, and Economic Concerns Regarding Proposed Development in
Goldfield Ranch known as (The Preserve).
I am writing to express my strong concerns about the proposed development of a 1,700-acre parcel in
the Goldfield Ranch area known as "The Preserve." The plan to modify the original zoning from one
single-family home per five acres to one home per acre, along with the addition of high-density
apartments, condominiums, and a golf course, raises significant environmental, infrastructural, and
economic issues. The development poses a severe threat to the local ecosystem, water resources,
community infrastructure, and economic stability of the region. This letter outlines the negative impacts
this development could have on the surrounding desert ecosystem, particularly in light of the ongoing
drought and the fragile water resources in the region.
1. Water Resources and Ongoing Drought.
The Sonoran Desert has been experiencing a severe drought since the mid-1990s, marking a 35-year
period of water scarcity, which is the worst in over 110 years of recorded history. This prolonged drought
has already significantly affected Arizona’s water supplies, leading to reduced availability for agricultural,
residential, and environmental needs. The proposed increase in housing density, coupled with water-
intensive amenities such as a golf course, will only exacerbate the strain on an already
overburdened/depleted water table.
Groundwater levels in the region are critically low due to prolonged periods of reduced precipitation.
The increased demand for water that will result from this development threatens to further deplete the
aquifers, which are the primary sources of water for local communities and ecosystems. As a result, this
could lead to the drying up of wells, reduced water availability for existing residents, and the
deterioration of local water quality due to increased groundwater pumping. Moreover, any reduction in
groundwater levels could have long-lasting effects on the desert's natural vegetation, which is already
under stress from drought conditions, thereby altering the landscape and ecological balance.
Currently, single-family home wells in the area are reaching depths of around 800 feet. If this
development proceeds, it could lead to further depletion of the aquifers, potentially requiring existing
homeowners to drill new wells beyond 1,000 feet. The cost of such deep drilling is prohibitive, which
could render surrounding properties virtually worthless due to the financial burden of accessing water.
Given the decades that have passed since the original zoning approval—long before the current drought
conditions—it is crucial to conduct new, independent water surveys to assess the current situation and
potential impact of increased water usage.
2. Impact on Local Flora and Fauna.
The Sonoran Desert is home to a unique array of plant and animal species, many of which are adapted to
the region's arid conditions and rely on specific ecological conditions to thrive. The proposed
development threatens to disrupt these conditions by increasing human presence and altering land use
in ways that could lead to habitat loss, increased pollution, and the introduction of invasive species.
Particularly at risk are the local wildlife populations, including the wild horse and mustang herds that are
already struggling to find sufficient water and forage in this prolonged drought. The development could
restrict their natural roaming areas and reduce access to vital water sources. Furthermore, the high-
density housing and golf course will fragment habitats, making it more challenging for wildlife to migrate
and find food and water, thus leading to a decline in biodiversity.
3. Wastewater Disposal and Infrastructure Strain.
The proposed development will not be connected to city services, raising serious concerns about the
disposal of wastewater. The addition of over a 1000 new homes, apartments, commercial businesses,
and a golf course will generate substantial amounts of wastewater that, without proper infrastructure,
could contaminate local groundwater supplies. This poses a severe risk to the environmental health of
the region and the well-being of its residents.
Additionally, the increased population density will place a considerable strain on the local highway
infrastructure. The existing two-lane highway in each direction is inadequate for the anticipated traffic
influx. Approving this proposal would necessitate constructing acceleration and deceleration lanes and
likely expanding the highway to three to four lanes in each direction along with the necessary stop lights
at all entrances. Furthermore, the bridge crossing the Verde River may need to be rebuilt to handle
increased traffic as it is only two lanes in both directions, exacerbating the negative impact on the
surrounding area.
4. Impact on School Systems, Emergency Services, and Tax Increases.
The current school district is already at capacity and cannot accommodate the potential influx of
students resulting from this development. This could necessitate the construction of new schools, a
burden that should fall on the developer, given the strain the development will place on existing
educational infrastructure.
There is also a significant concern regarding the lack of adequate fire and emergency services
infrastructure to support such a development. Currently, emergency services are provided by the Fort
McDowell Yavapai Indian Tribe, which does not have the capacity to meet the increased demand from
this development. Building new fire stations and emergency services facilities will be necessary to ensure
community safety.
Furthermore, the development's additional infrastructure needs, such as expanded roads, bridges, and
public services, could lead to an increase in local taxes. This potential tax increase would place an undue
financial burden on all residents, especially those who are retired and living on fixed incomes. Higher
property taxes to fund the necessary infrastructure improvements and expanded public services would
be particularly challenging for these residents, potentially forcing them out of their homes due to rising
costs.
5. Environmental and Legal Considerations.
The Sonoran Desert is home to a unique array of plant and animal species, many of which are adapted to
the region's arid conditions and rely on specific ecological conditions to thrive. The proposed
development threatens to disrupt these conditions by increasing human presence and altering land use
in ways that could lead to habitat loss, increased pollution, and the introduction of invasive species.
Particularly at risk are the local wildlife populations, including the wild horse and mustang herds that are
already struggling to find sufficient water and forage in this prolonged drought. The development could
restrict their natural roaming areas and reduce access to vital water sources. Furthermore, the high-
density housing and golf course will fragment habitats, making it more challenging for wildlife to migrate
and find food and water, thus leading to a decline in biodiversity.
Legally, the proposed changes to zoning and development plans, approved decades ago, necessitate
thorough reconsideration considering current environmental conditions and regulations. Given the
significant changes in water availability and ecological conditions since the original proposal, new
environmental impact studies should be conducted to ensure compliance with state and federal
environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species
Act (ESA). We must keep in mind the delicate nature of this area that encompasses the Salt River, Verde
River, and Sycamore Creek water basin, and take measures to protect this unique area of the state of
Arizona, it is truly one of Arizona’s treasures.
Conclusion
Considering the severe and potentially irreversible impacts on water resources, local infrastructure, the
environment, and the financial well-being of residents, I strongly urge the relevant authorities to
reconsider the proposed development in the part of Goldfield Ranch known as the “Preserve”. It is
crucial to prioritize sustainable development practices that respect the unique and fragile environment
of the Sonoran Desert and consider the economic and social impact on the community, especially those
most vulnerable.
Thank you for your attention to these concerns. I trust that thorough consideration will be given to
protecting our natural environment, community infrastructure, and economic stability.
Sincerely,
Dr Michael Muul and Teresa Muul
---
Feel free to adjust the letter to better reflect your specific concerns or add additional details.
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
CWP Directory <cwpdirectory@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, August 28, 2024 12:13 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND); Nicholas Schlimm (PND); District 2
Subject:
re: Case #CPA2024004
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
August 27, 2024
Subject: Case #CPA2024004 - Major Comprehensive Plan Change for Goldfield Ranch, Fort McDowell,
AZ
Hello,
This letter serves as opposition to the proposed zoning modification. Allegations of the Development Master
Plan (DMP) being intact and the entitlement of "The Preserve" to previous R 1-8, R 70 & R 43 zoning are
misleading assertions. The Preserve held entitlements between 1995 and 2013, including an extension
granted in April 2013, which lapsed in 2017. The prior zoning for R 1-8, R 70 & R 43 at "The Preserve" was
never officially revoked by the board post its expiration in 2017. A recent conversation with P&D staff verified
that the DMP had been reverted back to its original R-190 zoning, while another staff member stated that the
zoning entitlements are still in place. This situation highlights another occasion where Maricopa County P & D
appears to be bending regulations to accommodate specific parties.
The recent push by Grayhawk developers proposes a major comprehensive amendment allowing for
approximately 1,728 acres on plots starting at Rural 0-1 du/ac, exceeding the previous zoning changes. This
proposed development starkly contrasts with the rural, low-density, and equestrian-friendly character of the
area.
Contrary to claims, neither the owner nor the county has affirmed that this rezoning aligns with the "Goldfield
Area Plan". Previous instances from P&D staff have shown that Development Master Plans (DMPs) can create
exceptions to statutory requirements or amend subsequently adopted area plans. However, these arguments
lack validity as DMPs hold no legal significance under state law. ARS 11-814A does not offer any provisions
for exemptions related to DMPs.
Goldfield Ranch is structured across five phases, with all lots intended to maintain their R-190 zoning. It is
crucial that this area remains preserved as Goldfield Ranch stands as a testament to a vanishing lifestyle, and
the home and lot owners are resolute in commitment to its conservation. It is evident that large-scale
developers prioritize profit margins over the preservation of this distinctive area, disregarding its unique
characteristics.
There are numerous apprehensions regarding expanding Goldfield Ranch's construction scope, mostly water
supply. In 2023, Katie Hobbs placed a pause on new construction that requires ground water. Six Cities in
Arizona have declared water shortages. The area is prone to fire risks due to drought, traffic concerns,
congestion, wildlife impact, and access to National Forests. The proposed use of commercial wells by the
developer could lead to significant expense if landowners are compelled to dig deeper, given the
2
interconnected aquifers. Previous issues with water extraction by SRP under the expired DMP further
compound these concerns.
While the county has historically accommodated Wendy Riddel's requests, residents are actively mobilizing to
challenge this proposed change to protect the area. Litigation remains a potential course of action if necessary.
Sincerely,
Janice Ridgeway
Jim McNeil
21511 E Northwood Pass
Fort McDowell, AZ 85264
JLMAU2010@yahoo.com
September 24, 2024
Joseph Mueller
Planning
Maricopa County
301 West Jefferson Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Dear Joseph Mueller,
Subject: Environmental, Infrastructural, and Economic Concerns Regarding Proposed Development in Goldfield Ranch
known as (The Preserve).
I am writing to express my strong concerns about the proposed development of a 1,700-acre parcel in the Goldfield
Ranch area known as "The Preserve." The plan to modify the original zoning from one single-family home per five acres
to one home per acre, along with the addition of high-density apartments, condominiums, and a golf course, raises
significant environmental, infrastructural, and economic issues. The development poses a severe threat to the local
ecosystem, water resources, community infrastructure, and economic stability of the region. This letter outlines the
negative impacts this development could have on the surrounding desert ecosystem, particularly in light of the ongoing
drought and the fragile water resources in the region.
1. Water Resources and Ongoing Drought.
The Sonoran Desert has been experiencing a severe drought since the mid-1990s, marking a 35-year period of water
scarcity, which is the worst in over 110 years of recorded history. This prolonged drought has already significantly
affected Arizona’s water supplies, leading to reduced availability for agricultural, residential, and environmental needs.
The proposed increase in housing density, coupled with water-intensive amenities such as a golf course, will only
exacerbate the strain on an already overburdened/depleted water table.
Groundwater levels in the region are critically low due to prolonged periods of reduced precipitation. The increased
demand for water that will result from this development threatens to further deplete the aquifers, which are the primary
sources of water for local communities and ecosystems. As a result, this could lead to the drying up of wells, reduced
water availability for existing residents, and the deterioration of local water quality due to increased groundwater
pumping. Moreover, any reduction in groundwater levels could have long-lasting effects on the desert's natural
vegetation, which is already under stress from drought conditions, thereby altering the landscape and ecological balance.
Currently, single-family home wells in the area are reaching depths of around 800 feet. If this development proceeds, it
could lead to further depletion of the aquifers, potentially requiring existing homeowners to drill new wells beyond 1,000
feet. The cost of such deep drilling is prohibitive, which could render surrounding properties virtually worthless due to
the financial burden of accessing water. Given the decades that have passed since the original zoning approval—long
before the current drought conditions—it is crucial to conduct new, independent water surveys to assess the current
situation and potential impact of increased water usage.
Several of the current residents in the Goldfield are very concerned about our water wells and not to have a similar
concern as North Scottsdale recently experienced. I and other never desire top haul water and our resources needs to be
research and evaluated.
2. Impact on Local Flora and Fauna.
The Sonoran Desert is home to a unique array of plant and animal species, many of which are adapted to the region's
arid conditions and rely on specific ecological conditions to thrive. The proposed development threatens to disrupt these
conditions by increasing human presence and altering land use in ways that could lead to habitat loss, increased
pollution, and the introduction of invasive species.
