Pinetop-Lakeside Defers 18.5-Acre RV Park Rezoning to Review Density Alternatives
PINETOP-LAKESIDE, ARIZONA — October 11, 2024

Pinetop-Lakeside Defers 18.5-Acre RV Park Rezoning to Review Density Alternatives

Planning commission tabled contentious RV park rezoning after two community referendum defeats, citing need for work session to review alternatives, while approving federally-mandated cell tower extension and acknowledging traffic conflicts with concurrent Lake Point development.

Pinetop-Lakeside Commission Tabled RV Park Rezoning After Two Community Referendum Defeats; Federal Law Forces Cell Tower Approval

The Pinetop-Lakeside Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 on October 11, 2024, to table a contentious application to amend the general plan and rezone 18.5 acres for an RV park, deferring the matter to a public work session on November 14 rather than approving or rejecting outright. The commission approved a separate conditional-use permit for a federally-mandated cell-tower extension under an "eligible facilities request" that left local planners no discretionary authority to deny, illustrating the limits of municipal control over wireless infrastructure. The RV park tabling underscored deep community opposition—the proposal has been defeated in community referendums in 2019 and 2023—and unresolved tensions over easement access, fire safety, and traffic impacts coinciding with a second major development across the street.

Key Speeches

"I think it would be wise if we pump the brakes a second and had a bit of a work session on this. I think there's more to discuss and more to consider. Not just from a node perspective, but it's a big decision. And you know, we want as a town not to be known as a town that shuts everything down. But I think we can offer options if we just slow down for a second." — Commissioner Turner

"We need to be proactive or reactive, and this project falls within the general plan, and property owners have property rights. And of all those that are in opposition, the answer should always be: you want it? Stop, buy it." — Lance Hoffman, applicant representative

"I look at what's potentially happening across the street with the Lake Point Development. It's a vital concern for businesses. We want businesses, we want density, we want all that. But I think it's important for us to think about the entire picture versus A, B, C. Let's think about the whole thing, because these two things being right across the street from each other—if Lake Point comes to fruition and it sounds like that's all been approved and it's moving forward—I think we need to be considerate of what that will do to that intersection." — Mike Moffat, Chamber of Commerce President

"You are representing the citizens of Pinetop-Lakeside. It's been pointed out—it's been voted down twice. I feel sorry for Mr. De Meer. Unfortunately, the majority of people don't want it. So why are you even considering changing the zoning so that you can make it an RV park? It just bewilders a lot of us." — Chuck Robertson, Valerie Lane resident since 1985

"Congress recognized the benefits to our entire nation of a quickly expanding wireless, high-speed broadband service, and the best way to do that is to use existing infrastructure. And so they wanted to create a fast path. They said if it's an existing cell site and if the application is an eligible facility's request, it has to be four things: no greater than 10 percent or 20 feet taller than the existing tower; no more than four additional cabinets; no new excavation outside the existing compound; and it cannot defeat any concealment elements." — Scott September, Tower Co Regional Real Estate Manager

Timeline

Item D1 (Land Use Amendment - Forest to High Density)

Item D2 (Zoning Change - Arlo to RVP)

Item D3 (Conditional Use Permit 134 - Cell Tower Extension)

Opposition

Number of speakers against D1/D2: 6 primary speakers strongly opposed; 1 (Ralph Angler, Lions Club) offered conditional support noting prior concerns have been addressed.

Main concerns:

  1. Community referendum mandate (×2): The proposal was defeated by voter referendum in 2019 and 2023. Multiple residents emphasized that the town has spoken twice and asked why the commission would override the will of the people.

  2. Fire and emergency evacuation safety: Unnamed resident testified: "If there's a fire, how are we going to get out? I'm going to have to get on my horse because we're going to be following 140 RVs out."

  3. Easement access scope and disclosure: Dave Hendrick claimed Joy Furniture owner Tammy was told the easement would be emergency-only with gates, "maybe a few cabins," but applicant's maps show a major ingress/egress road. He stated she did not consent to a full-access road and questioned why property owners were not informed of this change during land-purchase decisions.

