DMP2021001 Z2021050 BOS REPORT_PART4.PDF

Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation 
Appeal 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 appeal 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 
Anthony Belmonte 
Email Address 
buckskintgb2@gmail.com 
Address 
18241 w El Caminito Dr 
City 
Waddell 
State 
Arizona 
Zip Code 
85355 
Phone Number 
17085672473 
Fax Number 
Field not completed. 
Case Number / Project 
Name 
DMP2021001 & Z2021050 
Planning & Zoning 
Commission Hearing Date 
November 4, 2021 
Reason for the Appeal of 
the Subject Case 
Originally approved for 390 lots. New proposal for 770 lots will 
have 2 story homes blocking out mountain view. 
Electronic Signature 
Agreement 
I agree. 
Electronic Signature 
Anthony Belmonte

Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation 
Appeal 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 appeal 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 
Steve abd Suzan Burger 
Email Address 
sburger2@comcast.net 
Address 
18018 W Royal Palm Rd 
City 
Waddell 
State 
AZ 
Zip Code 
85355 
Phone Number 
6233744597 
Fax Number 
Field not completed. 
Case Number / Project 
Name 
DMP2021001 & Z2021050 / White Tank Foothills Ph. 3 White 
Tank Foothills Request to Rezone Phase 3 
Planning & Zoning 
Commission Hearing Date 
November 4, 2021 
Reason for the Appeal of 
the Subject Case 
We would like to thank you for being our representatives on the 
Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Board. 
We are writing to discuss: 
DMP2021001 & Z2021050 – White Tank Foothills Ph. 3 - White 
Tank Foothills Request to Rezone Phase 3 
We will start by saying that we support the original 2013 zoning 
plan, but not the proposed rezone will almost double the 
approved density from 390 homes to 770 homes. We know that 
“times and housing needs” change, but we feel that nearly 
doubling the original number of homes and shrinking the lot 
size will have an extremely negative effect on our 
neighborhood and the surrounding infrastructure.

Too many households with insufficient amenities and routes of 
egress in and out of the community.  
Safety issues for the children, an uptick in crime, noise, and 
traffic (signalization on Citrus) (on/off ramps 303).  
Additional stress on an already overburdened fire and police 
force and our dwindling water supply,  
The warehouse workers that were mentioned during the 
meeting will be working 24-hour shifts, not just 9-5. This will 
mean 24-hour traffic on the new roads that are next to our 
subdivision.  
We purchased our homes, probably the largest investment 
many of us will make in our lifetimes, in good faith that what 
was previously approved was true. This applies not only to the 
original zoning plan, but what the home builder advised 
potential buyers. We know we cannot stop progress and do not 
want to. We would like to see what we were promised upheld. 
We do not feel the decisions being made are in the best 
interest of the residents but are in the best interest of lining the 
pockets of the developers and homebuilders. 
If the commission members lived in our neighborhood this 
would have a very different outcome. They would not want this 
happening in their backyard. We were very discouraged when 
attending the online meeting on how bored and disinterested 
the commission members were. I have a couple of screenshots 
I took of the new plans during the meeting that also show the 
commissioners during the meeting if you would like to see 
them. 
Commissioner Brophy McGee even stated that she “thought 
this had already been decided”. If that was a true statement, 
why is everyone wasting their time.  
Please share our opposition with your team, including County 
Staff, Planning and Zoning Commissioners, and the Board of 
Supervisors. We appreciate your consideration to deny this 
rezoning measure. 
Sincerely,  
Steve and Suzan Burger

18018 W Royal Palm Rd 
Waddell AZ 85355 
623-374-4595 
Electronic Signature 
Agreement 
I agree. 
Electronic Signature 
Suzan K Burger

Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation 
Appeal 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 appeal 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 
Donna L Belmonte 
Email Address 
babygrand14@gmail.com 
Address 
18241 W El Caminito Dr 
City 
Waddell 
State 
AZ 
Zip Code 
85355 
Phone Number 
7086149850 
Fax Number 
Field not completed. 
Case Number / Project 
Name 
DMP2021001 & Z2021050 
Planning & Zoning 
Commission Hearing Date 
November 4, 2021 
Reason for the Appeal of 
the Subject Case 
Cramming in 770 lots with 2 story homes will take away our 
scenic mountain views.  
Need infrastructure first. No enough gas stations or shopping in 
our area. 
Electronic Signature 
Agreement 
I agree. 
Electronic Signature 
Donna Belmonte  
 
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation 
Appeal 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 appeal 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 
Brian and Kim Dockall 
Email Address 
kdockall@hotmail.com 
Address 
8404 N. 180th Dr 
City 
Waddell 
State 
Az 
Zip Code 
85355 
Phone Number 
6024180270 
Fax Number 
Field not completed. 
Case Number / Project 
Name 
DMP2021001 & Z2021050 
Planning & Zoning 
Commission Hearing Date 
November 4th 
Reason for the Appeal of 
the Subject Case 
We are not satisfied with the decision, there are too many 
homes, and we do not feel the impacts were carefully reviewed 
and assessed.  
Electronic Signature 
Agreement 
I agree. 
Electronic Signature 
Brian D Dockall

Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation 
Appeal 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 appeal 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 
Susan Deveau Young and Richard Young 
Email Address 
richlady1963@gmail.com 
Address 
18535 W Northern Ave 
City 
Waddell 
State 
AZ 
Zip Code 
85355 
Phone Number 
6233302146 
Fax Number 
Field not completed. 
Case Number / Project 
Name 
Phase 3 off northern citrus and olive 
Planning & Zoning 
Commission Hearing Date 
? 
Reason for the Appeal of 
the Subject Case 
The building of 700+ houses directly affects my husband and I. 
We live across from the proposed project site which is now 
growing carrots and gives us an open view to the north and the 
entire north side of the white tanks the reason we bought this 
house to begin with was because it was rural. This is very 
unfair to all those of us that live in the country life to take that 
away from us without a say 
Electronic Signature 
Agreement 
I agree. 
Electronic Signature 
Susan M Deveau

I would like to formally appeal the decision to rezone phase three of the white tank foothills. 
 
 
We do not need/want higher density housing.  Our infrastructure will NOT accommodate this additional 
housing. 
 
Thank you, 
 
Geoffrey Kudel

Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation 
Appeal 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 appeal 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 
Gary R Martin 
Email Address 
c141retfe@gmail.com 
Address 
8224 N 180th Dr 
City 
Waddell 
State 
AZ 
Zip Code 
85355 
Phone Number 
8105699884 
Fax Number 
Field not completed. 
Case Number / Project 
Name 
DMP2021001 & Z2021050 
Planning & Zoning 
Commission Hearing Date 
November 4, 2021 
Reason for the Appeal of 
the Subject Case 
I am not in favor of the increase in density with the requested 
change requested by the applicant to increase the number of 
housing unions by 383 units over the previously approved 
number for White Tank Foothills Phase 3 plan. It is does not 
comply with the original intent of the entire White Tank Foothills 
development. We bought our home here because of the 
original development plan and more upscale type of housing 
units and lot sizes. not the 5000 sq ft lots with less than a 15 ft 
backyard. 
I feel that the Planning and Zoning commissioners didn't take 
the interest of the residents into consideration when they voted. 
There was minimally if no discussion of the numerous objection 
letters sent in by the current residents, just complete 
agreement with the applicant to increase the density of the final 
phase. I believe that the responses of the current residents

were no addressed prior to the P & Z commissioners vote to 
approve the application , due in part to the statement one of 
them made as to the effect of welcoming the increased 
property tax revenues.  
Electronic Signature 
Agreement 
I agree. 
Electronic Signature 
Gary R Martin

Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation 
Appeal 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 appeal 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 
Nancy R Rosenberg 
Email Address 
nancyrrosen@yahoo.com 
Address 
18020 W El Caminito Dr 
City 
Waddell 
State 
AZ 
Zip Code 
85355 
Phone Number 
15102055464 
Fax Number 
Field not completed. 
Case Number / Project 
Name 
DMP2021001 / Z2021050 
Planning & Zoning 
Commission Hearing Date 
November 4, 2021 
Reason for the Appeal of 
the Subject Case 
I disagree with the decision to increase the housing in White 
Tank Foot Hills phase 3 development by 100% from what was 
originally zoned. Over 70% of the existing homeowners who 
reside within 300 ft of the White Tank Foot Hills Phase 3 
development have raised their objection. (Many more 
homeowners would have also made their objections know had 
they been contacted. Most people living in Phase one were 
never contacted. They only heard by word of mouth from their 
neighbors) The number of homes being proposed will create an 
over crowded, highly congested area that is not in keeping with 
the more spacious builds in the existing phase one. It is also 
not in keeping with the farm type 1,2 and 3 acre lots to the 
south. The proposed lot sizes are much smaller, streets are 
narrower and green spaces are smaller. More importantly the 
design of streets within and entering and exiting phase 3 are

sorely inadequate. While the representatives made token 
changes to the design they have not satisfied the concerns 
voiced clearly by homeowners at two poorly advertised 
meetings. Representatives attempted to appease and quiet our 
concerns with phone calls, personal meetings in homes and an 
assurance that further changes would be made. They even 
tried to divide and individually persuade our compliance with 
these one on one contacts. They threw out tokens such as 
"Home Owners will be placed on the Board of Directors." Hand 
chosen it seems of those who were in agreement with what 
they wanted to accomplish. Bottom line this increase is not 
appropriate for the current feel and appearance of the existing 
homes on all sides. The design of the layout of streets 
including egress and access presents major safety hazards 
during emergencies and a 100 % increase in congestion not 
only within that phase but also within the existing phase one. 
All trips in and out of phase three must go through phase one 
to get to an egress or access point. Please reconsider the 
approval of rezoning this property. 
Electronic Signature 
Agreement 
I agree. 
Electronic Signature 
Nancy R Rosenberg 
 
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

Subject: OPPOSITION to DMP2021001 & Z2021050 – White Tank Foothills Ph. 3 Maricopa County 
 
We are strongly opposed to this Rezoning Request for the following reasons: · The proposed Rezone will 
almost double the approved density from 390 homes to 770 homes. This is inconsistent with the 
currently 2013 approved zoning for WTF Phase 3. · Approving this Rezone will disrupt the transition of 
density from the larger (1-acre+) lots on Northern to the 75-foot wide R1-8 and 65-foot wide R1-7 lots 
approaching Seldon to the north. · White Tank Foothills is unique with mid-size lots offering room for 
private yard space, pools, and other amenities. We are not a high-density community like Marley Park or 
Verrado with small lots and community club-style amenities. · This density is much too high for our 
neighborhood and was not part of the neighborhood plan when we built our homes. Please understand 
the REZONE will ruin the character of our community by allowing high-density small lots, smaller homes, 
two story homes and more traffic along with all the related safety issues and concerns…all can be 
prevented by DENYING this REZONE to allow higher density with 770 homes. Please share our 
opposition with your team, including County Staff, Planning and Zoning Commissioners, and the Board 
of Supervisors. We will try to attend the public hearing and we appreciate your consideration to deny 
this Rezone. 
  