Particularly at risk are the local wildlife populations, including the wild horse and mustang herds that are already
struggling to find sufficient water and forage in this prolonged drought. The development could restrict their natural
roaming areas and reduce access to vital water sources. Furthermore, the high-density housing and golf course will
fragment habitats, making it more challenging for wildlife to migrate and find food and water, thus leading to a decline in
biodiversity.
3. Wastewater Disposal and Infrastructure Strain.
The proposed development will not be connected to city services, raising serious concerns about the disposal of
wastewater. The addition of over 1000 new homes, apartments, commercial businesses, and a golf course will generate
substantial amounts of wastewater that, without proper infrastructure, could contaminate local groundwater supplies.
This poses a severe risk to the environmental health of the region and the well-being of its residents.
Additionally, the increased population density will place a considerable strain on the local highway infrastructure. The
existing two-lane highway in each direction is inadequate for the anticipated traffic influx. Approving this proposal would
necessitate constructing acceleration and deceleration lanes and likely expanding the highway to three to four lanes in
each direction along with the necessary stop lights at all entrances. Furthermore, the bridge crossing the Verde River
may need to be rebuilt to handle increased traffic as it is only two lanes in both directions, exacerbating the negative
impact on the surrounding area.
4. Impact on School Systems, Emergency Services, and Tax Increases.
The current school district is already at capacity and cannot accommodate the potential influx of students resulting from
this development. This could necessitate the construction of new schools, a burden that should fall on the developer,
given the strain the development will place on existing educational infrastructure.
There is also a significant concern regarding the lack of adequate fire and emergency services infrastructure to support
such a development. Currently, emergency services are provided by the Fort McDowell Yavapai Indian Tribe, which does
not have the capacity to meet the increased demand from this development. Building new fire stations and emergency
services facilities will be necessary to ensure community safety.
Furthermore, the development's additional infrastructure needs, such as expanded roads, bridges, and public services,
could lead to an increase in local taxes. This potential tax increase would place an undue financial burden on all
residents, especially those who are retired and living on fixed incomes. Higher property taxes to fund the necessary
infrastructure improvements and expanded public services would be particularly challenging for these residents,
potentially forcing them out of their homes due to rising costs.
5. Environmental and Legal Considerations.
The Sonoran Desert is home to a unique array of plant and animal species, many of which are adapted to the region's
arid conditions and rely on specific ecological conditions to thrive. The proposed development threatens to disrupt these
conditions by increasing human presence and altering land use in ways that could lead to habitat loss, increased
pollution, and the introduction of invasive species.
Particularly at risk are the local wildlife populations, including the wild horse and mustang herds that are already
struggling to find sufficient water and forage in this prolonged drought. The development could restrict their natural
roaming areas and reduce access to vital water sources. Furthermore, the high-density housing and golf course will
fragment habitats, making it more challenging for wildlife to migrate and find food and water, thus leading to a decline in
biodiversity.
Legally, the proposed changes to zoning and development plans, approved decades ago, necessitate thorough
reconsideration considering current environmental conditions and regulations. Given the significant changes in water
availability and ecological conditions since the original proposal, new environmental impact studies should be conducted
to ensure compliance with state and federal environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We must keep in mind the delicate nature of this area that encompasses the Salt
River, Verde River, and Sycamore Creek water basin, and take measures to protect this unique area of the state of
Arizona, it is truly one of Arizona’s treasures.
6. Electrical Power. So far SRP and Fort McDowell have not given permission to upgrade the 12 kV power line that
crosses the reservation we have here that is meant to support about 300 homes total (we have around 140 currently).
The tribe is not in favor of this project either as it will sit on their boundary as well.
7. The land in this region is choppy with hills and many washes. To have a from of dwelling on one or two acres is
difficult. These areas of drainage are a concern as building sites would be difficult in many areas.
8. Law enforcement is provided by Maricopa County sheriff office and would slight impact their services as well. Fort
McDowell has no jurisdiction in this same area as well.
9. Fire protection and services would also be impacted as well.
Conclusion
Considering the severe and potentially irreversible impacts on water resources, local infrastructure, the environment,
and the financial well-being of residents, I strongly urge the relevant authorities to reconsider the proposed
development in the part of Goldfield Ranch known as the “Preserve”. It is crucial to prioritize sustainable development
practices that respect the unique and fragile environment of the Sonoran Desert and consider the economic and social
impact on the community, especially those most vulnerable.
Thank you for your attention to these concerns. I trust that thorough consideration will be given to protecting our natural
environment, community infrastructure, and economic stability.
Sincerely,
Jim McNeil
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Kimberlee Robinson <kimberleee7@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, August 20, 2024 3:32 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Cc:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Re: CPA2024004 - Preserve at Goldfield
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Hi Joseph & Nicholas,
It is my understanding that the previous R 1-8, R 70 & R 43 zoning for the preserve was never revoked by the board
members after it expired in 2017. It is reasonable to think that the zoning expired in 2017 it should have reverted back
to the original zoning of RU 190. Most residents of Goldfield Ranch did not know that the board did not revoke it back to
the original zoning of RU 190. Can you please give us an explanation of how & why this happened when you get a
chance?
Also, can you please provide us with a list of the board members that served on the Maricopa Board of Supervisors for
the years of 2017 & 2018 ?
Joseph, thank you for all of your help today.
Thank you!
Have a wonderful day!
Kimberlee
HomeSmart LifeStyles
Kimberleee7@gmail.com
480-510-5220 걭
걮
걯
거
On Aug 20, 2024, at 12:04 PM, Joseph Mueller (PND) <Joseph.Mueller@maricopa.gov> wrote:
Kimberlee,
Please find the attached documents for the comprehensive plan amendment attached. These are the
most recent documents I have from the applicant.
The zone change case, Z240006, is being managed by Nicholas Schlimm, who is copied on the email.
Kind regards,
<image001.png>
Joseph Mueller
2
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
301 W Jefferson St Phoenix, AZ 85003
Planner
O: 602-506-7629
MARICOPA.GOV
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube
<APPL-FORM-2-2024-08-12_v2 (1).pdf>
<LAND-EXHI-LAND-EXHI-2-2024-08-12_v2 (1).pdf>
<NARR-RPTS-NARR-RPTS-2-2024-08-12_v2 (1).pdf>
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Leslie Cantrell <lesliescantrell@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, October 24, 2024 2:39 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Cc:
Leslie Cantrell
Subject:
Case number CPA2024004
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
To: Joseph Mueller c/o Maricopa County Planning &
Development.
I just received a notice of Public Hearing, informing me
about case # CPA2024004 - Goldhawk at the Preserve. My
property is located within 300 feet of the site and I have
expressed interest in this case to you in the past. I have 4
major concerns regarding this case. I have reached out to the
developer and have not gotten a response.
1. I purchased this property in 2004 with full knowledge that
you could only build 1 unit for 5 acres. I am sure Berry Riddel
was under the same facts when they purchased the property.
Why should he be allowed to rewrite the zoning to
accommodate this extensive invasion of homes in areas designed
for 1 home per 5 acres. The topography of Goldfield does not
warrant homes this close together. In order for the builders to
build 712 units they will inevitably have to change
the topography. Which negates the reason so many people of
Goldfield Ranch purchased their property originally.
2
2. Arizona is a Desert and does not have the water resources
to accommodate this many homes in this area. I know they say
they have done a water survey but have they considered all the
new buildings being built throughout Scottsdale? I am
constantly being reminded to conserve water while builders
keep adding new homes and people to AZ.
3. The design for this project has only ONE traffic exit out
of the development, the other exit is going through Goldfield.
Which will inevitably cause Goldfield homeowners to have to
deal with the overflow traffic. Why should we have to carry
that burden? Do you really think 712 homes times a minimum of
2 cars per home are going to exit onto HWY 87 without a
problem???? Have you seen HWY 87 on weekends and holidays?
HWY 87 will have the same problems Anthem has again causing
the people of the area to carry this burden.
4. I have reached out to these developers and they do not
return calls . How are we expected to trust them when they
come up with their textbook answers?
I wish to protest this request for new zoning.
Thank you,
--
Leslie Cantrell
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Leslie Cantrell <lesliescantrell@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, August 20, 2024 3:39 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Subject:
Goldfield Ranch
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Hi,
Thanks for talking to me today about the development in
Goldfield Ranch. Below are my concerns about the rezoning and
the issues I would like addressed BEFORE any approval of
rezoning.
1. How much of the Topography of Goldfield Ranch will be
changed to allow zoning of R1-8, RU-43, RU-70. Right now the
land is mostly plateaus and ravines. To put in 712 lots it would
have to level the ground and change the Topography of the
area.
2. What is the source of water they plan to use for the 712 -lot
community. How much water would they be allowed to pull?
3. Traffic - there are only 3 exits/entrances to Goldfield Ranch
that empties onto a 2 lane highway, 87. Are we going to have
the same problems that Anthem had when that development
2
opened on I-17? 712 lots times 2 cars per home equals over
1400 new vehicles daily.
--
Leslie Cantrell
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Criquette Cutting <criquettecutting@gmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, September 1, 2024 8:04 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND); Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Cc:
Malcolm Cutting
Subject:
Proposed Grayhawk Development Goldfield Ranch
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Hello Mr. Mueller and Mr. Schlimm,
Upon learning of the proposed Grayhawk development on The Preserve in Goldfield Ranch, we have some concerns. I
know many of our neighbors have already written to you to share their concerns. Though most of our concerns would
echo theirs, I don’t want to bore you with more of the same.
If you are on the Maricopa County Zoning & Planning Committee, I don’t need to point out that Goldfield Ranch is zoned
R-190 because there is a lack of “public facilities such as water, sewage disposal, parks and playgrounds, and
governmental services such as police and fire protection.” It takes the Maricopa County Sheriff’s office and the Fort
McDowell Fire Department at least 20 minutes to get out here in an emergency. This has been a particularly scary
wildfire season. Many of these fires were human-caused. I can’t imagine the strain on current services if we had 700 plus
families living out here.
If the proposed R1-8 is supposed to take “into consideration existing conditions, including present use of land, present
lot sizes, future land use needs and the availability of public utilities”, then anyone visiting Goldfield Ranch could see
that this proposal does not make any sense. I do hope that you will come out and visit our beautiful neighborhood and
see this for yourselves.
The one thing that most people are not talking about is that this 5,000 acres of rural land is home to many species of
animals, reptiles and birds that are indigenous to the Sonoran Desert and thrive here with the low density development
because they have some access to water. The Audubon Society comes out here annually to count the different kinds of
birds. Since moving here in 2021, we have seen more than one gila monster, more snakes than we can count - rattlers,
king, bull, ribbon, red racer to name a few, bobcats, mountain lions, javelina, owls, hawks and many varieties of
hummingbirds.
A high density development will threaten not only our rural way of life, but threaten many desert creatures that call The
Preserve area home. Their access to the Verde River would be cut off by development. I am sure my neighbors have
adequately addressed the water scarcity concern as the Verde River is much lower in recent years and digging more
wells would put too much stress on the aquifers and could put our water access at risk.
We urge you to talk to the developer and ask them to reconsider their development to stay in keeping with the original
plan of Goldfield Ranch, custom built homes on a minimum of 4.36 acres. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Tracy & Malcolm Cutting
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Mr Ballistic <thebarbellcompound@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, October 23, 2024 10:27 AM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Subject:
Re: Question about the preserve
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Thank you Joseph I attended the event last night and did not realize it would be potentially 701 homes.
Here are my comments and a few things of concern:
1) The water professional said they believe there is only enough water for 100 years, but not 100% sure. If the wells run
dry there would be no fire protection. He also mentioned a private water company taking control of water rights from
the local neighbors. Which I do not agree with.
2) Also, I would be concerned with the light pollution.
3) With the recent fires in the area where they are proposing these homes I would be concerned with the potential for
more fires. Smart meters and electric vehicles are known to cause fires. If this is brought into the area it could result in
more fires.
4) There are close to 300+ homes for sale in scottsdale and fountain hills. A 700+ home subdivision does not make sense
in an area with a 4.3 acre minimum ranch.
5) Lastly, the concern for wildlife based on this expansion and or the potential pollution into the river which is nearby.
-Maro
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 at 10:16, Joseph Mueller (PND) <Joseph.Mueller@maricopa.gov> wrote:
Good morning Maro,
Any comment/opinion may be sent to me for documentation in the case files. Any comment received will be provided
to both the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as the Board of Supervisors. The case will ultimately go before the
Board of Supervisors, at which time they will vote on the proposal.
