Cave Creek approves Hidden Canyon six-month extension in 4-2 vote, fast-tracks Vickers rezoning
CAVE CREEK, ARIZONA — October 4, 2022

Cave Creek approves Hidden Canyon six-month extension in 4-2 vote, fast-tracks Vickers rezoning

Cave Creek Council approved a six-month extension for Hidden Canyon subdivision development (4-2 split vote) and unanimously approved Vickers commercial rezoning, while tabling a proposed dog leash law amendment pending resident input.

Council Splits 4-2 on Hidden Canyon Extension as Community Petition Signals Preservation Pressure; Vickers Rezoning Glides Through Unopposed

On October 3, 2022, the Cave Creek Town Council approved a one-time six-month extension for the Hidden Canyon preliminary plat (case P2101) despite organized community opposition, but the 4-2 vote and impassioned debate revealed a council fractured on the fundamental question of whether property owners' development rights or neighborhood preservation preferences should drive zoning decisions. The council also unanimously approved a commercial-buffer rezoning for Vickers on its second reading and tabled a dog-leash ordinance amendment pending the concerned resident's return from abroad.

Key Speeches

"This applicant has shown that they're much more willing to work with the town and preserve as much as they can. The previous ownership groups were of the mind that they wish to develop every square inch of that site they could. This is a much better deal for the town." — Luke Cotsman, Town Manager

"There was a number of exceptions that were requested and with each one of them I saw an obvious rationale behind them. They were causing less disturbance, they were benefiting the town. There was a large amount of land that was capable of being developed that the applicant was essentially donating to the town as open space. So I saw this as a fabulous deal." — Steve Brackner, Planning Commission Member

"In America property owners have rights to their property. The commission and council have to balance those rights against their neighbors' concerns. At the end of the day the American Constitution protects property rights, and if I have a piece of property and it's zoned a certain way I have the right to develop it." — Council Member (legal analysis, role identified in discussion)

"I oppose this because it doesn't reflect what Cave Creek is. I've seen this development—the one on Schoolhouse Road is just awful. This is a beautiful piece of property and to develop it with housing and trails, it just doesn't make any sense." — George Bruenthies, 12-year resident, public commenter

Timeline

Applicant presentation & staff recommendation: Town Manager Luke Cotsman introduced the request, noting that the preliminary plat was approved November 1, 2021, and carries a one-year deadline to submit a final plat application or seek extension. The applicant cited market conditions (interest rates, supply-chain issues) and water-availability concerns as grounds for the extension. Cotsman confirmed that the applicant is working with utilities director Sean Christweisner and the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) to revise the certificate of assured water supply downward from 63 lots (the water-entitled amount) to match the 48 lots proposed in the preliminary plat. He also noted that 15 additional lots would be returned to the town's water bank as a result.

Planning Commission testimony: Steve Brackner, a Planning Commission member who recused himself from voting due to conflict of interest, provided detailed testimony on the commission's deliberation. He recalled extensive discussion and field-work by commissioners, noting that the application included multiple exceptions (flagged as E2101–E2105) each justified by environmental and design rationale. Brackner walked the land, reviewed all exceptions, and concluded that the proposal was "in concert with our general plan" and represented "a fabulous deal" for the town. He estimated the land's value at approximately $15 million and stated that if the extension were denied and the applicant did not proceed, the town risked "something far worse" coming forward under existing zoning entitlements. The Planning Commission vote was 5-1 in favor (one commissioner did not vote); only Commissioner Anderson voted no, calling it "close but not good enough."

Public comment: Four speakers submitted comments; two written submissions (Jim Hemis and Gary Rector) opposing the extension were read into the record. Gary Rector's written comment urged council to "vote against extending the deadline," citing too many General Plan and subdivision ordinance waivers, poor project conception, and invoking the Galloway Ridge precedent as a cautionary tale. George Bruenthies, a 12-year resident, spoke live against the project, citing aesthetic and character preservation concerns and endorsing the 155-person petition.