Sincerely, 
  
Gina Oltman 
18226 W El Caminito Drive 
Waddell AZ 85355 
602.820.9128

Maricopa County,   
 
We are strongly opposed to this Rezoning Request for the following reasons:  
• 
The proposed Rezone will almost double the approved density from 390 homes to 
770 homes.  This is inconsistent with the currently 2013 approved zoning for WTF 
Phase 3. 
• 
Approving this Rezone will disrupt the transition of density from the larger (1-acre+) 
lots on Northern to the 75-foot wide R1-8 and 65-foot wide R1-7 lots approaching 
Seldon to the north.  
• 
White Tank Foothills is unique with mid-size lots offering room for private yard 
space, pools, and other amenities.  We are not a high-density community like Marley 
Park or Verrado with small lots and community club-style amenities.  
• 
This density is much too high for our neighborhood and was not part of the 
neighborhood plan when we built our homes.  
• 
Please understand the REZONE will ruin the character of our community by allowing 
high-density small lots, smaller homes, two story homes and more traffic along with 
all the related safety issues and concerns…all can be prevented by DENYING this 
REZONE to allow higher density with 770 homes.     
Please share our opposition with your team, including County Staff, Planning and Zoning 
Commissioners, and the Board of Supervisors.  We will be attending the public hearing and 
we appreciate your consideration to deny this Rezone.    
 
Sincerely,  
 
Andrew & Bobbi Plante 
(602) 292-3785 
8626 N White Tanks Vista Ct 
Waddell, AZ 85355

Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation 
Appeal 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 
appeal 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 
Steven G. Rosenberg 
Email Address 
sgr@pacbell.net 
Address 
18020 W El Caminito Dr. 
City 
Waddell 
State 
AZ 
Zip Code 
85355 
Phone Number 
510-459-5957 
Fax Number 
Field not completed. 
Case Number / Project Name 
DMP2021001 / Z2021050 
Planning & Zoning 
Commission Hearing Date 
November 4, 2021 
Reason for the Appeal of the 
Subject Case 
For some reason, the Zoning and Planning Commission ignored 
the important safety issues raised by home-owners at the 
Commission meeting held on November 4, 2021. It appeared 
that the majority of the commissioners had pre-determined their 
decision to rule in favor of the re-zoning request. The 
commissioners referenced what they perceived as an effort by 
the applicants to address safety concerns raise at the meeting. 
This is troubling because in reality there were no such efforts by 
the applicants at all.  
1. In 2018, It was established by the Zoning and Planning 
Commission that the Phase 3 development had to be consistent 
with Phase 1. The applicants for the rezoning request are asking 
for an increase of almost 100 % of the number of homes that 
Phase 3 was originally zoned for, from approximately 390 homes

to 770 homes. No matter how you dress it up, by doubling the 
number of homes in Phase 3 the result will be as follows: 
The homes are going to be significantly smaller than those in 
Phase 1, the width of the lots in Phase 3 will be significantly 
narrower, the homes in Phase 3 are going to be closer together, 
and there will be a large number of multiple story homes as 
opposed to the single story homes in Phase 1. 
Thus, the Phase 3 neighborhood is going to have a look and feel 
that is nothing like the surrounding areas of Phase 1. It would be 
impossible to argue that Phase 3 will be consistent with Phase 1. 
2. Traffic Safety and Emergency Access. 
Traffic safety. By doubling the number of homes in Phase 3, 
there will be twice the number of vehicles requiring ingress and 
egress. There will certainly be an increase in vehicular traffic that 
empties onto 181st from N. White Tank Mountain Blvd. 
There is already a bottleneck during commute and school time 
hours at (and near) the corner of 181st and Sheldon. This road 
has three lanes, and parents use the middle lane for parking, 
dropping off kids, waiting for children to get off the school bus, 
etc. Adding vehicles to 181st from White Tank Mountain Blvd will 
add to congestion issues and will present additional safety issues 
for kids crossing streets, none of which have traffic control 
devices such as traffic lights or even cross walks. White Tank 
Mountain Blvd is wider and is not an appropriate feeder street to 
181st, even if the proposed connector road (West Royal Palm) 
from White Tank Mountain Blvd to Citrus is constructed. 
The applicants point to a traffic survey that was conducted in 
2001, prior to the commencement of the White Tank Foothills 
development. The only other traffic survey that "may have been 
done" was a remake of the original survey that looked only at 
traffic flow outside of the White Tank Foothills development, and 
did not look at all at the traffic issues within the development.  
Despite the spurious claim that the 2001 traffic study somehow 
addressed the issue of increased internal traffic flow, which 
poses a very real danger to school children, this issue was swept 
under the carpet and ignored at the Commission meeting.  
Failure to address Emergency Access and evacuation issues. 
The apllicants for the re-zoning request filed a zoning plan for

Phase 3. A quick review of this plan, would show that there is 
little, if any, emergency access to Phase 3. There are are 770 
homes squeezed into a small, confined area, with very limited 
access in the case of fire or police emergencies. It is possible 
that the limited ingress and egress, and bottle-necks bulit into the 
design plan, would not allow any response, much less rapid 
response, by emergency responders and could result in 
disastrous consequences.  
We are asking that an additional access street from White Tank 
Mountain Blvd (south) to Northern be added, for the purpose of 
alleviating congestion (if any increase in the density of homes in 
Phase 3 is approved) and to provide an exit for residents and an 
access for Police or Fire vehicles to the Phase 3 area should 
there be an emergency. The Phase 3 neighborhood is isolated 
as far as egress and ingress. In the case of a possible fire or 
other emergency, (without an access to Northern) it could 
become nearly impossible for emergency vehicles to get to the 
scene of a fire, especially in the southwest or northwest corners 
of the development. Likewise, the inability of residents to 
evacuate could make such situation extremely dangerous. 
Requested findings on Appeal: We are asking that the rezoning 
request to increase the number of homes to 770 be denied 
based on Safety concerns. Further, we request that any increase 
to the number of homes allowed in Phase 3, require that access 
roads to Northern Ave, as well as Citrus Road be included in the 
plan. We respectfully request that these issues be referred to the 
Maricopa County Supervisors for further consideration. 
Thank You. 
Electronic Signature 
Agreement 
I agree. 
Electronic Signature 
Steven G Rosenberg

Subject: OPPOSITION to DMP2021001 & Z2021050 - White Tank Foothills Ph. 3 
 
Maricopa County, We are appealing the Planning and Zoning Department's decision to 
move forward with this Rezone. We are opposed to this Rezoning Request for the following 
reasons:     - The proposed Rezone will almost double the approved density from 390 homes 
to 770 homes. This is inconsistent with the currently 2013 approved zoning for WTF Phase 
3.     - Approving this Rezone will disrupt the transition of density from the larger (1-acre+) 
lots on Northern to the 75-foot wide R1-8 and 65-foot wide R1-7 lots approaching Seldon 
to the north.     - White Tank Foothills is unique with mid-size lots offering room for private 
yard space, pools, and other amenities. We are not a high-density community like Marley 
Park or Verrado with small lots and community club-style amenities.     - This density is much 
too high for our neighborhood and was not part of the neighborhood plan when we built 
our homes. This REZONE would ruin the character of our community (and that character is a 
reason we bought a home here) by allowing high-density small lots, smaller homes, two-
story homes, and more traffic along with important related safety issues and concerns. 
These can all be prevented by DENYING this REZONE that would allow much higher density 
with 770 homes rather than 390--a 98% increase in density. Please share our appeal and 
opposition to this Rezone with your team, including County Staff, Planning and Zoning 
Commissioners, and the Board of Supervisors. We appreciate your consideration to deny 
this Rezone. Sincerely,  
Al & Christine Tielke  
18018 W Las Palmaritas Dr 
Waddell, AZ 85355

Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation 
Appeal 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 appeal 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 
Susan and Richard Willson  
Email Address 
dicksstation@aol.com  
Address 
18009 W Royal Palm rd  
City 
Waddell  
State 
Az 
Zip Code 
85355 
Phone Number 
602-291-3970 
Fax Number 
N/A 
Case Number / Project 
Name 
DMP2021001 & Z2021050 White Tank Foothills Ph. 3 
Planning & Zoning 
Commission Hearing Date 
December 8,2021 at 9:30AM 
Reason for the Appeal of 
the Subject Case 
We are strongly apposed to this Rezoning request for the 
following reasons: The proposed Rezone will almost double the 
approval density from 390 homes to 770 homes. This is 
inconsistent with the currently 2013 approved zoning for WTF 
Phase 3. 
Approving this Rezone will disrupt the transition of density from 
the larger ( 1 acre ) lots on Northern to the 75-foot wide R1-8 
and 65 foot wide R1-7 lots approaching Seldon to the north.  
White Tank Foothills is unique with mid-sized lots offering room 
for private yard space and other amenities. We are not a high 
density community like Marley Park Verrado with small lots and 
community club style amenities. Please understand the 
Rezone will ruin the character of our community by allowing 
high-density small lots, smaller homes, two story homes and 
more traffic along with all the related safety issues and

concerns. All can be prevented by DENYING this Rezone to 
allow high-density with 770 homes. 
Electronic Signature 
Agreement 
I agree. 
Electronic Signature 
Richard Willson  
 
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation 
Appeal 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 appeal 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 
Frank Scaglione 
Email Address 
fdssdf68@yahoo.com 
Address 
8338 N. 180th Drive 
City 
Waddell 
State 
AZ 
Zip Code 
85355 
Phone Number 
6232369046 
Fax Number 
Field not completed. 
Case Number / Project 
Name 
DMP2021001 & Z2021050 White Tank Foothills Phase 3 
Planning & Zoning 
Commission Hearing Date 
November 4 2021 
Reason for the Appeal of 
the Subject Case 
I feel there was not enough consideration of the homeowners 
and the concerns we presented. It really appeared it was a 
done deal even before we spoke by some of the comments a 
couple Commissioners made. I believe the BOS will be more 
receptive about the voters concerns since they are elected 
verses the P&Z being appointed. 
Electronic Signature 
Agreement 
I agree. 
Electronic Signature 
Frank D. Scaglione

Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation 
Appeal 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 appeal 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 
Steve Nelson 
Email Address 
nellyusmc@hotmail.com 
Address 
8420 N 183rd Dr 
City 
Waddell 
State 
AZ 
Zip Code 
85355 
Phone Number 
6023164580 
Fax Number 
Field not completed. 
Case Number / Project 
Name 
DMP2021001 & Z2021050 
Planning & Zoning 
Commission Hearing Date 
November 4, 2021 
Reason for the Appeal of 
the Subject Case 
This appeal must be approved. If this project goes forward, 
many people will be crammed into a small living area, causing 
harm to the environment and jeopardizing the safety of 
motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and horseback riders because 
of the increased traffic congestion. It's ridiculous to build so 
many homes in such a small area. Anyone who has been 
paying attention to development in the valley knows that this 
move is just for the sake of builders and developers trying to 
make more money by building more homes and also increased 
revenue for the county; more homes equals more property tax 
revenue. Please consider the damage you will be doing to this 
community if this mega mini house community is constructed. 
Thank you.