In addition to written comment you are welcome to attend the public hearings. The Planning and Zoning Commission
hearing for the comprehensive plan amendment component (CPA2024004) of the proposal is scheduled for November
7, 2024. It will be held at 205 W Jefferson St. and will commence at 9:30 am (please note there are several other cases
on the agenda).
2
Kind regards,
Joseph Mueller
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
301 W Jefferson St Phoenix, AZ 85003
Planner
O: 602-506-7629
MARICOPA.GOV
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube
From: Mr Ballistic <thebarbellcompound@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 10:09 AM
To: Joseph Mueller (PND) <Joseph.Mueller@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: Re: Question about the preserve
Hey Joseph, Is there a way to vote against the greyhawk expansion in the gol dfiel d ranch for the 500-800+ homes they are talking about building? I wanted to voice my vote against the expa nsion of the goldfield ranch preserve build out. It will
Hey Joseph,
Is there a way to vote against the greyhawk expansion in the goldfield ranch for the 500-800+ homes they are
talking about building? I wanted to voice my vote against the expansion of the goldfield ranch preserve build out. It will
cause unwanted congestion, noise pollution, light pollution, and take away from the beautiful tonto national forest
views. Like the expansions that have taken place by the mcdowell preserve.
Thanks,
3
Maro
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 at 10:00, Mr Ballistic <thebarbellcompound@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey there,
I wanted to check in on the status of the preserve. Is there a way to vote against the greyhawk expansion in the
goldfield ranch for the 500-800+ homes they are talking about building? Please let me know which meeting that would
be to attend.
Thanks,
Maro
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 at 09:36, Criquette Cutting <criquettecutting@gmail.com> wrote:
4
5
On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 9:34 AM Mr Ballistic <thebarbellcompound@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey there,
I wanted to check in on the status of the preserve. Is there a way to vote against the greyhawk expansion of the
500-800+ homes they are talking about building? Please let me know.
Thanks,
Maro
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Mary Laney <mshealaney@gmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, August 26, 2024 4:00 PM
To:
District 2; Joseph Mueller (PND); Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Case Z240006 Goldfield Ranch Zone Change
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Gentlemen,
I will make this one quick and to the point. We would like to know how and why the DMP 2012004 The Preserve at
Goldfield Ranch did not expire in 2017. DMP re-labeled as DMP2006018 according to the Formal meeting minutes
Wednesday, April 24, 2013. A letter was sent to them requesting the report, they never submitted a new report in 2017,
2018 or 2019 or 2020 and here we are in 2024.
Please check records for a determination by the County Attorney back in December of 2019. It was communicated that
the report had not been received as of yet. The Preserve challenged the validity of the stipulations regarding the report
and Planning & Developments ability to bring it before the Commission for a hearing. Therefore the matter was referred
to the County Attorney's Office for advice. Check with Jen Pokorski. She was the author of the email.
What good does it do for the P&D Department to put stipulations on an approval or extension if the applicant does not
abide by them?
Goldfield Ranch should remain R-190 without giving exceptions for the application for amendment for Grayhawk. We
strongly oppose this application and would like all the documentation stating it was never revoked.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Kindly,
Mary Laney
Goldfield Ranch Resident
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
omfdr <omfdr@aol.com>
Sent:
Saturday, August 31, 2024 1:46 PM
To:
County Managers Office; Joseph Mueller (PND)
Cc:
Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Concerns Regarding Goldhawk Project
Attachments:
Preserve Objection Final T.Z..docx
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Please find formal outline of issues.
I would like to point out that homeowners of current phases of GFR were under the impression that ALL lots of ALL
phases were to be 5 acres or more.
Also, I would like to ask why a moratorium was issues earlier this year that only homes with current approvals for wells
could bill as there was a concern for water preservation. Now we are approving hundreds of build sites? This does not
make sense. Are reactionary or proactive?
Please consider the current 5 acres lot delineation.
Thank you for your consideration.
Dr Michael Muul
Teresa Muul
Sent from my Ultra 21S
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
quincey roxburgh <qroxburgh@yahoo.com>
Sent:
Monday, August 26, 2024 11:22 AM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Subject:
Goldfield ranch Preserve
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Why did the zoning for the Goldfield Ranch Preserve not revert back to Rural 190 as it originally was after the zoning was
changed to 1-2 house per acre, then the project was defeated in 2007. I understood that was suppose to happen. Then a
renewal letter was never submitted in 2017 as was required. Why was it not changed then??
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
September 22, 2024
Attention:
Joseph Mueller
(Planning)
Joseph.Mueller@maricopa.gov
Nicholas Schlimm (Zoning)
Nicholas.Schlimm@maricopa.gov
Re: Goldfield Ranch Zone Change Case Z240006
As residents of Goldfield Ranch for more than 21 years, we once again are facing
developers who want to disrupt this rural community with higher density
development. We live at 11940 N Vista Del Oro and are less than 300 feet from where
the rezoning is proposed.
We understand the landowner has a right to develop, but not at the expense of quality
of life and rural lifestyle. Leave the zoning at R-190 as it has been and should
remain. Any overlay achieved by the last developer, Ellman, under the ‘Preserve’, had
a sunset clause that expired a long time ago.
Water is limited, our well is at 365 feet. Dramatically increasing density will put all wells
at risk. The commercial wells drilled into the lower aquifer will drain the upper aquifer
that the current residents use for their water source. This is a grave concern!
Will the newest developer put up a bond to ensure that the residents’ wells won’t
run dry?
The power grid is already strained. The FMYN and Tonto Forest are not interested in
providing more power across their lands. Dramatically increasing density will put reliable
power at risk.
All homes are on septic systems. Dramatically increasing density will put safe water at
risk. Thousands of septic systems or a sanitary district could create Verde River
contamination.
The roads are only chip sealed. Dramatically increasing density will put our primitive
roads at risk. This burden or additional expense for maintenance will be placed on the
backs of the existing landowners.
Fire is an ever-present danger. Dramatically increasing density will increase fire risk.
Our fire district sets policy only and contracts with the nearest Fire Department, FMYN
Fire Department, and depending on one’s location, is 5 to 8 miles away on winding
roads without any fire hydrants. Fighting fire without fire hydrants and no longer having
a Volunteer Fire Department has raised our ISO rating. Higher density will place an
undue burden on an already strained wildland and structure fire protection
systems.
The community is quiet. Dramatically increasing density will increase noise pollution.
The community is dark, the stars are spectacular at night. Dramatically increasing
density will increase light pollution.
The entire reason we moved to Goldfield Ranch was the open spaces and rural
lifestyle. Our way of life is now being threatened by another developer seeking to pave
paradise and put up a parking lot. From Ellman to Grayhawk, ‘Goldhawk’, no difference,
same predatory manipulators seeking to modify the rules to defecate in somebody's
else's neighborhood to maximize their profit.
Please do not rezone, let the culture, nature, and rural lifestyle remain. Let them build
big, beautiful homes on 4.3 acres like everyone else and sell them for premium dollars.
Hopefully SRP and the Salt River Pima MIC and Yavapai Nation will come to the rescue
again. The infrastructure for the last development planning was blocked by the Tribes
on reservations located on the Verde River and downstream due to the Sanitary District
that was proposed.
Increasing the density above Rural-190 is unsustainable.
Please say No to Goldfield Ranch Zone Change Z240006!
Respectfully,
Robert (Robin) and Theresa Franklin
11940 N. Vista del Oro
Fort McDowell, AZ 85265
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Tracy Alcorn <tracyalcornbanning@gmail.com>
Sent:
Saturday, September 7, 2024 6:12 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND); Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Subject:
Goldfield Ranch Zone Change Case Z240006
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Subject: Strong Objection to Proposed Goldhawk Subdivision Development in Goldfield Ranch Preserve
Dear Joseph Mueller & Nicholas Schlimm,
I am writing to express my serious concerns regarding the proposed development of the Goldhawk subdivision on the
1,700-acre parcel within the Goldfield Ranch Preserve. This development plan includes increasing zoning density from R-
190 to one home per acre, as well as introducing high-density apartments, condominiums, and a golf course. My
objections are based on several critical issues, including the need to adhere to the original R-190 zoning, potential
conflicts of interest, and significant environmental, infrastructural, and economic concerns.
1. Zoning and Expired DMP:
The Development Master Plan (DMP) for this area expired in 2017. As a result, the zoning should have reverted to the
original R-190 designation, which allows for one single-family home per five acres. The proposed development plan,
therefore, does not align with the current zoning requirements. It is crucial that the county uphold the R-190 zoning to
respect the legal framework that governs land use and development in this area. Changing the zoning now to permit
high-density development contradicts the established guidelines and sets a troubling precedent.
2. Conflict of Interest:
I am deeply concerned about the potential conflict of interest involving Wendy Riddell, who serves both as the Chairman
of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and as an attorney for Goldhawk. This dual role raises serious questions
about impartiality and the integrity of the decision-making process. It is essential for the community to have confidence
that development decisions are made in the best interest of all stakeholders, free from any potential conflicts of
interest.
3. Environmental Impact:
The Sonoran Desert is already facing severe water scarcity due to prolonged drought conditions. The proposed
development will exacerbate the strain on local water resources, as the increase in housing density and the addition of
water-intensive amenities like a golf course will significantly raise water demand. This development threatens to deplete
groundwater levels further, affecting not only the local ecosystem but also the availability of water for existing residents.
Additionally, the high-density housing and golf course will disrupt local flora and fauna, potentially leading to habitat
loss, increased pollution, and the introduction of invasive species. Local wildlife, including wild horses and mustangs,
may suffer due to reduced access to vital water sources and fragmented habitats.
2
4. Infrastructure Strain:
The proposed development will place an immense burden on existing infrastructure. The local highway system, which
currently consists of two-lane roads, will require significant upgrades to handle the increased traffic. The potential need
for new acceleration and deceleration lanes, expanded highways, and a rebuilt bridge crossing the Verde River will
impose substantial costs and further strain community resources.
Moreover, the development will generate significant amounts of wastewater, which could contaminate local
groundwater supplies if not properly managed. Given that the development will not be connected to city services, there
is a pressing need to ensure adequate infrastructure for wastewater disposal to protect environmental health.
5. Impact on Community Services:
The local school district is already at capacity and will struggle to accommodate the influx of new students resulting from
this development. Additionally, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Indian Tribe, which currently provides emergency services,
will be unable to meet the increased demand. The development will necessitate the construction of new schools and
emergency services facilities, which should be funded by the developer rather than placing additional financial burdens
on the community.
In conclusion, the proposed Goldhawk subdivision development poses significant risks to the environment, local
infrastructure, and community well-being. The need to adhere to the R-190 zoning, address potential conflicts of
interest, and carefully consider the impacts of this development is paramount. I urge the Maricopa County Board of
Supervisors to reject this proposal and prioritize sustainable development practices that respect both the natural
environment and the needs of the existing community.
Thank you for your attention to these critical concerns. I trust that the Board will make a decision that aligns with the
best interests of all residents and the preservation of our precious desert ecosystem.
Sincerely,
Tracy Alcorn-Banning
Goldfield Ranch Resident
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Tracy Cutting <tracylcutting@gmail.com>
Sent:
Sunday, September 1, 2024 8:00 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND); Nicholas Schlimm (PND)
Cc:
Malcolm Cutting; Criquette Cutting
Subject:
Proposed Grayhawk Development in Goldfield Ranch
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Hello Mr. Mueller and Mr. Schlimm,
Upon learning of the proposed Grayhawk development on The Preserve in Goldfield Ranch, we have some concerns. I
know many of our neighbors have already written to you to share their concerns. Though most of our concerns would
echo theirs, I don’t want to bore you with more of the same.
If you are on the Maricopa County Zoning & Planning Committee, I don’t need to point out that Goldfield Ranch is zoned
R-190 because there is a lack of “public facilities such as water, sewage disposal, parks and playgrounds, and
governmental services such as police and fire protection.” It takes the Maricopa County Sheriff’s office and the Fort
McDowell Fire Department at least 20 minutes to get out here in an emergency. This has been a particularly scary
wildfire season. Many of these fires were human-caused. I can’t imagine the strain on current services if we had 700 plus
families living out here.