  4. Traffic generation and intersection safety:

    • Mike Moffat noted Lake Point Development (130 units) across the street will compound traffic.
    • Studies cited suggest 3–4 vehicle trips per RV per day; 139 RVs = 400+ daily trips.
    • ADOT reportedly refused to permit a second traffic signal near the existing Lockwood signal.
    • One resident testified: "This is a traffic cluster. You might as well have the police department put a guy on full-time retainer and sit out and start writing tickets and taking care of the accidents."

  5. Town character and forest preservation: Chuck Robertson (longtime resident since 1985) and another newer resident (moved July 2024) both emphasized that Pinetop-Lakeside's attraction is its small-town, forested character. Overdevelopment and loss of "Forest" zoning would undermine the community's identity and appeal.

  6. Zoning logic and conformity: Robertson argued the referendum defeats were about the RV park concept, not routing details. He noted the property line extends below Valerie Lane and is already zoned R1 (low-density); placing high-density here creates a jarring contrast with quarter-acre-lot medium-density to the south.

  7. Speculative density: Commissioner Turner and others noted that "high-density" zoning does not guarantee this project proceeds; it simply permits the applicant or a future buyer to pursue any high-density use (apartments, MH, RV park, etc.). Voting high-density without understanding what will actually be built is a blank check.

Most compelling arguments:

Organized groups:

Support

Number of speakers in favor: 1 primary speaker (Lance Hoffman, applicant attorney).

Main arguments:

  1. Property rights and code conformity: Hoffman stated the proposal falls within the general plan, meets code requirements, and applicant has property rights. The answer to opposition should be: if you don't want development, buy the land.

  2. General plan alignment: The proposed use is consistent with the general plan's economic and tourism provisions. RV parks generate seasonal visitation and tax revenue.

  3. Process separation: Hoffman and staff emphasized that land-use (D1) and zoning (D2) are separate steps; site-plan review will address easements, drainage, and access details. Voting on density now does not commit the project to fruition.

  4. Lions Club conditional support: Ralph Angler noted the Lions Club's prior concerns about proximity to camp TTI have been "pretty much passed" due to a recorded land-swap agreement locking in TTI's protection for 5 and 10 years at specified prices.

Project Details

Vote Breakdown

D1 Motion to Table (Motion carried 6-0):

D2 Motion to Move to November 14 (Motion carried 6-0):

D3 Conditional Use Permit 134 – Cell Tower Extension (Motion carried 6-0):

Minutes Approval (September 26, 2024 meeting, 6-0):

Note: Individual votes by commissioner name not stated in transcript.

Outcome & Next Steps

D1 and D2 Tabled for Work Session:

Commissioner Turner's motion to table D1 for further review was approved unanimously. The commission scheduled a public work session for November 14, 2024 (the first regular meeting in November) prior to the formal hearing. Turner explicitly requested that staff and the applicant provide the commission with alternatives on density designation—e.g., should it be low-density (e.g., R1), medium-density (e.g., R14, quarter-acre lots), or high-density?—so commissioners can weigh options rather than vote up-or-down on high-density alone.

D2 (Zoning Change) Contingent:

D2 was moved to the same November 14 meeting in tandem with D1. If D1 is voted down (density set lower than high-density), D2 becomes moot. If D1 is approved, the commission will consider D2 at the same meeting, giving GKR a final zoning decision without delay.

Public Participation:

All Planning and Zoning Commission meetings and work sessions are public and open to comment. The commission invited residents to submit constructive feedback on density alternatives (e.g., "Why should it be medium-density instead of high-density?") to guide the work session discussion.

Easement and Site-Plan Issues Deferred:

Jeremiah Lloyd and the commission clarified that easement scope, ingress/egress routing, and other site-design details are site-plan matters to be addressed in a later review stage, not land-use or zoning stages. Dave Hendrick expressed frustration that concerns are "deferred and deferred" until late stages, but the commission emphasized the need for a density decision first (without which site-plan engineering is premature and costly for the applicant).

D3 Cell Tower Approved:

CUP 134 was approved 6-0 contingent on Tower Co obtaining a building permit and complying with all structural and safety regulations. The 20-foot extension may proceed; Tower Co indicated expedited implementation but did not provide a specific timeline. Federal preemption ensures no further local discretionary review of this eligible facilities request.