Electronic Signature 
Agreement 
I agree. 
Electronic Signature 
Steven Nelson 
 
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation 
Appeal 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 appeal 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 
Joe Whelan 
Email Address 
cj5jeepster@hotmail.com 
Address 
18013 W Griswold Rd 
City 
Waddell 
State 
AZ 
Zip Code 
85355 
Phone Number 
16233329624 
Fax Number 
Field not completed. 
Case Number / Project 
Name 
White Tank Foothills Phase 3 
Planning & Zoning 
Commission Hearing Date 
11/4/2021 
Reason for the Appeal of 
the Subject Case 
I strongly oppose of the rezone of The White Tank Foothills 
("WTF") Phase 3 subdivision. And beg you to strongly consider 
making changes to this rezone. 
WTF currently consist of 991 developed lots. Lot sizes range in 
size from 50'-80' wide. There are 419-50' wide lots, 191-60' 
wide lots, 106-65' wide lots, 167-70' wide lots, 83-75' wide lots 
and 25-80' wide lots. Average lot width is 60' wide throughout 
the WTF. 
Phase 3 will primarily consists of 45' and 50' wide lots. The 45' 
wide lots are smaller than any other existing lots in the WTF. 
As you can see by the facts above, the WTF already has its fair 
share of 50' wide lots. Phase 3 was intended to balance the 
WTF by adding more 60'-80' wide lots. If the rezone is allowed,

not only will the WTF have lots smaller than ever before, we 
will have far too many lots in our development 1764 (propose) 
vs 1286 (originally planned). I ask that you decline this 
rezoning and require the developer to balance the WTF by 
keeping with the larger lots in Phase 3 to match the 
consistency of the surrounding 60'-80' wide lots that are closest 
to Phase 3. 
I don't have an issue with increasing the lot count slightly in 
Phase 3 but I ask that the lot sizing range from 60'-80' wide. 
Please do allow any lots less than 60' wide. 
All homes south of Sedlon Lane, west of Citrus Road are 
currently single story homes. It was designed this way to 
preserve the views of the White Tank Mountains. I ask that you 
permit the construction of only single story homes in Phase 3. 
And decline any two story homes in Phase 3. This requirement 
will maintain the consistency of the surrounding homes closest 
to Phase 3, which are parcels 9 and 10. 
Joe Whelan 
Electronic Signature 
Agreement 
I agree. 
Electronic Signature 
Joe Whelan

Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation 
Appeal 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 appeal 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 
Leonard Means 
Email Address 
temnatjoe@yahoo.com 
Address 
17928 West Royal Palm Rd 
City 
Waddell  
State 
AZ 
Zip Code 
85355 
Phone Number 
602-909-0018 
Fax Number 
Field not completed. 
Case Number / Project 
Name 
DMP2021001 & Z2021050 
Planning & Zoning 
Commission Hearing Date 
November 4, 2021 
Reason for the Appeal of 
the Subject Case 
The housing change that they are proposing is double the 
original amount. The traffic study they used was done in 2001 
and is old enough to not take into account the housing boom 
that we are experiences. The homes in the surrounding 
community are larger homes on larger lots these homes will not 
fit in with existing development. they do not want a exit from the 
new community to Northern and all access to south bound 303 
is through northern and that road would be heavily taxed to 
handle all of the traffic with 4 way stops. 
Electronic Signature 
Agreement 
I agree. 
Electronic Signature 
Leonard P Means

Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation 
Appeal 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 appeal 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 
Duane Tuhy 
Email Address 
duanetuhy7779@gmail.com 
Address 
18015 W Royal Palm Rd 
City 
Waddell 
State 
AZ 
Zip Code 
85355 
Phone Number 
602-909-5358 
Fax Number 
Field not completed. 
Case Number / Project 
Name 
DMP2021001 & Z2021050 
Planning & Zoning 
Commission Hearing Date 
Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 9:30AM 
Reason for the Appeal of 
the Subject Case 
I do not agree with the Planning and Zoning Commission 
recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors for 
the Phase 3, 770 homes. We were not informed of this plan 
when we purchased in 2007 and we do not agree with having 
this many small homes and this much traffic in the WTF 
neighborhood. 
Electronic Signature 
Agreement 
I agree. 
Electronic Signature 
Duane A Tuhy

M. BRENNAN RAY 
DIRECT LINE: 602.234.8794 
MAIN LINE: 602.274.7611 
BRAY@BCATTORNEYS.COM  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
March 8, 2022 
 
 
VIA email (clerkboard@maricopa.gov) 
 
Chairman Bill Gates 
Supervisor Clint Hickman  
Supervisor Jack Sellers 
Supervisor Steve Gallardo 
Supervisor Thomas Galvin 
 
RE: DMP2021001/Z2021050 – White Tank Foothills Phase 3 
 
Dear Chairman Gates and Supervisors: 
On behalf of Citrus & Northern, LLC, we respectfully request a continuance of the above 
referenced cases for White Tank Foothills Phase 3 to the June 8, 2022, Board of Supervisors 
hearing.  The continuance is requested to provide additional time to review the proposed changes 
to ensure the development continues to be compatible with the surrounding area, work with County 
Staff, and continue working with the area neighbors.  We will be available to answer questions at 
the March 8, 2022, BOS hearing concerning this continuance request if necessary. 
We thank you in advance for your consideration. 
Very truly yours, 
BURCH & CRACCHIOLO, P.A. 
M. Brennan Ray 
 
cc:   
Clerk of the Board (clerk.agenda@maricopa.gov)  
Scott Isham, Chief of Staff District 4 (scott.isham@maricopa.gov)  
Tom Ellsworth, Planning Director (tom.ellsworth@maricopa.gov)

M. BRENNAN RAY 
DIRECT LINE: 602.234.8794 
MAIN LINE: 602.274.7611 
BRAY@BCATTORNEYS.COM  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
December 3, 2021 
 
 
VIA email (clerkboard@maricopa.gov) 
 
Chairman Jack Sellers 
Supervisor Clint Hickman 
Supervisor Bill Gates 
Supervisor Steve Gallardo 
 
RE: DMP2021001/Z2021050 – White Tank Foothills Phase 3 
 
Dear Chairman Sellers and Supervisors: 
On behalf of Citrus & Lower Buckeye, LLC, we respectfully request a continuance of the 
above referenced cases for White Tank Foothills Phase 3 to the January 26, 2022, Board of 
Supervisors hearing.  The continuance is requested to provide additional time for Citrus & 
Buckeye, LLC to work on and review possible changes to the Plans to ensure the development 
continues to be compatible with all the surrounding area.  We will be available to answer questions 
at the December 8, 2021, BOS hearing concerning this continuance request if necessary. 
We thank you in advance for your consideration. 
Very truly yours, 
BURCH & CRACCHIOLO, P.A. 
M. Brennan Ray 
 
 
cc: Tom Ellsworth, Planning Director (tom.ellsworth@maricopa.gov)

All – 
  
I believe I have everyone that participated in the meetings at the library.  If 
there’s someone that I’m missing, please forward this to them.  
  
We wanted to let you know that we are requesting the BOS remand the 
Rezoning case back to the Planning Commission.  In light of the considerable 
number of changes that have been made since the November 4, 2021 PC 
hearing and continued concerns, we believe this is best course of action for all 
involved. 
  
We anticipate the PC hearing will be August 4, 2022 and the BOS hearing will 
be September 28, 2022. 
  
Thank you. 
  
B. Ray 
  
M. Brennan Ray 
Certified Specialist in Real Estate Law 
Direct:    602.234.8794 
E-mail:   bray@bcattorneys.com 
Secretary:  Shay Ediss 
Direct:    602.234.8718 
E-mail:   sediss@bcattorneys.com 
 
P.O. Box 16882 | Phoenix, AZ 85011 
1850 N. Central Ave., 17th Floor | Phoenix, AZ 85004 
602.274.7611 Main Office 
www.bcattorneys.com

1 
 
June 6, 2022 
RE: OPPOSITION to DMP2021001 & Z2021050 – White Tank Foothills Ph. 3   
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors: 
   
 
Don’t Californicate my Arizona! 
Yes, we moved here from California seven years ago to get out of the traffic and found 
this great neighborhood in the White Tank Foothills Community.  We were well aware of 
the future development and had no problem with it, as it matched where we live, south 
of Seldon.  But were we surprised to learn about the density being proposed by the 
developer and resulting traffic, especially since it will be only right in/out on a road from 
the development onto Citrus.  
Does Maricopa County want to be known as the new California traffic nightmare?  
Approving this development just opens the doors for more traffic in our area and the 
County islands in general.  You will set a precedent and a problem which is not fixable 
in the years to come.  We have lived it!!!!! 
 
Vision 2030, Maricopa County Comprehensive Plan  
https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6756/Comprehensive-Plan---Vision-
2030-Plan-PDF?bidId=  
A very quick examination of the Vision 2030 plan adopted by the BOS on January 13, 
2016 reveals some extremely important issues directly related to this proposed 
development and zone change.  
 
 
WHY IS THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IMPORTANT? (page 6) 
Protects Public Safety Vision 2030 supports public safety by coordinating new 
development with roads, police and fire service, and water and sewer systems. Vision 
2030 also protects public safety by discouraging development in hazardous areas 
where lives and property can be at risk. 
Comment:  We were told there will be no increase in sheriff’s deputies or additional fire 
protection for our community based upon the developer’s higher density request.

2 
 
 
POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS (page 20) 
Maricopa County will continue to attract large numbers of people which means new 
development will expand into many areas. While the county’s large size allows for 
expansion, the location of growth will be directed by land management, steep terrain, 
and other constraints that also challenge efficient infrastructure and service expansion 
for roads, water and sewer lines and other necessities. Also, as Maricopa County’s 
population grows it will be increasingly important to enact policies that promote effective 
and efficient water use. While Maricopa County does have an adequate water supply 
despite its desert location it is neither unlimited nor evenly distributed and can be 
affected by increasing use and periodic droughts.   
Comment:  There is now a very significant concern over water availability as we see our 
water sources drying up.  So adding more homes doesn’t really make sense. 
 
“Urban Solutions for Urban Development” (page 30) 
As Maricopa County considers where urban development is appropriate it will continue 
to use its Urban Solutions for Urban Development strategy which requires that services 
and infrastructure be currently or readily available to meet the needs of residents and 
businesses, protect taxpayers and protect public health and safety. This means that the 
following should be identified before approving comprehensive plan amendments and 
zoning district changes for urban development:  
Comment:  Have the following items been accomplished and if so, let’s see the 
assessment of No. 1 & 6 below. 
 