If the proposed R1-8 is supposed to take “into consideration existing conditions, including present use of land, present
lot sizes, future land use needs and the availability of public utilities”, then anyone visiting Goldfield Ranch could see
that this proposal does not make any sense. I do hope that you will come out and visit our beautiful neighborhood and
see this for yourselves.
The one thing that most people are not talking about is that this 5,000 acres of rural land is home to many species of
animals, reptiles and birds that are indigenous to the Sonoran Desert and thrive here with the low density development
because they have some access to water. The Audubon Society comes out here annually to count the different kinds of
birds. Since moving here in 2021, we have seen more than one Gila Monster, more snakes than we can count - rattlers,
king, bull, ribbon, red racer to name a few, bobcats, mountain lions, javelina, owls, hawks and many varieties of
hummingbirds.
A high density development will threaten not only our rural way of life, but threaten many desert creatures that call The
Preserve area home. Their access to the Verde River would be cut off by development. I am sure my neighbors have
adequately addressed the water scarcity concern as the Verde River is much lower in recent years and digging more
wells would put too much stress on the aquifers and could put our water access at risk.
We urge you to talk to the developer and ask them to reconsider their development to stay in keeping with the original
plan of Goldfield Ranch, custom built homes on a minimum of 4.36 acres. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Tracy & Malcolm Cutting
B
IA 5
1
A
B
87
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170, Phoenix, Arizona 85003, (602) 506-3601
Document Path: \\gisteam.maricopa.gov\workgroup\patrick.dongarra\PND\OppositionCases\CPA2024004\CPA2024004.aprx
DISCLAIMER: This map is a graphical representation designed for general reference purposes only. Viewer/User agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Maricopa County, its officers, departments, employees and agents
from and against any and all suits, actions, legal or administrative proceedings, claims, demands or damages of any kind or nature arising out of the use of this map, or the data contained herein, in its actual or altered form.
www.maricopa.gov/planning
Maricopa County OET, GIS Division, 10/23/2024
Ü
0
2,500
1,250
Feet
Opposition and Support
CPA2024004
Parcel
Subject Parcel
300' Buffer
Opposition Parcel
Supporting Parcel
All Opposition Parcels
All Supporting Parcels
300' Buffer Interior
300' Buffer Selection
Eligible parcels: 93
Supporting parcels: 0
Opposition parcels: 3
Supporting parcels sq ft: 0
Opposition parcels sq ft: 245,914
Subject parcels sq ft: 75,370,097
All area inside the 300' buffer sq ft:
87,478,437
All area inside the 300' buffer -
excluding subject parcel,
ROW and excluded parcels sq ft:
12,108,340
No-response parcels sq ft: 0
Super Majority opposed parcel acres:
2%
Super Majority opposed parcel number:
3%
DATE:
November 7, 2024
TO:
Planning & Zoning Commission
From:
Joseph Mueller, Planner
SUBJECT:
CPA2024004 – Goldhawk at the Preserve
Agenda Item: 11
Since the writing of the staff report staff received opposition from the Fort McDowell Yavapai
Nation, 13 additional letters representing 14 residents, and an opposition petition with 115
signatures. The opposition sited concern over water usage, impacts on wildlife and the
environment, traffic, and lack of services in the area. The letters are attached.
Attachments:
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation (7 pages)
Opposition Letters (27 pages)
Opposition Petition (11 pages)
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Rachel Applegate (PND)
Sent:
Tuesday, November 5, 2024 4:19 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Subject:
FW: Online Form Submittal: Objection of Planning and Zoning Commission
Recommendation
From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2024 4:07 PM
To: PND PZAppeal <PNDPZAppeal@maricopa.gov>
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Objection of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
Objection of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation Objection Form If the Planning & Zoning Commi ssion recommends approval of a parti cular case it will be placed on a consent agenda for the Board of Supervisors hearing. However, i f
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Objection of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
Objection Form
If the Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval of a particular case it
will be placed on a consent agenda for the Board of Supervisors hearing. However,
if this objection form is received within 15 calendar days following Commission
hearing, then the agenda item will be placed on the regular agenda for the Board of
Supervisors hearing.
Name
Pau J. Russell
Email Address
prussell@fmyn.org
Address
PO Box 17779
City
Fountain Hills
State
AZ
Zip Code
85268
Phone Number
4807897200
Fax Number
Field not completed.
Case Number / Project
Name
CPA 2024004 /Goldhawk at the Preserve
2
Planning & Zoning
Commission Hearing Date
November 7, 2024
Reason for the Objection of
the Subject Case
The objection is based on the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation's
concerns regarding this
development as related to the potential depletion of
groundwater or surface water resources
decreed to Fort McDowell under its federal water settlement,
impacts to water quality, cultural
resources, impacts associated to expanded power demands,
air quality, fire suppression, wildfire
threats, and other adverse impacts.
Electronic Signature
Agreement
I agree.
Electronic Signature
Paul J. Russell
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
EMAIL
TWITTER HANDLE
TELEPHONE
LINKEDIN URL
CONTACT
Diximack@yahoo.com
480-993-7267
DIXI MACKENZIE
22929 ELAUREL LANE
FORT MCDOWELL, AZ 85264
RACHEAL
MAICOPA COUNTY • PLANNING AND ZONING • 205 W JEFFERSON ST
Nov 6 2024
Dear Racheal,
I wanted to take a moment to ask some questions with regard to the
proposed subdivision in Goldfield Ranch. I am not in support of this
zoning change that would be necessary to facilitate the construction of
the development of” Goldhawk at the Preserve.” (application #
CPA2024004)
Water and Septic:
The current well information as follows
Grayhawk Dev. Well 55-585923 has an intended capacity of 500 GPM
Goldfield Ranch Realty Well 55217078 has an intended capacity of 600
GPM
Goldfield Ranch Realty Well 55-217591 has an intended capacity of 55
GPM
Goldfield Ranch Realty Well 55-511296 intended capacity of 0 GPM
While this water supply might support 700+ new homes, I am asking for
at the very least an unbiased third party review not chosen by the
developer to verify that:
1- adjacent home owners will not be affected by loss of water at
their homes at the current well depth that we have all had to pay
for.
2- What are the recharge rate for the current wells that Grayhawk
plans to use.
3- What is the effect of 700+ septic systems in this new subdivision
There might be a better appetite for this type of development if
Grayhawk development is planning on building a water treatment plant
YN
DIXI MACKENZIE
22929 ELAUREL LANE
FORT MCDOWELL, AZ 85264 | LINK TO OTHER ONLINE PROPERTIES:
EMAIL
TWITTER HANDLE
TELEPHONE
LINKEDIN URL
2
to deal with water and sewer. You can look to communities in
Wickenburg and Apache Junction where it has become necessary to
build water treatment facilities after the fact.
Fire:
Will Grayhawk build and staff new fire station, given the challenges we
face in this unique community. Every summer season, we are on high
alert to not have our properties burn this close to a major highway and
the tinder dry Sonoran desert.
Streets:
Our community is shouldered with the burden of keeping our roads safe
and passable within Goldfield. Will Grayhawk be building new accesses
to handle five times the current population of our community.
I would like to point out to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors that
our community requires plus or minus 5 acre lots within the community.
If you approve this development you will be changing the face of our
community and putting inordinate pressures on the delicate
infrastructure that we currently live under.
Finally, after some quick research, I have found that Arizona Department
of Environmental Quality cannot be involved in advising and individuals
unless there is a utility company involved. There is no utility company.
We are all on our own and have been meeting the very stringent
standards that Maricopa county lays out for individual home owners. We
are in a very unique situation that allows a developer to have huge
impact on our desert environment with no recourse. We get to live with
the consequences of your decisions. Please hold them to a higher
standard than you have held each and every one of us.
Sincerely,
Dixi MacKenzie
GOLDFIELD RANCH OPPOSITION LETTER
Hello,
Thank you for the opportunity to allow me to express my opinion.
As you are aware, Goldfield Ranch represents the last remaining rural housing development
north of Fountain Hills, encompassing over five acres of custom rural homesites. Property
owners are drawn to this area to escape the congestion of city life. However, it is crucial to
recognize that Goldfield Ranch is a sensitive environment that requires preservation.
Homeowners in this region rely on wells for their water supply, and the introduction of 700 plus
additional homes could adversely impact these wells, as all aquifers are interconnected.
Furthermore, this area is susceptible to fire hazards, increased traffic along Highway 87, and
trespassing by individuals seeking access into the Tonto National Forest is a concern that would
only serve to make our lives increasingly difficult.
The construction of 700 plus new homes would be detrimental to the community. I am firmly
opposed to such development and do not wish to see a Scottsdale-style community encroach
upon Goldfield Ranch. Additionally, current property owners are responsible for maintaining the
private roads, and we do not want the new homeowners and their guests to compromise the
integrity of these roads.
I believe that the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department, as well as the Board of
Supervisors, may not fully understand the concerns of Goldfield Ranch residents, as they do not
reside in the area. It is important to recognize that you have the authority to reject the developers'
proposal for overbuilding in our community.
While I cannot object to the development of homesites that adhere to the existing R190 zoning
regulations to which current residents are bound, I recognize that such an approach may not align
with the developers’ profit motives.
Furthermore, approving this development could set a precedent, inviting other land buyers to
purchase five-acre parcels and subsequently seek to subdivide them into one-acre home sites. If
one developer is granted approval, it becomes challenging to deny requests from others. I implore
you to prioritize the interests of Goldfield Ranch residents in your decision-making process.
Historically, Maricopa County has favored developers, but I am asking you to reconsider and decline
this particular proposal.
Sincerely,
CIndy Carlier
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Bruce Skinner <radardr45@gmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, November 4, 2024 10:36 AM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Subject:
Gold hawk at the Preserve
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Sir,
I am writing to you because I am concerned about this development. I am concerned that this will effect the amount of
water available, and make us have to drill existing wells deeper. More septic systems could effect the water supply also.
I am also concerned about the increase in traffic. Not only in Goldfield but on the beeline (highway 87). The traffic is
already quite heavy on Friday through Sunday now. One can figure that for every housing unit there will be at least 2
vehicles.
Please disapprove this development and leave the preserve in a pristine state.
Bruce T. Skinner
Cell 480-580-7237
radardr45@gmail.com
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
bowhunterkirby <bowhunterkirby@hughes.net>
Sent:
Monday, November 4, 2024 8:35 AM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Subject:
RE: I'm against this project because of water and congestion, all lots should be a
minimum of 5acres, thank you for your consideration
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Yes sorry for the confusion
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: "Joseph Mueller (PND)" <Joseph.Mueller@Maricopa.Gov>
Date: 11/4/24 8:28 AM (GMT-07:00)
To: bowhunterkirby <bowhunterkirby@hughes.net>
Subject: RE: I'm against this project because of water and congestion, all lots should be a minimum of 5acres, thank you
for your consideration
Good morning,
Can you please clarify which case you wish your comment to be documented with? The Goldhawk at the Preserve
comprehensive plan amendment request is case CPA2024004, is this the case you are referencing?
Thank you for the clarification.
Kind regards,
2
Joseph Mueller
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
301 W Jefferson St Phoenix, AZ 85003
Planner
O: 602-506-7629
MARICOPA.GOV
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube
From: bowhunterkirby <bowhunterkirby@hughes.net>
Sent: Monday, November 4, 2024 8:25 AM
To: Joseph Mueller (PND) <Joseph.Mueller@Maricopa.Gov>
Subject: I'm against this project because of water and congestion, all lots should be a minimum of 5acres, thank you for
your consideration
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Lori Bolton <loribolton86@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, November 5, 2024 2:03 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Cc:
barry.wilkens@asu.edu
Subject:
Strong Objection to Proposed Goldhawk Subdivision Development in Goldfield Ranch
Preserve
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Dear Maricopa County Board of Supervisors,
I am writing to express my serious concerns regarding the proposed development of the Goldhawk subdivision on the
1,700-acre parcel within the Goldfield Ranch Preserve. This development plan includes increasing zoning density from
R-190 to one home per acre, as well as introducing high-density apartments, condominiums, and a golf course. My
objections are based on several critical issues, including the need to adhere to the original R-190 zoning, potential
conflicts of interest, and significant environmental, infrastructural, and economic concerns.