Steve Brackner also spoke in favor during public comment, reiterating the risk calculus and the threat of worse development if the extension were denied. He estimated the land's current value at approximately $15 million (higher than the $5–6.3 million estimate Cotsman had offered, anchored to the 48-lot development scenario).

Council discussion: Council Member Roy initiated the formal debate by asking whether granting a six-month extension was consistent with the subdivision ordinance—a question answered in the affirmative by Cotsman. Council Member McGuire then raised the core legal and policy tension: property owners have rights to develop property consistent with zoning, and the town's tools for preventing development (eminent domain, purchase, or zoning moratorium) all carry costs or legal hurdles. McGuire cited the 48-lot proposal as substantially less than the ~63 lots entitled by existing water certificate or the 100+ lots permitted by underlying zoning, and noted that the applicant was "voluntarily willing to limit the development to give you the benefits that Luke described."

Robert Morris echoed McGuire's point, asking the candidate Clayton Miller (in an earlier Planning Commission appointment segment) whether he could adjudicate between property rights and neighborhood opposition—a live issue in the Hidden Canyon debate. Robert Morris also reminded council that the property obtained its zoning prior to the town's 1986 incorporation, establishing a long-standing entitlement, and that the proposed 48-lot development with 27 acres of permanent open space and public trails represented a far more neighbor-friendly alternative than the sprawling, trail-less developments across the street (Skyline, Surrey, Carriage) that had been platted under the same county zoning rules prior to incorporation.

Council Member Silva raised an economic point: if the extension is denied and the developer cannot proceed within six months, the land reverts to pre-preliminary-plat status and the applicant must restart the entire subdivision process from scratch, potentially bringing forward a less favorable plan. Silva suggested that the risk of a worse outcome justified the extension.

Council Member Montequino stated he did not have enough information to vote in favor and voted no. Council Member Ray also voted no.

Vice Mayor Smith (acting mayor due to Mayor Bunch's absence) highlighted that 5,000 residents did not sign the petition against Hidden Canyon, as a counterweight to the 155-signature opposition, and noted that similar residential development already exists along Cave Creek Road climbing the mountainside. Smith opined that the project "fits into the Cave Creek" aesthetic and aligns with the General Plan's tolerance for interpretation.

Council Member McGuire urged residents to contact council members directly before meetings to discuss concerns, stating that such dialogue had improved his understanding of opposition viewpoints and had led to constructive discussions with concerned citizens who had reached out to him individually.

Vote: 4-2 in favor of the extension. Council Member Silva, Council Member McGuire, Council Member Roy, and Vice Mayor Smith voted yes. Council Member Montequino and Council Member Ray voted no. (Mayor Bunch and one additional council seat were absent.)

Opposition

Number of speakers against: Two written submissions (Jim Hemis, Gary Rector) and one live speaker (George Bruenthies).

Main concerns:

  1. The project is inconsistent with Cave Creek's rural, low-density character and resembles sprawl developments like Galloway Ridge.
  2. Loss of open space and preservation of ridgeline aesthetics should outweigh property owners' development rights.
  3. Too many exceptions and waivers were granted in the original preliminary plat approval (E2101–E2105 flagged as problematic).
  4. A 155-person petition demonstrates significant community opposition that should weigh heavily in council deliberation.
  5. The application process was flawed; some petitioners may have believed the property could not be developed at all and were surprised by the extension request.
  6. Comparison to Schoolhouse Road developments (unnamed but referenced as "awful") suggests this project will similarly damage the town's character.
  7. The town should "seize the opportunity to stop this ill-conceived plan" rather than enable further risk.

Most compelling arguments: Gary Rector's written comment citing the excessive number of waivers and poor conception, and George Bruenthies' aesthetic argument grounded in his 12-year residency.

Organized opposition: A 155-person petition circulated opposing the project; the petition was explicitly referenced in Planning Commission deliberations (Steve Brackner noted the unusual circumstance that public sentiment was opposed while he and other commissioners found the development beneficial).

Support

Number of speakers in favor: Steve Brackner (Planning Commission member, public comment); Town Manager Luke Cotsman and Planning Director (staff presentations); Council Members Silva, McGuire, Robert Morris, and Vice Mayor Smith (council testimony).