1. That there is sufficient potable water service, including confirmation of a Certificate of 
Convenience and Necessity and verification by the service provider of the ability to 
adequately serve new residents and businesses;  
2. That there is sufficient sewer service, including verification by the service provider of 
the ability and capacity to adequately serve new residents and/or businesses;  
3. That dry utilities (electric, telephone, natural gas), as applicable, are available to 
serve new residents and/or businesses;  
4. That there is sufficient road capacity to accommodate expected traffic increases from 
residents and/or businesses;  
5. That there is adequate elementary, middle and high school capacity, as applicable, to 
serve new residents, and that such schools are proximate to applicable neighborhoods;

3 
 
6. That adequate law enforcement and fire service is available to serve new residents 
and/ or businesses;  
7. That libraries are available and proximate to serve new residents;  
8. That adequate park, recreation and community facilities are available and proximate 
to serve new residents;  
9. That adequate hospital or emergency medical facilities are available and proximate to 
serve new residents;  
10. That there is regional flood control infrastructure to protect new residents and/or 
businesses as necessary.  
11. That alternative transportation facilities are available and proximate to serve new 
residents as necessary.  
12. That other urban services and infrastructure, as necessary and on a case-by-case 
basis, are available to serve new residents and/or businesses. 
 
Summary 
This is going to impact current resident quality of life with more traffic than was initially 
envisioned and planned. 
The proposed development appears to not meet the Vision 2030 goals. 
Request the project and zone change be denied. 
 
Bruce Ramm 
17943 W. El Caminito Dr. 
Waddell, AZ 85355 
623-243-9330

N
182nd
Dr
N
180th
Dr
N Edmonton
Ct
W Harmont Dr
W
L
as Palma
r
ita
s Dr
N 181
s
t Dr
N 181st Ave
N
1
8
0
th Dr
W A
lic
e Ave
N 17
9th
D
r
N 18
3rd
Av
e
N 182nd Dr
N 179th Dr
N 180th
Dr
W
R
ut
h
Ave
N 183rd Dr
N
1
82nd
A
ve
N White Tanks
Vista Ct
W Diana
Ave
W Las
Palmaritas Dr
W Echo Ln
W El
Caminito Dr
W Butler
Ave
W
Lawrence
Ln
W Griswold
Rd
W Rut
h Ave
Whi
t
e Tank
Moun
tain Blvd
W B
u
tler
D
r
W Royal
Palm Rd
N
18
2
n
d
Ln
W El
C
aminito
Dr
W
D
ian
a
Ave
W
Ec
h
o Ln
W
Seldon Ln
W Orc
hid Ln
N 181st Ave
N 183rd Ave
N 185th Ave
Northern Ave
Perryville Rd
Citrus Rd
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170, Phoenix, Arizona 85003, (602) 506-3601
Document Path: \\mcfs.mcaz.maricopa.gov\oet-gis-workgroup-prod$\patrick.dongarra\PlanningandDevelopment\OppositionCases\Z2021050\Z2021050.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, 7/20/2022
Ü
460
0
460
230
Feet
Opposition and Support
Z2021050
Subject Parcel
300' Buffer
Supporting Parcel
Opposition Parcel
All Supporting Parcels
All Opposition Parcels
300' Buffer Selection
300' Buffer Interior
Eligible parcels: 152
Supporting parcels: 2
Opposition parcels: 69
Supporting parcels sq ft: 22,937.93
Opposition parcels sq ft: 1,354,892.5
Subject parcels sq ft: 10,069,621.5
All area inside the 300' buffer:
15,205,239.98
All area inside the 300' buffer -
excluding subject parcel,
ROW and excluded parcels:
4,484,841.6
No-response parcels sq ft: 3,138,199.1
Super Majority opposed parcel acres:
30%
Super Majority opposed parcel number:
45%

James Ehinger 
T (602) 440-4837 
F (602) 257-6937 
Email:jehinger@clarkhill.com 
 
Clark Hill 
3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 1600 
Phoenix, AZ 85012 
T (602) 440-4800  
F (602) 257-9582 
 
 
 
ClarkHill\L2765\445887\267968668.v1-7/22/22 
July 22, 2022  
 
 
VIA HAND-DELIVERY 
Brad Clough, President  
 
 
White Tank Foothills Community Assn. 
1600 W. Broadway Rd., Ste. 200 
Tempe, AZ 85282 
 
VIA HAND-DELIVERY 
Amanda Shaw, Statutory Agent 
White Tank Foothills Community Assn. 
1600 W. Broadway Rd., Ste. 200 
Tempe, AZ 85282 
 
VIA HAND-DELIVERY 
Brad Clough, President 
Hinton Financial Services, Inc. 
General Partner of Northern Citrus, LLP 
1850 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1400 
Phoenix, AZ 85004 
 
 
Re: Notice of Challenge to the Validity of the Second Amendment to 
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for White Tank 
Foothills, dated August 13, 2021; and Notice of Claim. 
Dear Sirs: 
Clark Hill represents a group of homeowners in the White Tank Foothills 
Development who are members of the White Tank Foothills Community Association. This 
letter is written on their behalf and constitutes their written challenge to the validity of the 
Second Amendment to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for the 
White Tank Foothills, recorded August 13, 2021, on the grounds set forth hereinbelow. 
It is not clear from the terms of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and 
Restrictions for White Tank Foothills, recorded May 24, 2006 (the “CCR’s”), whether this 
challenge also constitutes a “Claim” within the meaning of CCR Sect. 9.1(c).  To the extent 
that the issues raised by this challenge may be deemed to constitute a Claim, this letter 
also constitutes the homeowners’ Notice of Claim pursuant to CCR Sect. 9.4, and their 
initiation of the dispute resolution procedures provided for under the CCR’s. 
VIA HAND-DELIVERY 
Richmond American Homes of Arizona, Inc. 
c/o CT Corporation System 
3800 N. Central Ave., Ste. 460 
Phoenix, AZ 85012 
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS  
Brad Clough, President 
Hinton Financial Services, Inc. 
General Partner of Northern Citrus, LLP 
10218 – 111th Street 
Edmonton, AB T5K 1K9 
Alberta, Canada

White Tank Foothills Community Assn. 
Northern Citrus, LLP 
Richmond American Homes of AZ, Inc. 
July 22, 2021 
 
Page 2 
 
 
ClarkHill\L2765\445887\267968668.v1-7/22/22 
This Challenge and Notice of Claim is being delivered to you as the signatories to the 
Second Amendment to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for the 
White Tank Foothills recorded on August 13, 2021 (the “2nd CCR Amendment”) at your last 
known addresses.  If any of you are represented by counsel in connection with this matter, 
please forward this letter to your attorney(s).  If you have transferred your interest in the 
White Tank Foothills Development or the CCR’s to another person or entity since the 
recordation of the 2nd CCR Amendment, please forward this letter to the current holder(s) of 
those interests. 
NOTICE OF CLAIM 
A. Nature of the Claim 
The 2nd CCR Amendment purports to delete Sect. 2.4 of the CCR’s in its entirety.  As 
you know, Sect. 2.4 imposes a density “cap” on development within the White Tank 
Foothills Development such that the total number of units in the development can never be 
increased by more than 10%.   
The density cap of Sect. 2.4 was a material, express promise made by your 
predecessor in interest, Citrus & Northern, LLC, upon which the homeowners who purchased 
lots in the White Tank Foothills Development prior to August 13, 2021, had relied in making 
those investment decisions, and the density cap constituted a fundamental feature of the 
development that could not be unilaterally changed, even by majority vote.  Therefore, the 
2nd CCR Amendment is void, and the density provisions of Sect. 2.4 are still in full force and 
effect. 
B. Factual & Legal Basis of the Claim 
As you know, development of the White Tank Foothills project began in 2002 when 
the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors approved your predecessor’s request for a 
Development Master Plan to develop approximately 640 acres at the southwest corner of 
Citrus Avenue and Olive Avenue into low-density residential housing.  The site was planned 
to be developed in three phases.  One of the conditions to that approval was that “[t]he 
total number of dwelling units for the White Tanks Foothills Development Master Plan shall 
not exceed 1,286.”  
On May 24, 2006, your predecessors recorded the CCR’s, which confirmed the low-
density nature of the development via the provisions of Sect. 2.4, which states: 
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Declaration to the 
contrary, the Declarant, with the approval of the County but 
without obtaining the consent of any other Owner or Person, 
shall have the right to make changes or modifications to the 
development plan with respect to any property owned by the 
Declarant in any way which the Declarant desires including, but 
not limited to, changing the density of all or any portion of the 
property owned by such Declarant or changing the nature or 
extent of the uses to which the property may be devoted;

White Tank Foothills Community Assn. 
Northern Citrus, LLP 
Richmond American Homes of AZ, Inc. 
July 22, 2021 
 
Page 3 
 
 
ClarkHill\L2765\445887\267968668.v1-7/22/22 
provided, however, that the change or modification shall 
not increase or decrease the number of lots permitted 
under the existing Development Plan by more than ten 
percent (10%).  (Emphasis added.) 
In 2014, developer’s predecessor requested an amendment to its Development 
Master Plan to add an additional 95 dwelling units to the project.  That request was 
approved, with the condition that the total number of dwelling units in the development 
would not exceed 1,381.  As CCR Sect. 2.4 was not amended or revised at that time, those 
additional 95 units counted as part of the additional 10% permitted under Sect.2.4. 
Over the past decade and a half, Phases 1 and 2 of the White Tank Foothills 
Development have been fully built out, and those residential units sold to more than 900 
private individuals.  Those purchases were made subject to, and in reliance upon, the 
original CCR’s, including Sect. 2.4 of that document.   
Homes in Phases 1 and 2 of the White Tank Foothills Development were sold with the 
promise and understanding that the low-density character of the development would not 
and could not be changed by the build-out of later phases.  The low-density nature of the 
project was assured by Article 2.4 of the CCR’s. 
CCR Sect. 11.3 provides that the Declaration may be amended at any time by the 
affirmative vote or written consent of Owners holding not less than two-thirds (2/3) of the 
Eligible Votes in the Association.  However, it is a well-established rule of Arizona law that, 
even when the majority of owners technically have the power to amend a Declaration, the 
common law prohibits them from exercising that power to make fundamental changes in the 
CCR’s, unless the language of the CCR’s themselves gave fair notice that the particular 
amendment might occur.  Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC, 252 Ariz. 532, 506 P.3d 18 
(2022), which states: 
[The power to amend CCR’s] does not displace the common 
law, which prohibits some amendments even if passed by a 
majority vote.  The original declaration must give sufficient 
notice of the possibility of a future amendment; that is 
amendments must be reasonable and foreseeable. 
A general CCR provision giving the majority the power to amend the Declaration 
from time to time is not sufficient to empower the majority to enact amendments not 
reasonably foreshadowed by the language of the original CCR’s.  As stated by the Court, 
“even a broad grant of authority to amend an original declaration is insufficient to allow the 
majority of property owners to adopt and enforce restrictions on the minority without 
notice.”  Otherwise, owners who had already purchased lots in reliance upon the existing 
CCR’s would be deprived of the benefits of their reasonable expectations at the time of 
purchase.  As also noted by the Court: 
The notice requirement relies on a homeowner’s reasonable 
expectations based on the declaration in effect at the time of 
purchase – in this case, the original declaration.  Under general