1. Zoning and Expired DMP:
The Development Master Plan (DMP) for this area expired in 2017. As a result, the zoning should have reverted to the
original R-190 designation, which allows for one single-family home per five acres. The proposed development plan,
therefore, does not align with the current zoning requirements. It is crucial that the county uphold the R-190 zoning to
respect the legal framework that governs land use and development in this area. Changing the zoning now to permit
high-density development contradicts the established guidelines and sets a troubling precedent.
2. Conflict of Interest:
I am deeply concerned about the potential conflict of interest involving Wendy Riddell, who serves both as the Chairman
of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and as an attorney for Goldhawk. This dual role raises serious questions
about impartiality and the integrity of the decision-making process. It is essential for the community to have confidence
that development decisions are made in the best interest of all stakeholders, free from any potential conflicts of
interest.
3. Environmental Impact:
The Sonoran Desert is already facing severe water scarcity due to prolonged drought conditions. The proposed
development will exacerbate the strain on local water resources, as the increase in housing density and the addition of
water-intensive amenities like a golf course will significantly raise water demand. This development threatens to
deplete groundwater levels further, affecting not only the local ecosystem but also the availability of water for existing
residents.
Additionally, the high-density housing and golf course will disrupt local flora and fauna, potentially leading to habitat
loss, increased pollution, and the introduction of invasive species. Local wildlife, including wild horses and mustangs
may suffer due to reduced access to vital water sources and fragmented habitats.
2
Currently the electrical transmission lines in place will not support the additional development. This may cause high
lines to be installed through the Indian Reservation or Tonto National Forest. Neither option is desirable or wanted. I
assume the high lines would negatively affect property values. Aesthetically, high lines are unacceptable out here in the
Sonoran Desert.
Current availability of internet providers will be negatively affecting the quality of service for existing
customers. Numerous people in the existing development, myself included, work from home and this could negatively
affect bandwidth and speeds. Increase in internet demand would also cause more towers to be installed.
4. Infrastructure Strain:
The proposed development will place an immense burden on existing infrastructure. The local highway system, which
currently consists of two-lane roads, will require significant upgrades to handle the increased traffic. The potential need
for new acceleration and deceleration lanes, expanded highways, and a rebuilt bridge crossing the Verde River will
impose substantial costs and further strain community resources.
Moreover, the development will generate significant amounts of wastewater, which could contaminate local
groundwater supplies if not properly managed. Given that the development will not be connected to city services, there
is a pressing need to ensure adequate infrastructure for wastewater disposal to protect environmental health.
5. Impact on Community Services:
The local school district is already at capacity and will struggle to accommodate the influx of new students resulting from
this development. Additionally, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Indian Tribe, which currently provides emergency services,
will be unable to meet the increased demand. The development will necessitate the construction of new schools and
emergency services facilities, which should be funded by the developer rather than placing additional financial burdens
on the community.
There will also be a need for increased police protection, as there are not enough Maricopa County Sheriff's Deputies
currently to handle calls.
In conclusion, the proposed Goldhawk subdivision development poses significant risks to the environment, local
infrastructure, and community well-being. The need to adhere to the R-190 zoning, address potential conflicts of
interest, and carefully consider the impacts of this development is paramount. I urge the Maricopa County Board of
Supervisors to reject this proposal and prioritize sustainable development practices that respect both the natural
environment and the needs of the existing community.
Appreciate the Board's consideration of this matter.
Regards,
Lori J. Bolton
12127 N. Burntwater Rd.
Fort McDowell, AZ 85264
Cell: (602) 550-3622
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
PAUL BULIFANT <paulbulifant@comcast.net>
Sent:
Tuesday, November 5, 2024 1:39 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND); Rachel Applegate (PND)
Subject:
Opposition to Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Goldhawk at the Preserve
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Paul Bulifant
12000 North Burntwater Road
Fort McDowell, AZ, 85264
PaulBulifant@comcast.net
(609) 760-7108
11-05-2024
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission
301 W. Jefferson St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Subject: Opposition to Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Goldhawk at the Preserve
Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
I am writing to formally express my opposition to the proposed Major Comprehensive Plan
Amendment for Goldhawk at the Preserve which seeks to amend the future land use designation in
the Goldfield Area Plan from "The Preserve Development Master Plan" to "Single Family Rural (0-1
du/ac)." I strongly believe that this change, along with any subsequent development, would have
detrimental and long-lasting impacts on the community, the environment, and the safety of residents.
I am particularly concerned about the following issues related to this proposal:
1. Water Usage and Wells
The proposed development would significantly increase the demand for water in a region already
grappling with water scarcity issues. The use of new water wells to support this development could
further strain the water supply. I am deeply concerned about the potential negative effects on existing
residential wells, which may be affected by both over-extraction and interference with groundwater
2
flow. This would pose a serious threat to the water availability for current residents who rely on private
wells for their daily water needs.
2. Traffic and Safety Concerns
The proposal would create significant additional traffic on interior roadways and the entrances to the
neighborhood, particularly those from Route 87 (the Beeline Highway). The increase in traffic,
especially along already-congested and narrow roads, would create dangerous conditions for both
residents and visitors. The potential for accidents and safety hazards, particularly in areas where
roads are not designed to accommodate higher volumes of traffic, is alarming. The development
would also likely lead to more traffic cutting through local roads to access Fountain Hills, exacerbating
the situation.
3. Environmental Impact: Land Disturbance, Drainage, and Wildlife
The overall land disturbance caused by this project would have serious consequences for local
drainage patterns and the surrounding ecosystem. The large-scale construction of homes, roads, and
infrastructure could disrupt the natural drainage systems, increasing the risk of flooding and erosion.
Additionally, this disturbance threatens the wildlife habitat in the area. Many species rely on the
existing environment for food and shelter, and the loss of these areas would harm local biodiversity
and disrupt the delicate balance of the ecosystem.
4. Septic Systems and Aquifer Health
A dramatic increase in the number of septic systems in the area would have significant implications
for the environment and public health. Septic systems, if not properly maintained, can leach
contaminants into the soil and groundwater, further compromising the quality of local aquifers. Given
the proximity of this area to sensitive water resources, the widespread use of septic systems could
lead to long-term damage to the aquifer, which many residents depend on for drinking water.
5. Lack of Emergency Services and Fire Protection
The development of this area would introduce more residents to a community that lacks adequate
emergency services, including fire protection. In the event of a fire or other emergency, the lack of a
local fire department would severely hinder response times, putting residents and property at risk.
Additionally, the lack of infrastructure to support emergency services in this area raises serious
concerns about the overall safety of the proposed development.
6. Chemical Runoff and Pollution
The land disturbance and construction activities associated with this development would increase the
amount of chemical runoff into the surrounding environment. This runoff could introduce pollutants
into the local soil, waterways, and groundwater, further degrading the ecosystem. Given the proximity
of sensitive natural areas and aquifers, the risk of long-term environmental harm is high. Chemicals
from construction sites, roadways, and septic systems could all contribute to contamination.
3
7. Increased Traffic on the Reservation
The proposed development would likely lead to an increase in traffic on the nearby reservation, as
some individuals may attempt to bypass congestion on Route 87 by using local roads as a shortcut to
Fountain Hills. This additional traffic could lead to disturbances in the local community and create a
burden on infrastructure not designed to handle such volume.
Conclusion
In light of these concerns, I urge the Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission to reject the
proposed Major Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the subsequent development of Goldhawk at
the Preserve. The potential negative impacts on water resources, traffic safety, wildlife, septic
systems, emergency services, and the environment make this proposal untenable for the existing
community. We must prioritize sustainable, responsible growth that takes into account the long-term
health of our environment, our infrastructure, and our way of life.
I trust the Commission will consider the voices of those who live in this area and take these serious
concerns into account when making a decision. Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Paul Bulifant
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Stephen Bolton <walker17hands@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, November 5, 2024 2:07 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Cc:
barry.wilkens@asu.edu
Subject:
Strong Objection to Proposed Goldhawk Subdivision Development in Goldfield Ranch
Preserve
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Dear Maricopa County Board of Supervisors,
I am writing to express my serious concerns regarding the proposed development of the Goldhawk subdivision on the
1,700-acre parcel within the Goldfield Ranch Preserve. This development plan includes increasing zoning density from
R-190 to one home per acre, as well as introducing high-density apartments, condominiums, and a golf course. My
objections are based on several critical issues, including the need to adhere to the original R-190 zoning, potential
conflicts of interest, and significant environmental, infrastructural, and economic concerns.
1. Zoning and Expired DMP:
The Development Master Plan (DMP) for this area expired in 2017. As a result, the zoning should have reverted to the
original R-190 designation, which allows for one single-family home per five acres. The proposed development plan,
therefore, does not align with the current zoning requirements. It is crucial that the county uphold the R-190 zoning to
respect the legal framework that governs land use and development in this area. Changing the zoning now to permit
high-density development contradicts the established guidelines and sets a troubling precedent.
2. Conflict of Interest:
I am deeply concerned about the potential conflict of interest involving Wendy Riddell, who serves both as the Chairman
of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and as an attorney for Goldhawk. This dual role raises serious questions
about impartiality and the integrity of the decision-making process. It is essential for the community to have confidence
that development decisions are made in the best interest of all stakeholders, free from any potential conflicts of
interest.
3. Environmental Impact:
The Sonoran Desert is already facing severe water scarcity due to prolonged drought conditions. The proposed
development will exacerbate the strain on local water resources, as the increase in housing density and the addition of
water-intensive amenities like a golf course will significantly raise water demand. This development threatens to
deplete groundwater levels further, affecting not only the local ecosystem but also the availability of water for existing
residents.
Additionally, the high-density housing and golf course will disrupt local flora and fauna, potentially leading to habitat
loss, increased pollution, and the introduction of invasive species. Local wildlife, including wild horses and mustangs
may suffer due to reduced access to vital water sources and fragmented habitats.
2
Currently the electrical transmission lines in place will not support the additional development. This may cause high
lines to be installed through the Indian Reservation or Tonto National Forest. Neither option is desirable or wanted. I
assume the high lines would negatively affect property values. Aesthetically, high lines are unacceptable out here in the
Sonoran Desert.
Current availability of internet providers will be negatively affecting the quality of service for existing
customers. Numerous people in the existing development, work from home and this could negatively affect bandwidth
and speeds. Increase in internet demand would also cause more towers to be installed.
4. Infrastructure Strain:
The proposed development will place an immense burden on existing infrastructure. The local highway system, which
currently consists of two-lane roads, will require significant upgrades to handle the increased traffic. The potential need
for new acceleration and deceleration lanes, expanded highways, and a rebuilt bridge crossing the Verde River will
impose substantial costs and further strain community resources.
Moreover, the development will generate significant amounts of wastewater, which could contaminate local
groundwater supplies if not properly managed. Given that the development will not be connected to city services, there
is a pressing need to ensure adequate infrastructure for wastewater disposal to protect environmental health.
5. Impact on Community Services:
The local school district is already at capacity and will struggle to accommodate the influx of new students resulting from
this development. Additionally, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Indian Tribe, which currently provides emergency services,
will be unable to meet the increased demand. The development will necessitate the construction of new schools and
emergency services facilities, which should be funded by the developer rather than placing additional financial burdens
on the community.
There will also be a need for increased police protection, as there are not enough Maricopa County Sheriff's Deputies
currently to handle calls.
In conclusion, the proposed Goldhawk subdivision development poses significant risks to the environment, local
infrastructure, and community well-being. The need to adhere to the R-190 zoning, address potential conflicts of
interest, and carefully consider the impacts of this development is paramount. I urge the Maricopa County Board of
Supervisors to reject this proposal and prioritize sustainable development practices that respect both the natural
environment and the needs of the existing community.
Appreciate the Board's consideration of this matter.
Regards,
Stephen J. Bolton
12127 N. Burntwater Rd.
Fort McDowell, AZ 85264
Cell: (602) 550-3622
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Steven Feyrer-Melk <drsteve17@gmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, November 4, 2024 8:38 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Dear Mr. Mueller:
As Maricopa County residents we are appreciative of the hard work that is involved in proper Zoning of subdivisions. At
the inception of a new development, foresight and strong leadership is required of the Planning and ZoningCommission and
our County Supervisors, an impact that will guide communities for many, many years.