Main arguments:

  1. The applicant has voluntarily limited development to 48 lots, compared to 63 water-entitled or 100+ zoning-entitled lots, demonstrating good-faith commitment to preservation.
  2. The project dedicates 27 acres of permanent open space and public trails connecting to existing trail networks, providing significant community benefit.
  3. Fifteen additional lots are returned to the town's water bank, reducing future water pressure.
  4. The project is consistent with the General Plan and the Carefree Highway Specific Area Plan.
  5. The property has been zoned for development since before the town's 1986 incorporation; property rights are constitutionally protected.
  6. If the extension is denied, the land reverts to preliminary-plat status and a less favorable (more dense or sprawling) development could be proposed, increasing risk to the town.
  7. The applicant's delays are justified by market conditions (interest rates, supply-chain inflation) and legitimate water-agency processes with ADWR, not frivolous reasons.
  8. Existing residential developments across the street (Skyline, Surrey, Carriage) under the same zoning are far less attractive and offer no open space or trails; Hidden Canyon is a substantial improvement.

Most compelling arguments: Steve Brackner's detailed testimony that the extension merely preserves a good deal and avoids worst-case-scenario risk; Luke Cotsman's confirmation that the applicant is actively working with ADWR on legitimate water-supply revisions; and Robert Morris historical comparison showing that Hidden Canyon, despite opposition, is far superior to prior developments under the same zoning.

Project Details

Vote Breakdown

Hidden Canyon preliminary plat extension (case P2101):

Vickers rezoning (case Z2201, second reading of ordinance 02022-02):

Clayton Miller Planning Commission appointment:

Outcome & Next Steps

Hidden Canyon: The preliminary plat extension for case P2101 was approved 4-2, conditioned on the applicant submitting a final plat application with complete final engineering and construction documents within six months (approximately by May 1, 2023). If the applicant fails to submit by that deadline, the preliminary plat expires and the applicant must restart the subdivision process from the preliminary-plat stage, which includes Planning Commission review and public hearings. The applicant will continue to work with utilities director Sean Christweisner and ADWR to revise the certificate of assured water supply from 63 lots to 48 lots and will complete final engineering with their consultant (Cohen van Liu, per Cotsman's reference).

Vickers rezoning: Ordinance 02022-02 was approved unanimously on second reading, rezoning approximately 2.5 acres (APN 211-47-0043C) from Desert Rural Residential (DR89) to Commercial Buffer (CB), consistent with the Carefree Highway Specific Area Plan.

Clayton Miller Planning Commission appointment: Clayton Miller was appointed unanimously to fill the Planning Commission vacancy, with term expiring December 31, 2023. Town Manager Cotsman indicated he would leverage Miller's landscape-architect background on future plan reviews and valued his perspective on the town core as the Planning Commission undertakes the town core plan next year.

Dog leash law amendment: The proposed amendment to Chapter 90.14A1 (requiring all dogs to be leashed on public roads, streets, rights-of-way, and easements) was tabled pending further research. Council requested that staff survey other municipalities' leash-law policies and that staff extend an invitation to the concerned resident (who was out of the country and unable to attend) to present his case when he returns. The intent is to revisit the issue with full resident input and comparative policy analysis, rather than rushing to a code change based on one neighbor dispute. Town Marshal reported receiving only 3–4 calls per year on unleashed dogs and noted that enforcing a "voice control" standard is difficult without video evidence of the entire interaction.

Controversies & Context

The 155-person petition and community opposition: Hidden Canyon development has been contentious within Cave Creek, with a 155-person petition signed in opposition to the project. Council Members McGuire and Robert Morris both acknowledged the petition but contextualized it: McGuire noted that 5,000 residents did not sign it, and Robert Morris suggested that many petitioners may have misunderstood the project's scope or lacked full information. Council Member McGuire encouraged future petitioners to contact council members directly before meetings to discuss concerns, framing such dialogue as more productive than anonymous petition signatures.