White Tank Foothills Community Assn. 
Northern Citrus, LLP 
Richmond American Homes of AZ, Inc. 
July 22, 2021 
 
Page 4 
 
 
ClarkHill\L2765\445887\267968668.v1-7/22/22 
contract law principles, a majority could impose any new 
restriction on the minority because the original declaration 
provided for amendments by a majority vote.  But allowing 
substantial, unforeseen, and unlimited amendments would alter 
the nature of the covenants to which the homeowners originally 
agreed. (252 Ariz., at 538, ¶15.)   
In order for an amendment to be valid and enforceable, the original covenant itself 
“must give notice that … the covenant can be amended to reframe it, correct an error, fill in 
a gap, or change it any particular way.  (Citations omitted.)  But future amendments cannot 
be ‘entirely new and different in character,’ untethered to an original covenant.  (Citations 
omitted.)  Otherwise, such an amendment would infringe on property owners’ expectations 
of the scope of the covenants.” (252 Ariz., at 539, ¶17.) 
Your purported alteration of the CCR’s via the 2nd CCR Amendment is even more 
egregious than the situation addressed by the Supreme Court in Kalway v. Calabria Ranch, 
in which the majority owners sought to add new restrictions on issues as to which the 
original CCR’s had been silent.  By contrast, CCR Sect. 2.4 didn’t simply fail to give notice 
that it might someday be eliminated so as to allow building to any desired density; Sect. 2.4 
expressly promised purchasers that density in the development would never be increased 
by more than 10%.  The developer’s attempt to surreptitiously relieve itself of that 
obligation is unlawful and void. 
Arizona law in this regard reflects the general rule that the developer of a common-
interest community cannot change the game for its own enrichment after homeowners have 
invested in a development.  As stated in § 6.21 of the Restatement (3rd) of Property 
(Servitudes): 
A developer may not exercise a power to amend or modify the 
declaration in a way that would materially change the character 
of the development or the burdens on the existing community 
members unless the declaration fairly apprises purchasers that 
the power could be used for the kind of change proposed.  
The CCR’s constitute a contract between the developer and each of the individual 
homeowners.  Dreamland Villa Community Club v. Raimey, 224 Ariz. 42, 47, ¶ 19, 226 P.3d 
411, 416 (App. 2010).  As with all contracts, the CCR’s impose a duty of good faith and fair 
dealing that prohibits the parties from taking actions that would deprive the other of the 
expected benefits of the transaction, even if those actions may not directly violate the terms 
of the agreement.  Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters and Cement Masons Local 
No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, 201 Ariz. 474, 490, ¶59, 38 P.3d 12, 28 (2002). 
The directors of a homeowners’ association also have duties of loyalty and fairness 
that obligate them to operate the association in the best interests of the entire community 
and to refrain from taking actions for their own benefit at the expense of the community as 
a whole.  A.R.S. § 10-3830(A); Restatement (3rd) of Property (Servitudes), § 6.14.  That 
duty is particularly fraught here, as White Tank Foothills is still under Declarant Control, and 
the Declarant’s successor appointed the directors of the HOA, who are all members or

White Tank Foothills Community Assn. 
Northern Citrus, LLP 
Richmond American Homes of AZ, Inc. 
July 22, 2021 
 
Page 5 
 
 
ClarkHill\L2765\445887\267968668.v1-7/22/22 
employees of the Declarant.  As a result, the homeowners have been deprived of what 
should be a crucial safeguard of their rights and interests, and every action of the HOA’s 
directors is tainted with conflicts of interest that create the presumption that they have 
violated those duties of loyalty and fairness. 
Those breaches are epitomized by the manner in which the 2nd CCR Amendment was 
adopted.  Not only did the 2nd CCR Amendment purport to unlawfully deprive the 
homeowners of the benefits of Sect. 2.4’s density cap, the amendment was adopted and 
recorded in secret, using the special voting powers given the Declarant by CCR Sect.’s 5.6 
and 5.7, and without any notice to the homeowners that this fundamental change was being 
made.  Moreover, this was apparently done to take advantage of the one-year limitation on 
challenges imposed by CCR Sect. 11.3, so that the homeowners’ rights might be lost before 
they even learned of the deprivation. 
The purported deletion of CCR Sect. 2.4 materially changed the low-density 
character of White Tank Foothills and burdens the existing community members with 
decreased property values, loss of views, and increased traffic and congestion.  The 
developer’s attempt to unilaterally relieve itself of these density restrictions for its own 
financial benefit not only constitute a breach of contract, but also violations of the 
developer’s and the HOA’s duties of loyalty and fairness to the homeowners. 
In addition, CCR Sect. 11.3 also provides that “notwithstanding any other provision 
of this Declaration to the contrary, this Declaration may not be amended to conflict with the 
conditions of approval of the Plat by the County … unless the Plat is abandoned.” 
One of the conditions imposed upon approval of the Development’s current Plat is 
that the number of units not exceed 1,381.  The attempt to rewrite the CCR’s to allow 
building beyond that density is clearly contrary to the conditions of Plat approval and 
constitutes an additional and alternative basis upon which the 2nd CCR Amendment is void 
and of no effect. 
The homeowners also believe that the 2nd CCR Amendment may not have been 
approved by the requisite two-third majority of Eligible Votes and may be invalid for this 
reason as well.  However, the homeowners do not yet have sufficient information regarding 
the ownership of parcels in the Development as of August 13, 2021, to make that 
determination, and reserve the right to assert this alternative ground of invalidity once such 
information becomes available to them. 
C. Resolution of the Claim 
This Claim can only be resolved by the clear and unequivocal annulment of the 2nd 
CCR Amendment and the equally clear and unequivocal recognition and affirmation that CCR 
Sect. 2.4 is still in full force and effect and governs the current and future development of 
the White Tank Foothills Development. 
We believe that this resolution can best be accomplished in three steps:

White Tank Foothills Community Assn. 
Northern Citrus, LLP 
Richmond American Homes of AZ, Inc. 
July 22, 2021 
 
Page 6 
 
 
ClarkHill\L2765\445887\267968668.v1-7/22/22 
First, the White Tank Foothills Community Association should immediately pass and 
record a Resolution declaring the 2nd CCR Amendment to be null and void; and affirming 
that CCR Sect. 2.4 is still in full force and effect and governs the current and future 
development of the White Tank Foothills Development.   
Second, as soon as possible, a Third and Clarifying Amendment to the CCR’s should 
be voted upon and recorded, with the Declarant’s affirmative support and approval, to the 
same effect.   
Third, this necessarily means that the maximum number of lots/home sites that can 
be built in White Tank Foothills Phase 3 is limited to a total of 424, consisting of the 390 
allowed under the Plat plus the remaining 34 permitted by the 10% provision of CCR Sect. 
2.4; and the developer must publicly acknowledge this limitation and withdraw the requests 
to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Planning & Zoning 
Commission for an amended Development Master Plan and/or zoning reclassifications that 
would permit any greater density, including, but not limited to Cases #DMP2021001 and 
#Z2021050. 
The homeowners are open to other potential methods of resolution of this Claim that 
would achieve the same goal of clearly and unequivocally annulling the 2nd CCR Amendment 
and reinstating CCR Sect. 2.4. 
Sincerely, 
CLARK HILL 
 
 
James Ehinger 
JE:rmm 
 
CC: 
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors 
 
Clint L. Hickman, Supervisor, District 4

Planning and Development Department  
 
 
 
 
 
DATE: 
August 4, 2022 
 
TO: 
Planning & Zoning Commission   
 
FROM: 
Martin Martell, Planner   
 
SUBJECT: 
DMP2021001 & Z202105 – White Tank Foothills Phase 3   
 
 
 
 
Since the publishing of the staff report for the above cases, staff received three letters of 
opposition to the cases from area residences. The opposition letters oppose the proposed 
density of 645 new residences and fear that these new homeowners will increase traffic 
to an unsafe level, negatively impact homeowners’ property values, overextend fire 
protection, law enforcement and negatively impact area schools. The letters have been 
attached to this handout.  
 
 
 
Attachments: 
 
8-1-22 Opposition Letter (1 page)  
 
 
 
8-2-22 Opposition Letter (2 pages)  
 
 
 
8-2-22 Opposition Letter (8 pages)

To Planning & Development Department 
 
              As the one of the 900 owner of property in the White Tank Foothills, I am dismayed by the 
recent changes that are being pushed by the builder of Phase 3 of our subdivision. I purchased my home 
with my VA benefits planning for a long term investment based on the CC&R’s provided to me at the 
time of purchase March 2009. I realize that the builder is trying to maximize their profits as it is in their 
best interest to do so. Yet by allowing them to maximize their profits you are impacting the potential 
profits of every homeowner in the White Tank Foothills and surrounding communities. I would 
respectfully ask that you consider honoring the original CC&R’s that set the cap for the total number of 
dwellings at 1381. 
  
1. If you so vote to honor the original planning and zoning agreements in the original CC&R’s 
that would be preferred 
2. If not then I would reluctantly support the new proposal from the builders attorney at the 
community meet. 
  
  
Respectfully 
Steven E. Boles 
SCPO USCG Retired 
602-881-927

Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission 
Mr. Martin Martell 
August 4, 2022 Meeting 
 
During the June 8, 2022, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Meeting the Board of 
Supervisors accepted Mr. Brennan Ray’s request to defer Burch & Cracchiolo 
presentation on behalf of Northern Citrus LLC to August 4, 2022. Supervisor Hickman, 
during this meeting, advised Mr. Brennan and Burch & Cracchiolo to reach out to the 
White Tank Foothills Community to work at finding a more acceptable solution in the 
development of WTF Phase 3.  
Subsequently, Mr. Brennan Ray and Mr. Ed Bull of Burch & Cracchiolo scheduled a 
meeting for the evening of July 27, 2022, at a local school inviting homeowners that live 
within 300’ of the proposed building sights to attend. This should have been extended to 
the entire WTF community since the CC&R’s that govern the development of Phase 3 
impacts the entire WTF community.  
The July 27, 2022 meeting consisted of Mr. Brennan reiterating the June 8,, 2022 
presentation material submitted to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Brennan and Mr. Bull 
took time to promote how their client has acquiesced to the WTF requested changes. 
Unfortunately, they did not take heed of the sizeable majority of attendees who are 
insisting on a reduction in the number of homes to be built from the proposed 645. 
During the presentation the attendees quickly determined there is no intent on the 
developer’s part to discuss reducing the number of lots within Phase 3 from the 
proposed 645. So much for Mr. Hickman’s advice to Burch & Cracchiolo to work with 
the WTF Community. Using this ‘take it or leave approach’ by Burch & Cracchiolo the 
parties are at an impasse. 
Due to the disingenuous and surreptitious manipulation of the WTF Phase 3 Plan by 
Northern Citrus LLC, using an ‘Anchoring’ scheme, a large group of homeowners 
retained an attorney to challenge the unlawful attempt to amend the WTF Community 
Association CC&R’s. (Reference challenge letter submitted to Planning and Zoning). 
The specious discussions/negotiations with the homeowners conducted by Burch & 
Cracchiolo law firm have been to distract the homeowners from the egregious number 
of increased lots within Phase 3. 
 