Raising our four daughters in the Goldfield Ranch Subdivision (11814 N Vista Del Oro) over the past 20 years has been
amazing due to the underlying Zoning set forth years ago. The result of this planning was exactly why we moved to this
subdivision. Maintaining this safe and wonderful community is dependent upon adherence to current guidelines and not
expanding to allow rezoning.
The proposed rezoning, if approved, is not appropriate for this subdivision. Actually, it would be the antithesis of who we
are.
Allowing Rural 0-1 du/ac” (dwelling unit per acre) to cover a range of rural zoning classifications ( RU43 (1 acre), RU78
(1.6 acres) and RU 190 (4.4 acres) would disrupt this quiet rural residential community in many ways including,
1. significant increase in traffic on hwy 87,
2. significant increase in traffic throughout the quiet neighborhood that has equine and families walking the roads,
3. significant increased accidents on 87 which is already dangerous as cars travel at 75 mph.
4. significant increased damage to the beautiful desert landscape,
5. significant increased water usage with limited resources,
6. significant increased pollution to the groundwater with hundreds of septic systems added,
7. and more.
We write to you today to express my OPPOSITION to this rezoning and ask that you DENY it.
It is inappropriate to grant this rezoning as it is a detriment of the residents.
We ask that you stand strong and remain steadfast in DENYING the rezoning, therefore protecting the interest of
the Goldfield Ranch Subdivision neighborhood and the interests of our family and other stakeholders who call this home.
We need your support.
Sincerely,
Drs. Steve & Anne-Marie Feyrer-Melk
11814 N Vista Del Oro, Fort McDowell, AZ 85264
drsteve17@gmail.com
2
602.819.5578
November 5, 2024
Attention:
Joseph Mueller
(Planning)
Joseph.Mueller@maricopa.gov
Nicholas Schlimm (Zoning)
Nicholas.Schlimm@maricopa.gov
Rachel Applegate (Planning)
Rachel.Applegate@maricopa.gov
Re:
Planning and Zoning Commission hearing date November 7, 2024
Agenda Item # 11, Case # CPA2024004, District 2
Theresa and Robert Franklin, tfranklindesigns@gmail.com 602-573-2063
Residents within 300 Feet of Proposed Development
Opposed
Not Able to Attend to Speak
Attaching this Opposition Letter for the Commission
As residents of Goldfield Ranch for more than 21 years, we once again are facing
developers who want to disrupt this rural community with higher density
development. We live at 11940 N Vista Del Oro and are less than 300 feet from where
the rezoning is proposed.
We understand the landowner has a right to develop in accordance with the original R-
190 zoning. Leave the zoning at R-190. Any overlay achieved by the last developer,
Ellman, under the ‘Preserve’, had a sunset clause that expired in 2018. It has been
reported recently by a county attorney that this is not enforceable. This should be
questioned and may require legal intervention.
Water is limited, our well is at 365 feet. Dramatically increasing density will put all wells
at risk. The commercial wells drilled into the lower aquifer will drain the upper aquifer
that the current residents use for their water source. This is a grave concern!
The developer must put up a bond to ensure that the residents’ wells won’t run
dry.
The power grid is already strained. The FMYN and Tonto Forest are not interested in
providing more power across their lands. Dramatically increasing density will put reliable
power at risk.
All homes are on septic systems. Dramatically increasing density and septic systems
will put safe water at risk for those residents like us that are next to this planned
development.
The roads are only chip sealed. Dramatically increasing density will put our primitive
roads at risk. This burden or additional expense for maintenance will be placed on the
backs of the existing landowners. We cannot afford to improve our roads to county
standards.
Fire is an ever-present danger. Dramatically increasing density will increase fire risk.
Our fire district sets policy only and contracts with the nearest Fire Department, FMYN
Fire Department, and depending on one’s location, is 5 to 8 miles away on winding
roads without any fire hydrants. Higher density will place an undue burden on
already strained wildland and structure fire protection systems.
The community is quiet. Dramatically increasing density will increase noise pollution.
The community is dark, the stars are spectacular at night. Dramatically increasing
density will increase light pollution.
The entire reason we moved to Goldfield Ranch was the open spaces and rural
lifestyle. Our way of life is now being threatened by another developer. From Ellman to
Grayhawk, ‘Goldhawk’, no difference, same manipulators seeking to modify the rules to
defecate in somebody's else's neighborhood to maximize their profit.
Please do not rezone and let the culture, nature, and rural lifestyle remain. Let them
homes on 4.3 acres like everyone else.
Increasing the density above Rural-190 is unsustainable.
Please say NO to Goldhawk at the Preserve!
Respectfully,
Robert (Robin) and Theresa Franklin
11940 N. Vista del Oro
Fort McDowell, AZ 85265
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Elizabeth Anne Dutton <annedutton@mac.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, November 5, 2024 10:24 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Subject:
Objection to Rezoning in Goldfield Ranch
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Elizabeth Anne Dutton
14507 N Vista Del Oro
Fort McDowell, Arizona 85264
annedutton@mac.com
11/5/2024
Joseph.Mueller
Planning and Zoning Commision
joseph.mueller@maricopa.gov
Phoenix, Arizona
Dear Joseph Mueller
Subject: Environmental, Infrastructural, and Economic Concerns Regarding Proposed Development in
Goldfield Ranch known as (The Preserve).
I am writing to express my strong concerns about the proposed development of a 1,700-acre parcel in
the Goldfield Ranch area known as "The Preserve." The plan to modify the original zoning from one
single-family home per five acres to one home per acre, along with the addition of high-density
apartments, condominiums, and a golf course, raises significant environmental, infrastructural, and
economic issues. The development poses a severe threat to the local ecosystem, water resources,
community infrastructure, and economic stability of the region. This letter outlines the negative impacts
this development could have on the surrounding desert ecosystem, particularly in light of the ongoing
drought and the fragile water resources in the region.
1. Water Resources and Ongoing Drought.
The Sonoran Desert has been experiencing a severe drought since the mid-1990s, marking a 35-year
period of water scarcity, which is the worst in over 110 years of recorded history. This prolonged
drought has already significantly affected Arizona’s water supplies, leading to reduced availability for
2
agricultural, residential, and environmental needs. The proposed increase in housing density, coupled
with water-intensive amenities such as a golf course, will only exacerbate the strain on an already
overburdened/depleted water table.
Groundwater levels in the region are critically low due to prolonged periods of reduced precipitation.
The increased demand for water that will result from this development threatens to further deplete the
aquifers, which are the primary sources of water for local communities and ecosystems. As a result, this
could lead to the drying up of wells, reduced water availability for existing residents, and the
deterioration of local water quality due to increased groundwater pumping. Moreover, any reduction in
groundwater levels could have long-lasting effects on the desert's natural vegetation, which is already
under stress from drought conditions, thereby altering the landscape and ecological balance.
Currently, single-family home wells in the area are reaching depths of around 800 feet. If this
development proceeds, it could lead to further depletion of the aquifers, potentially requiring existing
homeowners to drill new wells beyond 1,000 feet. The cost of such deep drilling is prohibitive, which
could render surrounding properties virtually worthless due to the financial burden of accessing water.
Given the decades that have passed since the original zoning approval—long before the current drought
conditions—it is crucial to conduct new, independent water surveys to assess the current situation and
potential impact of increased water usage.
2. Impact on Local Flora and Fauna.
The Sonoran Desert is home to a unique array of plant and animal species, many of which are adapted
to the region's arid conditions and rely on specific ecological conditions to thrive. The proposed
development threatens to disrupt these conditions by increasing human presence and altering land use
in ways that could lead to habitat loss, increased pollution, and the introduction of invasive species.
Particularly at risk are the local wildlife populations, including the wild horse and mustang herds that are
already struggling to find sufficient water and forage in this prolonged drought. The development could
restrict their natural roaming areas and reduce access to vital water sources. Furthermore, the high-
density housing and golf course will fragment habitats, making it more challenging for wildlife to migrate
and find food and water, thus leading to a decline in biodiversity.
3. Wastewater Disposal and Infrastructure Strain.
The proposed development will not be connected to city services, raising serious concerns about the
disposal of wastewater. The addition of over a 1000 new homes, apartments, commercial businesses,
and a golf course will generate substantial amounts of wastewater that, without proper infrastructure,
could contaminate local groundwater supplies. This poses a severe risk to the environmental health of
the region and the well-being of its residents.
Additionally, the increased population density will place a considerable strain on the local highway
infrastructure. The existing two-lane highway in each direction is inadequate for the anticipated traffic
influx. Approving this proposal would necessitate constructing acceleration and deceleration lanes and
likely expanding the highway to three to four lanes in each direction along with the necessary stop lights
at all entrances. Furthermore, the bridge crossing the Verde River may need to be rebuilt to handle
increased traffic as it is only two lanes in both directions, exacerbating the negative impact on the
surrounding area.
4. Impact on School Systems, Emergency Services, and Tax Increases.
The current school district is already at capacity and cannot accommodate the potential influx of
students resulting from this development. This could necessitate the construction of new schools, a
3
burden that should fall on the developer, given the strain the development will place on existing
educational infrastructure.
There is also a significant concern regarding the lack of adequate fire and emergency services
infrastructure to support such a development. Currently, emergency services are provided by the Fort
McDowell Yavapai Indian Tribe, which does not have the capacity to meet the increased demand from
this development. Building new fire stations and emergency services facilities will be necessary to
ensure community safety.
Furthermore, the development's additional infrastructure needs, such as expanded roads, bridges, and
public services, could lead to an increase in local taxes. This potential tax increase would place an undue
financial burden on all residents, especially those who are retired and living on fixed incomes. Higher
property taxes to fund the necessary infrastructure improvements and expanded public services would
be particularly challenging for these residents, potentially forcing them out of their homes due to rising
costs.
5. Environmental and Legal Considerations.
The Sonoran Desert is home to a unique array of plant and animal species, many of which are adapted
to the region's arid conditions and rely on specific ecological conditions to thrive. The proposed
development threatens to disrupt these conditions by increasing human presence and altering land use
in ways that could lead to habitat loss, increased pollution, and the introduction of invasive species.
Particularly at risk are the local wildlife populations, including the wild horse and mustang herds that are
already struggling to find sufficient water and forage in this prolonged drought. The development could
restrict their natural roaming areas and reduce access to vital water sources. Furthermore, the high-
density housing and golf course will fragment habitats, making it more challenging for wildlife to migrate
and find food and water, thus leading to a decline in biodiversity.
Legally, the proposed changes to zoning and development plans, approved decades ago, necessitate
thorough reconsideration considering current environmental conditions and regulations. Given the
significant changes in water availability and ecological conditions since the original proposal, new
environmental impact studies should be conducted to ensure compliance with state and federal
environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species
Act (ESA). We must keep in mind the delicate nature of this area that encompasses the Salt River, Verde
River, and Sycamore Creek water basin, and take measures to protect this unique area of the state of
Arizona, it is truly one of Arizona’s treasures.
Conclusion
Considering the severe and potentially irreversible impacts on water resources, local infrastructure, the
environment, and the financial well-being of residents, I strongly urge the relevant authorities to
reconsider the proposed development in the part of Goldfield Ranch known as the “Preserve”. It is
crucial to prioritize sustainable development practices that respect the unique and fragile environment
of the Sonoran Desert and consider the economic and social impact on the community, especially those
most vulnerable.
Thank you for your attention to these concerns. I trust that thorough consideration will be given to
protecting our natural environment, community infrastructure, and economic stability.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Anne Dutton
4
---
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Jim Haber <jhaber@rosendin.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, November 6, 2024 8:35 AM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND); Rachel Applegate (PND)
Cc:
Cindy Haber
Subject:
Opposition to Goldhawk at the Preserve: CPA2024004
Attachments:
Agenda - 9398 Opposition Letter_ Grayhawk CPA2024004.pdf
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county.
Mr. Mueller, Ms. Applegate,
Please accept my opposiƟon leƩer, in opposiƟon of the Grayhawk Commercial and residenƟal development, slated for
Fort McDowell Az. I am a local resident and feel strongly that the environmental impacts, along with the degradaƟon of
the current remote community lusƟer, will be significantly and irreparably be lost. This development plan has been
submiƩed unsuccessfully, in recent years and never has been able to prove value. Please advise if I may be able to
provide more feedback.
Best Regards.