Property rights versus community preservation: The vote split 4-2 along philosophical lines. The four affirmative voters (Silva, McGuire, Robert Morris, Vice Mayor Smith) emphasized property owners' constitutional and zoning-based entitlements to develop their land. They characterized the extension as a low-risk way to preserve a good outcome (48 lots, 27 acres open space, trails) compared to the risk of a worse development if the extension were denied and the applicant restarted the process. Council Member Montequino and Council Member Ray voted no, apparently favoring preservation of open space and rural character, though neither provided extended remarks on the record explaining their opposition.

Comparison to prior developments: Robert Morris invoked the example of Skyline, Surrey, and Carriage estates—residential developments across the street that were platted under identical county zoning prior to the town's 1986 incorporation. Those developments have no open-space dedications, no trails, and are far denser and more sprawling than Hidden Canyon's proposed 48-lot layout with 27 acres of preservation. Morris's implication was that Hidden Canyon, despite opposition, represents a marked improvement over what could have been built under existing entitlements and historical precedent.

Market conditions and water-supply issues: The applicant cited "market conditions" (interest rates, supply-chain disruptions, builder confidence) as a reason for the extension delay. Council Members Silva and Smith accepted this rationale as reasonable; Council Member Ray apparently did not (though no statement explaining his dissent was recorded). The water-supply revision with ADWR is a legitimate constraint: the applicant must downsize the certificate of assured water supply from 63 lots to 48 lots, a process that requires agency-level negotiation outside the town's direct control. Cotsman confirmed that this work is ongoing and justifies the delay.

Galloway Ridge precedent: Gary Rector's written comment and George Bruenthies' live comment both invoked Galloway Ridge, an earlier development, as a cautionary tale of what cave Creek wanted to avoid. Neither commenter elaborated on Galloway Ridge's specific failures, but the reference signaled that the community perceives a pattern of development encroachment that threatens rural character. Council did not directly address the Galloway Ridge comparison on the record.

Enforcement of voice-control standard: Town Marshal noted that the existing leash law permits dogs "under the owner's immediate control by voice command," but that standard is exceedingly difficult to enforce without video evidence of the full interaction, because he will not witness the incident in real time. This technical point informed the council's decision to table the dog-leash amendment pending further research into peer-municipality policies and best practices.

Duration

Other Notable Items

Clayton Miller Planning Commission appointment: The council unanimously appointed landscape architect Clayton Miller to fill a Planning Commission vacancy (term expires December 31, 2023). During questioning, Robert Morris posed a hypothetical on property rights versus neighborhood opposition, which foreshadowed the Hidden Canyon vote. Miller demonstrated understanding of zoning and property-rights principles and was endorsed by Planning Commission Member Steve Brackner, who "nudged" Miller to apply, and Town Manager Cotsman, who saw value in Miller's landscape-architecture background for plan review and his perspective as a young resident building roots in town.

Vickers rezoning (case Z2201): The council unanimously approved second reading of ordinance 02022-02, rezoning approximately 2.5 acres (APN 211-47-0043C) from Desert Rural Residential (DR89) to Commercial Buffer (CB) zone, consistent with the Carefree Highway Specific Area Plan. The first reading had passed 7-0 with Mayor Bunch present; the second reading passed 6-0 with the mayor absent. Planner Stephen Perales presented the first reading; no council discussion was recorded on the second reading, and the application drew only one written objection (from Jim Hemis, who opposes most development proposals).

Dog leash law amendment tabled: The proposed amendment to Chapter 90.14A1 to require all dogs be leashed on public roads, streets, rights-of-way, and easements was tabled pending the return of the concerned resident (currently out of the country), staff research into peer-municipality leash laws (particularly those in equestrian or rural communities with livestock zoning), and consultation with the trails coordinator. Vice Mayor Smith noted that Cave Creek is a rural, equestrian community and that riders on trails with dogs are common; rezoning changes like stricter leash laws should account for that context. The council's consensus was to invite the resident to present his case upon his return and to gather comparative policy data before proceeding.