From previous conversations with Maricopa County representatives, the WTF 
homeowners clearly understand that Maricopa County “does not care” what the HOA 
CC&R’s state. Regrettably, this callous disregard by Maricopa County for the CC&Rs, (a 
legal binding contract between WTF Community Association and the WTF 
homeowners) encourages the Northern Citrus LLC and its representatives to proceed in 
an attempt to unlawfully change the CC&R’s and obtain planning and zoning changes 
under cases Z2021050/DMP2021001.

The majority of WTF homeowners still contend additional homes will increase traffic to 
an unsafe level, negatively impact homeowners’ property values, overextend fire 
protection and law enforcement. We substantiated that fire protection will not be adding 
additional staff in support of all the growth in the area, we have corroborated that the 
schools are already at max capacity.  
The Northern Trust LLC and its representatives are using a traffic study from 2001 and 
have extrapolated the submitted numbers from the 20-year-old study. Maricopa County 
should be requiring a new comprehensive traffic study to include Waddell and 
surrounding area, areas west of 303 including South Surprise, west of Glendale and 
west of Litchfield Park from Cactus to Camelback. 
The White Tank Foothills Community want you to be fully informed of the current state 
of discussions with Burch & Cracchiolo legal representatives prior to the next Maricopa 
County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. We look forward to addressing the 
WTF Phase 3 rezoning request at the August 4th Planning and Zoning Commission 
Meeting. 
 
 
Dean Schwab 
18213 W El Caminito Drive 
Waddell, AZ 85355 
(720) 372-6072

Hello Martin, 
 
You know I and many White Tank Foothills homeowners have been opposed to this 
rezoning request from the start over a year ago. Initially it was due to the disruption of 
the transition of density from the planned 175-foot wide (1-acre) lots adjacent to 
Northern Avenue to the 80 & 75-foot wide R1-8 and 65-foot wide R1-7 lots approaching 
Seldon Lane to the North. Phase 3 of the WTF Master Planned Community is the last 
Phase to be built and it should be built consistent with the lot sizes in Parcels 9 and 10 
immediately to the North of Phase 3 as was told to many homeowners and partially 
responsible for their decision to purchase a home in White Tank Foothills. 
 
White Tank Foothills is unique with mid-size lots offering room for ramadas, pergolas, 
pools, and other amenities. We are not a high-density community like various 
developments in the city of Surprise, Avondale, and El Mirage like Marley Park or 
Verrado with community club style amenities. 
 
There are thousands of small lot homes for sale and rentals being planned and built 
across the areas surrounding White Tank Foothills and there is no reason except for 
greed to not complete Phase 3 as recently approved in 2013 and as far back as 2003. 
We have tried to work with Brennan Ray and Ed Bull to reduce the number of lots to the 
already approved number and have even offered to discuss offering more lots to them, 
if they come to an agreement to lower the number of lots with compromise 
discussions. They refuse to participate. 
 
I believe Brennan and Ed have always known their bottom number is 645 as opposed to 
the 773 number of lots in their initial proposal verses the approved 390 plus 10% per 
our CC&Rs. They are highly successful using a ruse as you may be aware of known as 
"Channeling" where they put out a proposal for a high number of lots on a plot of land 
expecting opposition then reduce the number to what they really planned in the first 
place.  Brennan has done this with Phase 3 and also with the small lot development 
Zanjero Pass at the corner of Olive and Citrus and I'm sure with others. In both cases 
he reduced the number of lots by 16 to 18 percent. He is very good at his job by using 
this disingenuous technique. 
 
Attached is a copy of the Challenge Letter we delivered timely describing what we and 
our attorney believe to be the illegality of the CC&R amendment put forth to allow the 
developer to plan for more than what is allowed under Article 2.4 of our CC&Rs. There 
is legal precedent for our challenge based on the recent Arizona State Supreme Court 
decision in Kalway vs Calabria Ranch HOA and other cases cited. Also, I believe you 
are aware in Arizona, CC&Rs are considered a contract and cannot be unilaterally 
changed without notice to the respective parties. This amendment by the developer was 
completed secretly and intentionally without notice to homeowners who could object 
and challenge it. So far, they have not responded to our Challenge Letter. 
 
We purposely did not organize an opposition campaign to the Planning department for 
your August 4th meeting because we know Planning and Zoning rarely if ever deny a

developer's rezoning request. No need to get homeowners hopes of success up for 
something we believe will be a rubber stamp as happened last year The homeowners in 
WTF will make their objections known for the Board of Supervisors meeting on 
September 28th. 
 
Please read the Challenge Letter attached and previously submitted to Planning and 
Zoning to understand by your approval of the rezoning request, you are approving and 
participating in the developer's illegal activity and ultimately wasting your departments 
time and energy. We are asking you to deny this request at least until the 
conclusion of the legal proceedings related to our challenge. It is the honest and 
moral thing to do for your constituents in White Tank Foothills.  
 
 
Please make sure this email gets distributed to all of the Planning and Development 
board members. 
Thank you. 
 
Respectfully, 
Frank Scaglione

James Ehinger 
T (602) 440-4837 
F (602) 257-6937 
Email:jehinger@clarkhill.com 
 
Clark Hill 
3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 1600 
Phoenix, AZ 85012 
T (602) 440-4800  
F (602) 257-9582 
 
 
 
ClarkHill\L2765\445887\267968668.v1-7/22/22 
July 22, 2022  
 
 
VIA HAND-DELIVERY 
Brad Clough, President  
 
 
White Tank Foothills Community Assn. 
1600 W. Broadway Rd., Ste. 200 
Tempe, AZ 85282 
 
VIA HAND-DELIVERY 
Amanda Shaw, Statutory Agent 
White Tank Foothills Community Assn. 
1600 W. Broadway Rd., Ste. 200 
Tempe, AZ 85282 
 
VIA HAND-DELIVERY 
Brad Clough, President 
Hinton Financial Services, Inc. 
General Partner of Northern Citrus, LLP 
1850 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1400 
Phoenix, AZ 85004 
 
 
Re: Notice of Challenge to the Validity of the Second Amendment to 
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for White Tank 
Foothills, dated August 13, 2021; and Notice of Claim. 
Dear Sirs: 
Clark Hill represents a group of homeowners in the White Tank Foothills 
Development who are members of the White Tank Foothills Community Association. This 
letter is written on their behalf and constitutes their written challenge to the validity of the 
Second Amendment to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for the 
White Tank Foothills, recorded August 13, 2021, on the grounds set forth hereinbelow. 
It is not clear from the terms of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and 
Restrictions for White Tank Foothills, recorded May 24, 2006 (the “CCR’s”), whether this 
challenge also constitutes a “Claim” within the meaning of CCR Sect. 9.1(c).  To the extent 
that the issues raised by this challenge may be deemed to constitute a Claim, this letter 
also constitutes the homeowners’ Notice of Claim pursuant to CCR Sect. 9.4, and their 
initiation of the dispute resolution procedures provided for under the CCR’s. 
VIA HAND-DELIVERY 
Richmond American Homes of Arizona, Inc. 
c/o CT Corporation System 
3800 N. Central Ave., Ste. 460 
Phoenix, AZ 85012 
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS  
Brad Clough, President 
Hinton Financial Services, Inc. 
General Partner of Northern Citrus, LLP 
10218 – 111th Street 
Edmonton, AB T5K 1K9 
Alberta, Canada

White Tank Foothills Community Assn. 
Northern Citrus, LLP 
Richmond American Homes of AZ, Inc. 
July 22, 2021 
 
Page 2 
 
 
ClarkHill\L2765\445887\267968668.v1-7/22/22 
This Challenge and Notice of Claim is being delivered to you as the signatories to the 
Second Amendment to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for the 
White Tank Foothills recorded on August 13, 2021 (the “2nd CCR Amendment”) at your last 
known addresses.  If any of you are represented by counsel in connection with this matter, 
please forward this letter to your attorney(s).  If you have transferred your interest in the 
White Tank Foothills Development or the CCR’s to another person or entity since the 
recordation of the 2nd CCR Amendment, please forward this letter to the current holder(s) of 
those interests. 
NOTICE OF CLAIM 
A. Nature of the Claim 
The 2nd CCR Amendment purports to delete Sect. 2.4 of the CCR’s in its entirety.  As 
you know, Sect. 2.4 imposes a density “cap” on development within the White Tank 
Foothills Development such that the total number of units in the development can never be 
increased by more than 10%.   
The density cap of Sect. 2.4 was a material, express promise made by your 
predecessor in interest, Citrus & Northern, LLC, upon which the homeowners who purchased 
lots in the White Tank Foothills Development prior to August 13, 2021, had relied in making 
those investment decisions, and the density cap constituted a fundamental feature of the 
development that could not be unilaterally changed, even by majority vote.  Therefore, the 
2nd CCR Amendment is void, and the density provisions of Sect. 2.4 are still in full force and 
effect. 
B. Factual & Legal Basis of the Claim 
As you know, development of the White Tank Foothills project began in 2002 when 
the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors approved your predecessor’s request for a 
Development Master Plan to develop approximately 640 acres at the southwest corner of 
Citrus Avenue and Olive Avenue into low-density residential housing.  The site was planned 
to be developed in three phases.  One of the conditions to that approval was that “[t]he 
total number of dwelling units for the White Tanks Foothills Development Master Plan shall 
not exceed 1,286.”  
On May 24, 2006, your predecessors recorded the CCR’s, which confirmed the low-
density nature of the development via the provisions of Sect. 2.4, which states: 
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Declaration to the 
contrary, the Declarant, with the approval of the County but 
without obtaining the consent of any other Owner or Person, 
shall have the right to make changes or modifications to the 
development plan with respect to any property owned by the 
Declarant in any way which the Declarant desires including, but 
not limited to, changing the density of all or any portion of the 
property owned by such Declarant or changing the nature or 
extent of the uses to which the property may be devoted;

White Tank Foothills Community Assn. 
Northern Citrus, LLP 
Richmond American Homes of AZ, Inc. 
July 22, 2021 
 