James Haber
Fort McDowell, Arizona
M 949.939.1616
jhaber@rosendin.com
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Virgil Dutton <virgildutton@gmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, November 5, 2024 6:02 PM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Subject:
Objection to Rezoning in Goldfield Ranch
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Virgil Dutton
14507 N Vista Del Oro
Fort McDowell, Arizona 85264
virgildutton@gmail.com
11/5/2024
Joseph.Mueller
Planning and Zoning Commision
joseph.mueller@maricopa.gov
Phoenix, Arizona
Dear Joseph Mueller
Subject: Environmental, Infrastructural, and Economic Concerns Regarding Proposed Development in Goldfield Ranch
known as (The Preserve).
I am writing to express my strong concerns about the proposed development of a 1,700-acre parcel in the Goldfield
Ranch area known as "The Preserve." The plan to modify the original zoning from one single-family home per five acres
to one home per acre, along with the addition of high-density apartments, condominiums, and a golf course, raises
significant environmental, infrastructural, and economic issues. The development poses a severe threat to the local
ecosystem, water resources, community infrastructure, and economic stability of the region. This letter outlines the
negative impacts this development could have on the surrounding desert ecosystem, particularly in light of the ongoing
drought and the fragile water resources in the region.
1. Water Resources and Ongoing Drought.
The Sonoran Desert has been experiencing a severe drought since the mid-1990s, marking a 35-year period of water
scarcity, which is the worst in over 110 years of recorded history. This prolonged drought has already significantly
affected Arizona’s water supplies, leading to reduced availability for agricultural, residential, and environmental needs.
The proposed increase in housing density, coupled with water-intensive amenities such as a golf course, will only
exacerbate the strain on an already overburdened/depleted water table.
Groundwater levels in the region are critically low due to prolonged periods of reduced precipitation. The increased
demand for water that will result from this development threatens to further deplete the aquifers, which are the
primary sources of water for local communities and ecosystems. As a result, this could lead to the drying up of wells,
2
reduced water availability for existing residents, and the deterioration of local water quality due to increased
groundwater pumping. Moreover, any reduction in groundwater levels could have long-lasting effects on the desert's
natural vegetation, which is already under stress from drought conditions, thereby altering the landscape and ecological
balance.
Currently, single-family home wells in the area are reaching depths of around 800 feet. If this development proceeds, it
could lead to further depletion of the aquifers, potentially requiring existing homeowners to drill new wells beyond
1,000 feet. The cost of such deep drilling is prohibitive, which could render surrounding properties virtually worthless
due to the financial burden of accessing water. Given the decades that have passed since the original zoning approval—
long before the current drought conditions—it is crucial to conduct new, independent water surveys to assess the
current situation and potential impact of increased water usage.
2. Impact on Local Flora and Fauna.
The Sonoran Desert is home to a unique array of plant and animal species, many of which are adapted to the region's
arid conditions and rely on specific ecological conditions to thrive. The proposed development threatens to disrupt these
conditions by increasing human presence and altering land use in ways that could lead to habitat loss, increased
pollution, and the introduction of invasive species.
Particularly at risk are the local wildlife populations, including the wild horse and mustang herds that are already
struggling to find sufficient water and forage in this prolonged drought. The development could restrict their natural
roaming areas and reduce access to vital water sources. Furthermore, the high-density housing and golf course will
fragment habitats, making it more challenging for wildlife to migrate and find food and water, thus leading to a decline
in biodiversity.
3. Wastewater Disposal and Infrastructure Strain.
The proposed development will not be connected to city services, raising serious concerns about the disposal of
wastewater. The addition of over a 1000 new homes, apartments, commercial businesses, and a golf course will
generate substantial amounts of wastewater that, without proper infrastructure, could contaminate local groundwater
supplies. This poses a severe risk to the environmental health of the region and the well-being of its residents.
Additionally, the increased population density will place a considerable strain on the local highway infrastructure. The
existing two-lane highway in each direction is inadequate for the anticipated traffic influx. Approving this proposal would
necessitate constructing acceleration and deceleration lanes and likely expanding the highway to three to four lanes in
each direction along with the necessary stop lights at all entrances. Furthermore, the bridge crossing the Verde River
may need to be rebuilt to handle increased traffic as it is only two lanes in both directions, exacerbating the negative
impact on the surrounding area.
4. Impact on School Systems, Emergency Services, and Tax Increases.
The current school district is already at capacity and cannot accommodate the potential influx of students resulting from
this development. This could necessitate the construction of new schools, a burden that should fall on the developer,
given the strain the development will place on existing educational infrastructure.
There is also a significant concern regarding the lack of adequate fire and emergency services infrastructure to support
such a development. Currently, emergency services are provided by the Fort McDowell Yavapai Indian Tribe, which does
not have the capacity to meet the increased demand from this development. Building new fire stations and emergency
services facilities will be necessary to ensure community safety.
Furthermore, the development's additional infrastructure needs, such as expanded roads, bridges, and public services,
could lead to an increase in local taxes. This potential tax increase would place an undue financial burden on all
3
residents, especially those who are retired and living on fixed incomes. Higher property taxes to fund the necessary
infrastructure improvements and expanded public services would be particularly challenging for these residents,
potentially forcing them out of their homes due to rising costs.
5. Environmental and Legal Considerations.
The Sonoran Desert is home to a unique array of plant and animal species, many of which are adapted to the region's
arid conditions and rely on specific ecological conditions to thrive. The proposed development threatens to disrupt these
conditions by increasing human presence and altering land use in ways that could lead to habitat loss, increased
pollution, and the introduction of invasive species.
Particularly at risk are the local wildlife populations, including the wild horse and mustang herds that are already
struggling to find sufficient water and forage in this prolonged drought. The development could restrict their natural
roaming areas and reduce access to vital water sources. Furthermore, the high-density housing and golf course will
fragment habitats, making it more challenging for wildlife to migrate and find food and water, thus leading to a decline
in biodiversity.
Legally, the proposed changes to zoning and development plans, approved decades ago, necessitate thorough
reconsideration considering current environmental conditions and regulations. Given the significant changes in water
availability and ecological conditions since the original proposal, new environmental impact studies should be conducted
to ensure compliance with state and federal environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We must keep in mind the delicate nature of this area that encompasses the Salt
River, Verde River, and Sycamore Creek water basin, and take measures to protect this unique area of the state of
Arizona, it is truly one of Arizona’s treasures.
Conclusion
Considering the severe and potentially irreversible impacts on water resources, local infrastructure, the environment,
and the financial well-being of residents, I strongly urge the relevant authorities to reconsider the proposed
development in the part of Goldfield Ranch known as the “Preserve”. It is crucial to prioritize sustainable development
practices that respect the unique and fragile environment of the Sonoran Desert and consider the economic and social
impact on the community, especially those most vulnerable.
Thank you for your attention to these concerns. I trust that thorough consideration will be given to protecting our
natural environment, community infrastructure, and economic stability.
Sincerely,
Virgil Dutton
---
1
Joseph Mueller (PND)
From:
Terry Wilkens <terryjwilkens@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, November 6, 2024 11:19 AM
To:
Joseph Mueller (PND)
Subject:
Opposition to the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment called "Goldhawk at the
Preserve" Application # CPA 2024004
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Please use caution when you receive messages from new senders.
Always validate the sender first.
Dear Joseph,
I want to register my opposition to the Goldhawk at the Preserve application #CPA 2024004.
The project will irreparably change the character of our rural community. It is not "lost on me" that
calling the area "The Preserve" for the last few decades was a way to keep people from investigating or
recognizing it as a future development of low-density housing! It is also not "lost on me" that there
appears to be a conflict of interest for Wendy Ridell now representing the developer and having been a
former chairperson of the county board of adjustment. Was that at the same time when the previous
variance lapsed, and the county seemed to "let it slide"?
Our water resources appear to be limited, and drilling wells a thousand+ feet below our existing wells
will undermine the existing Goldfield Ranch residents. I'm not sure how different levels of aquifers work
but, I know that water is subject to gravity. A good example is what happened in Wenden, AZ.
It is my understanding that the roads that exist into our community will be used for the Goldhawk
community as well. How is that possible? I can't imagine that it is. What credible studies have been
done to show that traffic flows resulting from the proposed Goldhawk development into the community
are feasible based upon an estimated number of vehicles per new residents to our community? It does
not make any sense to me. We would have lines of traffic backed up on the 87 Beeline for miles.
Fire hazard is a big problem in our neighborhood. What are the proposed plans for fire protection?
Can any aspect of this development cause increased assessments or taxes for existing GR residents?
The application covers 1737 acres of the 2434 acres owned by the applicant. What are the plans for the
balance of the acreage? Future development?
Kindest Regards, Terry Wilkens
terryjwilkens@gmail.com 602-615-4349 (mobile)
,F----.,
The undersiSn(lgsyterpD Gotdfietd Ranch oppose the proposed Gol,dhawk
deveLopment for primaril.y the fol.Lowing 3 reasons:
1. This project wil,t irreparabty atter the character of this community.
2. The inf rastructure and services necessary to support the proposed Gol,dhawk
devetopment do not exist; and
3. The existing road system in Gol.dfiel,d Ranch upon which the proposed Gotdhawk
development reties cannot support the massivety increased usage and construction
traffic which woutd be generated by GoLdhawk.
js
7u Q4BvrN
Zz
-1 5 7 Z. FLE4giatrT fieuJ1
frgr //l aPorttPtr-, A z ? sa 6+
/2"J* ?ol', &o*''
2 Z" 5 ? €?/ < "-sn bt/ 1'/t e ''s
-k
no+ Ifi(?ou.t! Az- 8s2Q+
)"*J a,Q"^,-#
r5A u ,a k hcoots r.t
l-&ctt { e- PterAs.* N'T_ t// E-^)
fupr WDo-ryt, k* Xr>t tP
[';u{'brff Ef|c'h tft,sl'fq
Zzt frrf 'h P/eerch r l/,r",,t
H.tVc2owe// ,44-$rffi
//"u/6e
H ctrhrt' 16o leo,
?
a
'4,,1,, llil,,
3ha'
nll
ft { \l0r
LLnatr e-V\u\il Dr-
{al ff1.D0 ,'tul fti- S s z'"1
\
g,;Alhr
T K r u,r/ '{, [4e t
7zVar}, c, K,(trL Dr-
tr"rl lt/. Duur.// ,t, 7fz/-q
E*-.*&)--
A4* 4'*,ttg r\ftt rzd
Zkao:' f r#trc 5<
trc4f h<\c,wLz. ,r}2 S{ZC/
e.r/r,-'* tu-u
/ayhato I Dr-*ke
2)_efog t. Kc-/, / Dr
ir. AAc- r m u:r. /(
172 g (tc-y'
1
I
fr^"rDa.s
'fonnes' lern;5'
ZzloL f- Ka(,{ Dr.
Ft Mt.Dor,tetl , /z tS-2t"7
f4rcilror-r- i " |t111tt+
:LLqO:t F- Kht-r; D\
Ft. \t'^ "Du.rt . 4e (q zQLi
[),,nno (o,,n*, saffi tF lacn- 0&'
Ff 'rvLA*I *z gS>GL1
K; D,//,*
(r;s li,llians
aa806 E KnL'/ Ar
FI rneAor^rp/l Az ?+at
.99,b' /
4\toQDrn---
Lee:a Ntt\Sc^
lZ?d-, 8,, Orter brale
Fov\ finctYr,.lttt Nz BSztPc+
7J,-WJ,;d
l-.rn,i &,?ilArcas
ll&Oa 4*/ Surnlref*f qt* g1O
"
4rl WaDowr.itt t\t- Ksaa1
,4/
l.J/,"
vl^-^^,- t {-(-.,1 v,---\ 4 ,, n a lv(c s,n*v'
? / ti 4 / E No i, '#-2 v,,, e gd,Tr *5
77, l"( c. )l p ,, o/ ,{ }p E-ri(
ffi","{,p** fot*f 14essw'r
- ,/f *'
effi,q& '(;n h,o**
Z&ra {//nnnbnVAr'
fv ,/llDr'u'.- Az 46=Lr
hiAn"
/-; nJ Aoo.Q
i Z+(t P Si.l lr4qa5 fr f
4t ftr.{oey r( ftzgsl
%f,*,
J
N/r* e'Pt*
f zol, t 4/. 6tt*ur"'*-/ nir
FL,P-fu.*t't R .