Controversies & Context

1. Referendums as Democratic Check:

The RV park proposal has been defeated by community referendum twice—once in 2019 (BC2 applicant withdrew) and once in 2023 (community voted no after council approval). Multiple speakers argued that a third attempt to rezone and proceed violates the spirit of direct democracy. The commission acknowledged the referendums but clarified that the current application is a new land-use amendment (D1), distinct from prior zoning amendments, and that the commission's role is to advise the town council, which has its own discretion. Commissioner Turner's tabling was framed not as overriding the referendum but as giving the commission and applicant time to explore whether a lower density might satisfy some community concerns while still enabling some development.

2. Easement Access Scope Dispute:

A critical unresolved conflict emerged: Dave Hendrick claims Joy Furniture owner Tammy was told the easement would be "emergency access only with gates" and limited to "maybe a few cabins." However, applicant GKR states the easement was obtained from a third party (not him) and was always intended as ingress/egress for properties "behind it"—including both the RV park and other future developments. GKR further stated he has legal right to use the easement for two-way vehicle access and cites a recorded easement document. Jeremiah Lloyd acknowledged the discrepancy but deferred resolution to the site-plan stage.

This dispute is material because:

Ralph Angler, a Lions Club member and resident, attended partly to observe this easement dispute and indicated he had reviewed the recorded easement document (finding GKR's claim of rights legitimate, though noting a ~30-foot survey discrepancy). The commission declined to resolve the matter tonight, viewing it as a site-plan issue.

3. State Preemption (Cell Tower):

The cell tower item illustrates federal preemption of local land-use authority. Under FCC Section 649 (Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012), the commission has no discretion to deny an eligible facilities request for modification of an existing wireless tower, provided four statutory criteria are met. Jeremiah Lloyd noted the town attorney confirmed the preemption. Although the 20-foot extension violates local setback and height regulations (the tower is legal non-conforming), federal law mandates approval. The shot-clock (60 days) also prevents local variances from the Board of Adjustment. This constraint frustrated Commissioner Kenlake, who asked when the town can say no; the answer is: only at the site-plan or variance stage for the next modification request, which would no longer qualify as an eligible facilities request.

4. Concurrent Lake Point Development Traffic Impact:

A significant tension underscored the RV park discussion: Lake Point Development (130 townhomes/condos) on Scheur Lake Road across from the RV park site was already approved and is moving forward. Mike Moffat (Chamber President) and multiple residents flagged the cumulative traffic impact: 139 RVs (3–4 trips per day each) plus 130 residential units converging on the Lockwood/Maverick Lane intersection. ADOT reportedly refused to permit a second traffic signal close to the existing Lockwood signal. One commissioner noted a right-turn lane exists but is insufficient for safe left turns by large RVs. Jeremiah Lloyd stated he has asked both projects to coordinate to create a signalized intersection together, but this is advisory and no binding agreement was mentioned.

5. Forest and Town Character Preservation:

Multiple residents (Chuck Robertson, a new arrival in July 2024) expressed concern that the loss of "Forest" zoning and the RV park (or any high-density use) would erode Pinetop-Lakeside's small-town, forested identity. Robertson emphasized he would "never have bought" on Valerie Lane if he anticipated an RV park. This reflects a broader tension: the commission sees growth as inevitable and prefers to "plan proactively" rather than "react"; residents prefer preservation of low-density, forest character and question why the town's RVP zoning district (established in prior general plan) has never been applied and why the town needs an RV park now.

6. Zoning vs. Land Use Confusion:

The split of D1 (land-use amendment) and D2 (zoning change) proved confusing, even after Jeremiah Lloyd's repeated clarification. Some attendees and (initially) commissioners conflated the two, asking about the RV park (a zoning use) when the discussion should have been density only (a general-plan policy). The commission eventually clarified: D1 asks, "What densities could be permitted here?" (high-density permits RV parks, apartments, MH parks, etc.). D2 asks, "What zoning do we actually want here?" (RVP vs. R16 vs. R20, etc.). The separation allows the commission to vote down high-density altogether, making D2 moot.

7. Seasonal vs. Year-Round Use:

Applicant indicated the RV park would operate "September to November" (seasonal, not year-round), reducing permanent resident burden but still generating seasonal traffic spikes.

Duration

Other Notable Items

Minutes Approval (September 26, 2024): Approved 6-0 without discussion.

Federal Preemption and Local Control: The cell-tower approval exemplifies how federal telecommunications law overrides local zoning discretion, forcing the commission to approve a legally non-conforming use expansion despite local setback and height violations.