Page 3 
 
 
ClarkHill\L2765\445887\267968668.v1-7/22/22 
provided, however, that the change or modification shall 
not increase or decrease the number of lots permitted 
under the existing Development Plan by more than ten 
percent (10%).  (Emphasis added.) 
In 2014, developer’s predecessor requested an amendment to its Development 
Master Plan to add an additional 95 dwelling units to the project.  That request was 
approved, with the condition that the total number of dwelling units in the development 
would not exceed 1,381.  As CCR Sect. 2.4 was not amended or revised at that time, those 
additional 95 units counted as part of the additional 10% permitted under Sect.2.4. 
Over the past decade and a half, Phases 1 and 2 of the White Tank Foothills 
Development have been fully built out, and those residential units sold to more than 900 
private individuals.  Those purchases were made subject to, and in reliance upon, the 
original CCR’s, including Sect. 2.4 of that document.   
Homes in Phases 1 and 2 of the White Tank Foothills Development were sold with the 
promise and understanding that the low-density character of the development would not 
and could not be changed by the build-out of later phases.  The low-density nature of the 
project was assured by Article 2.4 of the CCR’s. 
CCR Sect. 11.3 provides that the Declaration may be amended at any time by the 
affirmative vote or written consent of Owners holding not less than two-thirds (2/3) of the 
Eligible Votes in the Association.  However, it is a well-established rule of Arizona law that, 
even when the majority of owners technically have the power to amend a Declaration, the 
common law prohibits them from exercising that power to make fundamental changes in the 
CCR’s, unless the language of the CCR’s themselves gave fair notice that the particular 
amendment might occur.  Kalway v. Calabria Ranch HOA, LLC, 252 Ariz. 532, 506 P.3d 18 
(2022), which states: 
[The power to amend CCR’s] does not displace the common 
law, which prohibits some amendments even if passed by a 
majority vote.  The original declaration must give sufficient 
notice of the possibility of a future amendment; that is 
amendments must be reasonable and foreseeable. 
A general CCR provision giving the majority the power to amend the Declaration 
from time to time is not sufficient to empower the majority to enact amendments not 
reasonably foreshadowed by the language of the original CCR’s.  As stated by the Court, 
“even a broad grant of authority to amend an original declaration is insufficient to allow the 
majority of property owners to adopt and enforce restrictions on the minority without 
notice.”  Otherwise, owners who had already purchased lots in reliance upon the existing 
CCR’s would be deprived of the benefits of their reasonable expectations at the time of 
purchase.  As also noted by the Court: 
The notice requirement relies on a homeowner’s reasonable 
expectations based on the declaration in effect at the time of 
purchase – in this case, the original declaration.  Under general

White Tank Foothills Community Assn. 
Northern Citrus, LLP 
Richmond American Homes of AZ, Inc. 
July 22, 2021 
 
Page 4 
 
 
ClarkHill\L2765\445887\267968668.v1-7/22/22 
contract law principles, a majority could impose any new 
restriction on the minority because the original declaration 
provided for amendments by a majority vote.  But allowing 
substantial, unforeseen, and unlimited amendments would alter 
the nature of the covenants to which the homeowners originally 
agreed. (252 Ariz., at 538, ¶15.)   
In order for an amendment to be valid and enforceable, the original covenant itself 
“must give notice that … the covenant can be amended to reframe it, correct an error, fill in 
a gap, or change it any particular way.  (Citations omitted.)  But future amendments cannot 
be ‘entirely new and different in character,’ untethered to an original covenant.  (Citations 
omitted.)  Otherwise, such an amendment would infringe on property owners’ expectations 
of the scope of the covenants.” (252 Ariz., at 539, ¶17.) 
Your purported alteration of the CCR’s via the 2nd CCR Amendment is even more 
egregious than the situation addressed by the Supreme Court in Kalway v. Calabria Ranch, 
in which the majority owners sought to add new restrictions on issues as to which the 
original CCR’s had been silent.  By contrast, CCR Sect. 2.4 didn’t simply fail to give notice 
that it might someday be eliminated so as to allow building to any desired density; Sect. 2.4 
expressly promised purchasers that density in the development would never be increased 
by more than 10%.  The developer’s attempt to surreptitiously relieve itself of that 
obligation is unlawful and void. 
Arizona law in this regard reflects the general rule that the developer of a common-
interest community cannot change the game for its own enrichment after homeowners have 
invested in a development.  As stated in § 6.21 of the Restatement (3rd) of Property 
(Servitudes): 
A developer may not exercise a power to amend or modify the 
declaration in a way that would materially change the character 
of the development or the burdens on the existing community 
members unless the declaration fairly apprises purchasers that 
the power could be used for the kind of change proposed.  
The CCR’s constitute a contract between the developer and each of the individual 
homeowners.  Dreamland Villa Community Club v. Raimey, 224 Ariz. 42, 47, ¶ 19, 226 P.3d 
411, 416 (App. 2010).  As with all contracts, the CCR’s impose a duty of good faith and fair 
dealing that prohibits the parties from taking actions that would deprive the other of the 
expected benefits of the transaction, even if those actions may not directly violate the terms 
of the agreement.  Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters and Cement Masons Local 
No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, 201 Ariz. 474, 490, ¶59, 38 P.3d 12, 28 (2002). 
The directors of a homeowners’ association also have duties of loyalty and fairness 
that obligate them to operate the association in the best interests of the entire community 
and to refrain from taking actions for their own benefit at the expense of the community as 
a whole.  A.R.S. § 10-3830(A); Restatement (3rd) of Property (Servitudes), § 6.14.  That 
duty is particularly fraught here, as White Tank Foothills is still under Declarant Control, and 
the Declarant’s successor appointed the directors of the HOA, who are all members or

White Tank Foothills Community Assn. 
Northern Citrus, LLP 
Richmond American Homes of AZ, Inc. 
July 22, 2021 
 
Page 5 
 
 
ClarkHill\L2765\445887\267968668.v1-7/22/22 
employees of the Declarant.  As a result, the homeowners have been deprived of what 
should be a crucial safeguard of their rights and interests, and every action of the HOA’s 
directors is tainted with conflicts of interest that create the presumption that they have 
violated those duties of loyalty and fairness. 
Those breaches are epitomized by the manner in which the 2nd CCR Amendment was 
adopted.  Not only did the 2nd CCR Amendment purport to unlawfully deprive the 
homeowners of the benefits of Sect. 2.4’s density cap, the amendment was adopted and 
recorded in secret, using the special voting powers given the Declarant by CCR Sect.’s 5.6 
and 5.7, and without any notice to the homeowners that this fundamental change was being 
made.  Moreover, this was apparently done to take advantage of the one-year limitation on 
challenges imposed by CCR Sect. 11.3, so that the homeowners’ rights might be lost before 
they even learned of the deprivation. 
The purported deletion of CCR Sect. 2.4 materially changed the low-density 
character of White Tank Foothills and burdens the existing community members with 
decreased property values, loss of views, and increased traffic and congestion.  The 
developer’s attempt to unilaterally relieve itself of these density restrictions for its own 
financial benefit not only constitute a breach of contract, but also violations of the 
developer’s and the HOA’s duties of loyalty and fairness to the homeowners. 
In addition, CCR Sect. 11.3 also provides that “notwithstanding any other provision 
of this Declaration to the contrary, this Declaration may not be amended to conflict with the 
conditions of approval of the Plat by the County … unless the Plat is abandoned.” 
One of the conditions imposed upon approval of the Development’s current Plat is 
that the number of units not exceed 1,381.  The attempt to rewrite the CCR’s to allow 
building beyond that density is clearly contrary to the conditions of Plat approval and 
constitutes an additional and alternative basis upon which the 2nd CCR Amendment is void 
and of no effect. 
The homeowners also believe that the 2nd CCR Amendment may not have been 
approved by the requisite two-third majority of Eligible Votes and may be invalid for this 
reason as well.  However, the homeowners do not yet have sufficient information regarding 
the ownership of parcels in the Development as of August 13, 2021, to make that 
determination, and reserve the right to assert this alternative ground of invalidity once such 
information becomes available to them. 
C. Resolution of the Claim 
This Claim can only be resolved by the clear and unequivocal annulment of the 2nd 
CCR Amendment and the equally clear and unequivocal recognition and affirmation that CCR 
Sect. 2.4 is still in full force and effect and governs the current and future development of 
the White Tank Foothills Development. 
We believe that this resolution can best be accomplished in three steps:

White Tank Foothills Community Assn. 
Northern Citrus, LLP 
Richmond American Homes of AZ, Inc. 
July 22, 2021 
 
Page 6 
 
 
ClarkHill\L2765\445887\267968668.v1-7/22/22 
First, the White Tank Foothills Community Association should immediately pass and 
record a Resolution declaring the 2nd CCR Amendment to be null and void; and affirming 
that CCR Sect. 2.4 is still in full force and effect and governs the current and future 
development of the White Tank Foothills Development.   
Second, as soon as possible, a Third and Clarifying Amendment to the CCR’s should 
be voted upon and recorded, with the Declarant’s affirmative support and approval, to the 
same effect.   
Third, this necessarily means that the maximum number of lots/home sites that can 
be built in White Tank Foothills Phase 3 is limited to a total of 424, consisting of the 390 
allowed under the Plat plus the remaining 34 permitted by the 10% provision of CCR Sect. 
2.4; and the developer must publicly acknowledge this limitation and withdraw the requests 
to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Planning & Zoning 
Commission for an amended Development Master Plan and/or zoning reclassifications that 
would permit any greater density, including, but not limited to Cases #DMP2021001 and 
#Z2021050. 
The homeowners are open to other potential methods of resolution of this Claim that 
would achieve the same goal of clearly and unequivocally annulling the 2nd CCR Amendment 
and reinstating CCR Sect. 2.4. 
Sincerely, 
CLARK HILL 
 
 
James Ehinger 
JE:rmm 
 
CC: 
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors 
 
Clint L. Hickman, Supervisor, District 4

Planning and Development Department  
 
 
 
 
 
DATE: 
August 4, 2022  
 
TO: 
Planning & Zoning Commission  
 
FROM: 
Martin Martell, Planner  
 
SUBJECT: 
DMP2021001 & Z2021050 – White Tank Foothills Phase 3  
 
PZ Handout #2 
 
 
 
 
Since the publishing of the staff report and handout for the above cases, staff received 
a letter of opposition to the cases from an area resident. The resident is opposed to the 
number of homes that will be built in this development and how this will impact area 
traffic.  The letter has been attached to this handout.  Additionally, since the publishing 
of the staff report and handout for the above cases, staff received one letter of support 
for the cases by an area resident.  The homeowner is pleased with the modification to 
the proposal based on community input.  The letter has been attached to this handout. 
 