V
nA0%
G,+- \1qLIc
zs*zz-,7 g c*kgp* O,:
f"-+ H-A*t(t+Z tru(f
Wdvr.Kwll
Atrson KatrI
A7ba1 e - ;uvlspLrr Dr '
hq tr4c )uuu{ U , kL t 5z{/..l
,ffi,M
t33^N,Vd+a Wl a(o
Fo'1 tT\cPi,nil AHt'l
Deboyatt t
- til r-,,; ti - njr),'l tJte l(
77t/z'f'r
flqUl flnt1P tot
lclA,t M, V:,rt1 g i.t oQ:t
;i- o1c lir qt ct t t ts'dt ,i
Y
@
De4nN St"cYj,tlL
133A3 $. G,lAt\iel
Y,*{Yle.Dro,/_il AZ.
NfrpeApd&,1
t;t /07 ,L,ryzt#ue-
Et D-:_ n")a A.l o P//
JU "\ rrJ h ouu ?"toX 8,.4o'*wf ,P4
\\ ;,1 -;
Wlzb }t: Fg^AouflVrl.{\
fr\foljl,hllo,,e[\ .Ae Ra
E',> 6 (*;l'**V'
rvt4) t AJ" V"i,j l''t.rtr ftq
pu., Y ht fi,,u. ".il . Az KSz g
'icA,ael Poor',
ttl7l/ /11 {l (arr,rt2 Don
For t F). Dn,,-te/l /t Z *il{tt
turoltryfra&w>
trr I t'c -p af
"{, fl?a'l\p*.-//, frz &
D, L,D u'[7ur^
J.
/a1
E,l (arrtiW'
laA+tu
t4Zo7 N.€1
Le,r7rn
MrcrrntrL 6ln.J
&r'io8 F -r4iftty csl4..ft\ i-a
f
M*bo'\r'rdr ( AZ tif
5n' 6n*o'
A,l 7o& 2-Vt;rst'7.€e#
,e/ / ,42 '9gete
/
f,*--
-/
c1 b
tf
-F
/rt,
Tlrr: utldersigned residerrts of Goldfietd Ranch opposCI the proposerJ Gotdhavrk
dev*loprrr*rrt tor pr irrrnrily tlre lotlowing 3 reasons;
1. This prolcct witt irre parabty atter the character of this community.
?. The infrastructure and servlces necessary to support the proposed Gotdhaurk
development do not exi$t; and
3. Tlre existing road system in Gotdfietd Ranch upon which the proposed Goldhawk
devetopment reties cannot support the massivety increased usage and construction
traffic which woutd be generated by Gotdhawk.
* Uuetf &*f'' v*e
T 4a &qry:tL_{3**
'4(r?frfa€-L c
:
AruQ
/ V.b $* N ,^Ut,s'{e,-'
tf -
'#
II
I
j
l
I
Z"z f* 7 t* {:s t, r* f /t: n
tst < n,r- f'.},'rll"(', r {cf rt"tr
hrh,f I fu,rn fir,l
tqwT el &nil#, *lJ W,i
:t1+\ €',
.u**\/,*
(r-)
i
I
ft1{-r1 ttotbD
2Vz'74 c P {e*t"v'
h-\ all+ Ko ( lr-*:
"?'L*7 Z'i .t . Q r cx'+-v'
D,vrr rt:('!'L,.rx,J) l/?f / f ruafr{tu,t,uf ,/il s S
,l
Q t -is i t, tll,tri u,az"/ D'e'.
,{
lll
I
i L- frr\'r( };iq (-. € ?( ,'r gi.^
)">r.q{ ,fl )\r*so.t
t
'.{/tv \
7N{
il/
{"J
.,\i
\
U r{--:
l2/4lp /r J< ,'ki"-a.
'ffiry**r w
-Btc*r {3**,
fi4&'P"&-'& er4*rc
.'4
o -)
t"varCrfnfn z,
{}f te ni"s icn t'o/*k Trt'
fJ'tai-f,
b ftwt*ers ,o
S i 8,t{
^l
,/3,;?tn'p^tgV{.e ,{b
J "rt),\frT
*f;eAD*
tt {f tg t}.,1j rt:ttl'u_iA iL,4 eb
tkaT 44 ,rtrJ , ;v tu
tgbt4g N,54uDY 8tur8
{- l.)*t,, t'-f /-./, # 7-
i r1.'? d Y r*t . caoi*4l r"iA,.'P.d-
gj4 i ,"r,. TF+re;-Iy p
iu / tfi ,u _u,uhi+e- 6ce rtry^
;1r6:i ",i [-,r:6.17 fi{/-D &i}
fr.>;t T ,tl'!c":,.7) -,u"tr;t t-- i 2- ,),:;:lL
',)J, tc 5
l Li r r C tV q"o'ioi:l t f-e r {' f;'.n
Tre*v d*W*),!
lT7zt, tu' kt',u- LE,*crTE
e,l,f *#n!ff\;,
i$tx:'4 Kf " \($reV6',G,
31
*t
trs; {;
,t
@**{
The undersigned residents of Goldfietd Ranch oppose the proposed Gotdhawk
devetopment for primarity the fottowing 3 reasons:
1. This project witl irreparabty alter the character of this community.
2. The infrastructure and services necessary to support the proposed Gotdhawk
devetopment do not exist; and
3. The existing road system in Gol,dfietd Ranch upon which the proposed Gol.dhawk
devetopment reties cannot support the massivety increased usage and construction
traffic which woutd be generated by Gotdhawk.
fu*r',lro / r'/,j*'u "'7
> ;*
E t ea 5""4r, y'J o,,nt e D pzta:tt
t fset N tJtslp ki &"*
1!t wt LDoatq il A 6. kg.<ao4
{/
//,,/?^,/Lh .l/aa tt Fol f)ut/aN
/4tD7 il. y'tJrtq uz Dpa
Es *l!T)x,ts ,a,,t 4E 4<22- 2
/
(,
-
4
iL* {l " k*}-
),. ,. .- \. v,--, r/) D-^ (' ctL-
t:f
ht fit u- a I l, ,/1
t* kr-Kh^
r4 dr?
{/i'7a- i}e/
attle"
l,= f
t^ t /) r,* o /1 ,r/--
tl-fr Atd,*^-
LI
ili ;
llt e.\l"-. [
"[o,.'.. rr^
1il,;ry .il, Q tl.lr.q\, f/"f .
[,, ^6 Y\ctb, ,*:\il .4 z {.r )6+
h#^ru,il^?,**-
i-!'
I
1k',(Lr /:l'( r /a, dr.r
/ v,t{ 1 beik {o& ( a^./u,r"
lY^,r$ d,lr le**i/
tVt ,? t') t" q
i./, n --lAr-r
/?,rn^nl YM ,"{rn i'h''t
tYqt"1 \s'hr"l( trrq,(e 6flnlylrv,
tr*tr tMchrrr,,:Lt kz W'z,t"u
k r^" /l,L bar'asy
t3110 N.&-qb"sh L*
tr*rt lYtoDro:e /l , ftz- gsebr
{n^t-{PM& {r(t*,tw,4ty .S{a:&
i 33^t ri aa./c{ei@ w
6it- Pt(Ctar,// gsJ [, /
SilF|*tM- H. nu-*-&Jlon \l-t z z N,:3lt,rr+[,.-,r-,.,rk-*
%,t;
z-
( >rlua J-r{d
i-*\-;z"u tli\l-- J. / uro-.
ft-u',ffi,r:
6 tt ^t n 5lV{'# f;'i 1,t-',t*' /4.\nf r'l ,tttE|r., d,:t" Pfifl
-t
,fuarp}. ou,fl,p-,
pi,4trti/!L lry/t_ut Tttt; !,
tt# 1{ ll V # ffi ttrr f( e
ffi
: I t8/7 ^i
d,51^WL s a
M'rt)
ftno**h{ ^r^(Gw,
tl8 t'{ /U /Ao}u las
6*/il#r,
t yre
{usnw 4tntuL
h 44o u. L/ \c;\lv Fr4
r*
t,
I
'M
M
Trwal L,&fihg
lsKcy rd l,:frh&e-&,Ww
$,r,r*Mt-^^fu'* ,Shw.ll G[o, ssllu rt^
I I z r 4 /V t/, sh' /k.( Cv^,-
Ft:r l* I/''1 L Dr^ e_/{ Pf Z*
W4#}A
ifr,tnr**r, I l"a
/ dtl| ir,J , V'tlr, Jul *,
t F+ dlr.M.,,{i til?-
r4l,^ {
K,.J,. t(.o^ /",1A
lrrl-r
{--rt
t
l'
(irLttl f ..{,{,,^ lr',t|,'-.^, }\,.
ffi
/il/r*}-,)tr AA; ,1,13'&**ffi',ffi#*
Wtr'i,#;;
T N\J/
tht{r;A" f.4{Nrzt
U 4t'[ #, #*2fi,ft.b'(iz,ui
F",m*)nr l),*,,rril az Pl-+tr{
&A l*t"4 -lx/^r*, 9fu"t^n I
JCto.n^ce-e lr-l MJ-'F$f,fu-rt
i,-1o t NJ i/lst.r- f{,ul
eflr-
W"
(i
@
f
The undersigned residents of Gotdfiel,d Ranch oppose the proposed Gotdhawk
devetopment for primarity the fol.towing 3 reasons:
1. This project wit[ irreparabty atter the character of this community.
2. The inf rastructure and services necessary to support the proposed Gol,dhawk
devetopment do not exist; and
3. The existing road system in Gol,dfietd Ranch upon which the proposed Gotdhawk
devetopment reties cannot support the massivety increased usage and construction
traffic which woutd be generated by Gotdhawk.
t\
+tb
>/&4tl l"j,t New i/6ry" N e*"#u"ftzK
E8 8^.l,.
tlL/f /t) ?rw fayoi-r
n, / 17, f; {^,,1 l)ep/ // Eur,r/w"/*," 1/t)
J*^ C /,* |'
lZ.lbA fl,5,n /ncn= Tr
5r^ r\^< /\ cr
3 vzr.t rtl
t]Z-1r> r*. fu\J(i"t-i' \?
o! Nt*X*og:lq W\7.'r;t* . Lc***e\l+1
fLrtulio ffi,q/,-
iW,fi.SKf'-:!W;
&l*
s
C'*ie 'r\Y\-e-
"FJ " r I
I l ) sr:, t{. 8.,.. ,* *.}0', RA
l)*{" }-tr"it
d] r g, e: l",i -'B* " ..*t,^.-\ * K)
tE\qsilE
C, fl'\ ,o llp*i N, lB,,r^*r**f
funfnl fitrr
tenei-l r'.1, fky"t;l,tn*eg
l"vf av-, !,4 ^ Ch,l)n
'j
...i
t
/rll.
/ J ctt f ti f)tu,v-hv;v{c:
') 'C \ Pl 3 -foN la\a1 N /3t-,Avf,^sar
57*AC,/,,
/r?ea n/ /-"/6./6,
t-)
/-/
-
,
(?--'<- e /" --/r* (t Sar^ Ooodn,.l' /tv;a N. bsfT,,tt<1.'t
l{4.-te..
izzo t Bnft_s\r w
.k^r^nfu flnsJ'/'c
ILLIZ FJ. f)."r.n WF'&,(
I
,..1 r-*2
t,fu*/-, f)e
I
z-r
{c.r: r ( {\ r-'tx ft
J/?/ / { i"t{ftzsi7 {ttrcfil fr
4./4'f,?fl
I
FI:l-
^
{/ltr-n-.t
-- 16,t". t./
/ Yl,/ii i Y'vr
QEg/ sl. 7.z7oa.c;gt&r";H r?/t,t
.e: Af*
.4qa'
yrr:i{ph
U',/&,Y { 77-/t{Sy tF$:z>t fi:n.tL
ir
DATE:
November 7, 2024
TO:
Planning & Zoning Commission
From:
Joseph Mueller, Planner
SUBJECT:
CPA2024004 – Goldhawk at the Preserve
Agenda Item: 11
Since the writing of the first handout memo, staff received one additional letter of opposition.
The letter is attached.
Attachments:
Opposition Letters (1 page)