 
 
Attachments: 
 
8/3/22 Opposition Letter (2 pages) 
 
 
 
8/3/22 Support Letter (1 page)

Dear Mr. Martell, 
Let me introduce myself.  I am a homeowner and resident of the White Tank 
Foothills Master Planned Community. Our home was built in 2009 as a part 
of parcel 9 in phase one. I have been opposed to this rezoning from the start 
(over one year ago) primarily due to the intention to increase the number of 
lots and therefor population density. I am writing today to express my 
concerns and voice opposition once again to the most recent rezoning 
request for phase 3 of White Tank Foothills. 
 I.        White Tank Foothills is unique with mid-size lots offering room for 
ramadas, pergolas, pools, and other amenities. We are not a high-density 
community like Marley Park or Verrado with community club style amenities. 
Phase 3 of the WTF Master Planned Community is the last Phase to be built 
and should be structurally and visually consistent with the lot sizes in Parcels 
9 and 10. This consistency was not only verbally stated to us when we 
purchased our home, it was also documented in our CC&R’s. 
  II.        The proposed increase in homes would create massive traffic 
congestion that existing roads are not currently designed to accommodate. 
The requested rezone plans have not adequately addressed these issues.  A 
reduction in lots to the designated increase of 10% will address this concern. 
III.        I and other homeowners have participated in a number of meetings 
with Brennan Ray and Ed Bull in an attempt to arrive at a plan to reduce the 
number of lots to the already approved number - 390 plus 10% per our 
CC&Rs. We have offered to discuss a higher number of lots as a middle 
ground compromise, but they refused to participate.  In the course of these 
meetings Brennen stated that the CC&R’s had been changed.  The article 
setting forth a restriction to the total increase in the number of lots was 
removed and no longer prevented them from going over the original 
10%.  We were shocked. As a homeowner, I was never notified of any 
proposed or finalized changes. In fact, we have discovered that there was 
never any communication with homeowners about this change.  I believe 
you have received a copy of our challenge letter giving full details regarding 
this purposeful and illegal manipulation and our planned response. 
 IV.        Brennen’s most recent tactic has been to offer promises to a handful of 
homeowners with homes along the buffer zone. They were given assurances 
that their view would not be impaired if they agreed to his latest plan.  This 
promise was accompanied with a threat that if they did not support his plan, 
they could lose the current developer and a new developer likely would not 
save their view.  This has caused a rift among some homeowners and

garnered a handful of support for his desired increases.  However, it does 
nothing to alleviate the traffic congestion or maintenance of community 
consistency.  Brennen has already stated that he plans to add higher 
elevation homes along this buffer zone. 
Needless to say, many of us do not have confidence in Brennen’s plans, 
promises or intentions. His underhanded tactics are unprofessional and not 
deserving of support from Planning and Zoning or the homeowners of White 
Tank Foothills. Although Planning and Zoning rarely if ever deny a 
developer's rezoning request, I am asking you to deny this rezoning request 
at your August 4th Planning & Zoning meeting at least until the conclusion of 
the legal proceedings related to our challenge.   
 
 
With sincere appreciation. 
 
 
Respectfully, 
 
 
Nancy Rosenberg 
 
 
Nancy R. Rosenberg, M.Ed. 
18020 W. El Caminito Dr 
Waddell, AZ  85355

Maricopa County Planning and Development Department, 
 
 
My wife Brandy and I would like to express our support for the Rezone project in our community 
in White Tank Foothills as we live within the 300-foot area from the new development in Phase 
3.  We have been very involved in this process and have volunteered some of our time helping to 
represent homeowners in our community. We have attended several meetings with the developer’s 
attorney, and the Board of Supervisor’s Chief of Staff and were able to see firsthand all the 
concessions that have been made by the developer to accommodate almost all the concerns that 
homeowners had. From our perspective the developers have done exactly what was asked of them 
by the Board of Supervisors, to work with the community and resolve the issues fairly over the 
last year. We know that our support may not equal the amount of opposition emails you are 
receiving from the community however the bottom line is that while we love the quiet of our 
community, we always knew homes were slated to be built behind our property since we moved 
here approximately 10 years ago. The fact that these developers have given so many assurances to 
the community and took the time to work with the community making decisions based on what 
the neighbors are requesting is a positive thing. On your end there certainly is no way to make our 
neighborhood and all the surrounding communities happy as we all have different concerns, but 
the current proposed plan is one the developers took into great consideration of all affected areas. 
We support the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of Supervisors approving this 
plan as it was presented to us by the Developer's Attorney at the most recent meeting. 
  
Sincerely, 
  
Dennis and Brandy Ogorchock 
18165 W. Las Palmaritas Dr. 
Waddell, AZ. 85355 
602-290-2650

Hello, 
  
We are writing you today as we want to make sure that out thoughts are heard.   
  
Based on what we have learned,  we are writing in support of the WTF Phase 3 plan that was discussed 
on 5/4/22 and at the community meeting on July 27th. 
  
We would like to see an additional row/expansion of single level homes beyond the ones agreed upon, 
however, we are in support of the plan presented. We hope that our concern for our investment in our 
home with a view lot would be acknowledged and considered in our request for an additional row of 
single story homes to protect our investment, especially due to the increased number of homes.  
 In the presentation additional egress routes were identified. We believe this will address the traffic 
concerns.  
  
We want to want to express our gratitude for the hard work by all  to create a plan that addresses our 
greatest concerns.  While we realize that we will not get 100% of what we would have liked, i.e.less 
homes, walking path, etc.. We feel comfortable knowing that both sides worked together to bring about 
the best solution for all involved, and for that, we thank you for your time and effort. 
  
Respectfully, 
  
Kathy & Steven Harker 
18181 W Las Palmaritas Dr 
Waddell, AZ  85355

RECEIVED 16.MAY.22

EXISTING SEWER
EASEMENT TO REMAIN
97'
5283'
1655'
PHASE 1
PHASE 2
PHASE 1
PHASE 2
PHASE 1
PHASE 2
PHASE 1
PHASE 2
30' TRAIL CORRIDOR
65' DRAINAGE CORRIDOR
90'
75'
95'
1049'
1
WHITE TANK FOOTHILLS
Zoning Exhibit
N.
WHITE
TANK
MOUNTAIN
BLVD
ABLASTUDIO.COM
N
Date:
Plan Scale
200'
400'
600'
200'
1:
08-24-2022
75'x75' HIGH
AND DRY AREA
FOR AMENITY
75'x75' HIGH
AND DRY AREA
FOR AMENITY
75'x75' HIGH
AND DRY AREA
FOR AMENITY
75'x75' HIGH
AND DRY AREA
FOR AMENITY
EXISTING MAPPED SEWER
STUB TO REMAIN
EXISTING MAPPED
SEWER STUB
EXISTING
MAPPED
SEWER STUB
PROPOSED
STORM DRAIN
PROPOSED
STORM DRAIN
 EXISTING
MAPPED CURB
RETURN TO BE
REMOVED
 EXISTING MAPPED CURB
RETURN TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING MAPPED CURB
RETURN TO REMAIN
EXISTING MAPPED
SEWER STUB TO
REMAIN
 EXISTING MAPPED CURB
RETURN TO BE REMOVED
2
3
1
NORTHERN
AVENUE
CITRUS ROAD
FUTURE PERRYVILLE ROAD ALIGNMENT
A
B
EASEMENT
SHALL BE
MODIFIED
LIFT
STATION
OWNER:
CITY OF
SURPRISE
WELL SITE
OWNER: EPCOR WATER ARIZONA
HOA COMMON AREA
OWNER: WHITE TANK FOOTHILLS
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
PHASE 3 BOUNDARY
REZONE BOUNDARY
OFFSITE NEIGHBORHOOD
PARK
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT
SITE
W GLENDALE AVENUE
W NORTHERN AVENUE
W OLIVE AVENUE
W PEORIA AVENUE
N CITRUS RD
N COTTON LN
AZ STATE ROUTE 303
N PERRYVILLE ROAD
CIVIL ENGINEER
CONSULTANT TEAM:
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
ANDY BARON
310 E. RIO SALADO PARKWAY
TEMPE, AZ 85281
480-530-0077
andy.baron@ablastudio.com
ABLA, LLC
JOEL SAUREY
1130 N ALMA SCHOOL ROAD, SUITE 120
MESA, AZ 85201
480-503-2250
joel.saurey@epsgroupinc.com
EPS GROUP
CLIENT/OWNER DEVELOPER:
NORTHERN CITRUS, LLP
PHIL DEANGELIS
8901 E PIMA CENTER PARKWAY, SUITE 225
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85258
pdangelis@craltd.com
CLIENT/OWNER
LEGAL
ED BULL
1850 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1700
PHOENIX, AZ 85004
602-274-7611
ebull@bcattorneys.com
BURCH AND CRACCHIOLO
SITE:
SCHOOL DISTRICT
DYSART UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A PORTION OF SECTION 34. TOWNSHIP
3 NORTH, RANGE 2 WEST OF THE GILA
AND SALT RIVER
REQUEST STATEMENT
AMENDMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT
MASTER PLAN AND ZONE CHANGE TO
ACCOMMODATE A NEW RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION
CASE NUMBER
Z2021050
DATE
05-10-2022
N
Plan Scale
200'
400'
600'
200'
1:
#
SEE EXHIBIT
NORTHERN AVENUE
CROSS SECTIONS
FOR REFERENCE
LEGEND
DESCRIPTION
SYMBOL
PHASE 3 BOUNDARY
REZONE BOUNDARY
PHASE LINE
SUBDIVISION:
WHITE TANK FOOTHILLS
PARCEL 10
SUBDIVISION:
CRYSTAL SPRING
ESTATES UNIT ONE
SUBDIVISION:
WHITE TANK FOOTHILLS
PARCEL 9
SUBDIVISION:
WHITE TANK FOOTHILLS
PARCEL 9
SUBDIVISION:
WHITE TANK FOOTHILLS
INFRASTRUCTURE
SUBDIVISION:
WHITE TANK FOOTHILLS
INFRASTRUCTURE
SUBDIVISION:
ROMOLA OF ARIZONA GRAPE FRUIT
UNIT NO. 42 RESUBDIVISION BLOCKS
4588 THRU 4603 4620 THRU 4635
SUBDIVISION:
ROMOLA OF ARIZONA GRAPE FRUIT
UNIT NO. 42 RESUBDIVISION BLOCKS
4588 THRU 4603 4620 THRU 4635
SUBDIVISION:
WHITE TANK FOOTHILLS
PARCEL 16
SUBDIVISION:
WHITE TANK FOOTHILLS
PARCEL 17
HARMONT DRIVE
PARCEL 3.17
PARCEL 3.19
PARCEL 3.11
PARCEL 3.12
PARCEL 3.14
PARCEL 3.13
PARCEL 3.15
PARCEL 3.16
PARCEL 3.18
4
SINGLE STORY
RESTRICTED LOTS
90' X 115' LOTS
PARCEL BOUNDARY
90' X 120' LOTS
90' X 150' LOTS
RIGHT-IN/ RIGHT-OUT ONLY