Cave Creek Council votes 5-3 to reconsider Meritage Homes 56-unit project, exploring lower-density residential alternative

Cave Creek Council Reopens Meritage Homes Zoning Fight, Votes to Return Case to Planning and Zoning for Residential Alternative Review

After a contentious public hearing featuring nine speakers overwhelmingly opposed to the project, the Cave Creek Town Council voted 5-3 to reconsider a March 21 denial of commercial buffer zoning for Meritage Homes' 56-unit development north of Carefree Highway. Rather than reaffirm the denial, the council opted to refer the matter back to Planning and Zoning Commission to formally evaluate a lower-intensity residential zoning option—a step that had not been available at the March hearing because residential use was never advertised to or considered by the Planning Commission.

The outcome represents a dramatic procedural pivot that keeps the controversial project alive while attempting to reset negotiations between the developer, town staff, and an angry neighborhood coalition that has mobilized across two prior public hearings. The vote underscores a fundamental divide on council between property-rights advocates willing to allow Meritage Homes another opportunity to redesign and advocates for rural character preservation skeptical of any density increase.

Key Speeches

"The purpose of a reconsideration is to create a public hearing to correct a hasty ill-advised action, or to take into account significant new information since the first hearing. When council—or the mayor ask you for reconsideration—mayor, I hope you will answer these questions: What is the first reading? Was it hasty? I do not think that's a hasty action. What was the nail? Was it ill-advised? Were you guided by staff? Developer? Resistance? Is it ammonious? Did you get wrong? Incorrect information? Lastly, what you information as you get before you vote to reconsider this passage of the first reading?" — Jane Roads, resident

"I do understand from some of the residents that they didn't see it's higher than what they would like. I have one unity acre—I understand that. I know there's been issues about traffic... water is something that we will, if the project is rezoned... the other thing is we have—I have agreed that you would reduce the density from 56 down to 52. Now, I don't know if that are [is] bound right now or not... I would ask you at this point to allow me to have the process go to Planning and Zoning and to continue to work with the neighbors and to see if we can come up with a solution." — Troy-Bilt, Meritage Homes representative

"When I listen tonight it seems to me that there is just a bit of honor telling there's no development some just both periods don't want, and whenever I hear that in this community, that gets into our head: you just don't on something and the private property rights of someone else. So the only way I know to deal with this—because I think Meritage Homes, given the proper yet not people—I say that the people in the neighborhood have property rights. Is to support the Vice Mayor's motion to send it back to planning and zoning... do they have the right to redesign the project and come back with something totally different and what this is and go through a democratic process to have a review? I think they do have that right." — Councilmember (identity not fully clear from transcript)

Timeline

• Applicant presentation: Meritage Homes representative Troy-Bilt addressed council, acknowledging neighbor concerns about density (original 56 units, reduced to 52), traffic on Carefree Highway, water availability, and lack of site plan. Committed to working with neighbors on solutions through Planning and Zoning process.

• Staff recommendation: Town Attorney outlined two legal options: (1) council could affirm the March 21 denial of commercial buffer zoning; or (2) council could move to refer the matter back to Planning and Zoning to consider a lesser-intensive residential use, which was never noticed or considered at the Planning Commission level. Attorney explained that Arizona zoning law requires that any change to zoning must be vetted by Planning and Zoning and noticed to neighbors; lesser-intensive uses within a zoning district are authorized implicitly, but can only be approved after proper notice and Planning Commission review. The March vote had precluded reconsideration of residential use because it was never advertised.

• Public comment: Nine speakers; overwhelming opposition (7-8 against, 1 in favor). Key speakers:

  • Cheryl Olin (resident, 401 N. Paradise Lane): Argued the parcels were "originally incorrectly and unfairly placed" in a SAPA concept plan without proper legal basis. Challenged the process integrity, stating the Planning and Zoning Commission was "very open, very responsive" but did not have the same confidence in council. Called for council to deny reconsideration and review process failures.
  • Carrie Smith (resident, 665 S. Tomahawk): Presented detailed water analysis. Cited 2014 F1 reports on town water systems (Desert Hills Water Company and Cave Creek Water Company) and October 2009 Central Arizona Project allocation of 2,606 acre-feet. Concluded: after accounting for commercial, industrial, and existing residential uses, town has only 40 additional unit capacity; 56 proposed units exceed available water by 16. Noted that 2014 request for additional CAP water authorization from U.S. Department of Interior had not yet been acted upon. Urged council to defer project until water is allocated.
  • Steven Orville (resident, 3541 North Fort Street, close to project site): Objected on grounds of density incompatibility with existing one-acre-minimum neighborhood character. Characterized proposal as "an attempt to profit the small number of individuals—the business interests of the developers—at the expense of the whole community." Questioned whether project serves town's stated general plan priorities of open space and rural lifestyle.
  • Jane Roads (resident): Challenged the legal basis for reconsideration, stating council can only reconsider if a "problem" exists, and demanded to know what problem justified revisiting the March decision. Suggested council honor its prior vote and Planning Commission's good judgment.
  • Lisa Vlad (resident): Declared personal investment in neighborhood and pledge to "fight for it tonight." Respectfully asked council not to approve or reconsider zoning for the parcels.

• Council discussion: Five councilmembers spoke.

  • First speaker (identity unclear): Noted that 9 neighborhood residents attended, with 12 against the project at Planning Commission level. Emphasized that the "heart of problem" was the commercial buffer zone and its potential for unintended uses. Stated that if Meritage Homes could "see that's not going to go anywhere," a redesigned residential project would have merit. Supported Vice Mayor's motion to send back to Planning and Zoning, trusting Meritage Homes's "principles" and the democratic process for any new proposal.
  • Councilmember Carrie Smith (based on context, likely Mayor or council member): Expressed concern about reconsideration process itself and questioned whether council had proper grounds. Reiterated her skepticism about water availability and expressed discomfort with reopening a decided matter.
  • Councilmember (opposing): Agreed with Jane Roads' point about fairness and process. Did not support sending back to Planning and Zoning. Did not favor reduction of 2 homes as a substantive solution.
  • Councilmember (supporting): Stated he would "trust that the principles the Meritage homes can clearly see that's not going to go anywhere" and supported the motion to return to Planning and Zoning to allow Meritage Homes to propose "something totally different" through proper democratic review. Affirmed developer property rights and citizen rights to oppose new proposal.

• Vote: Motion to refer back to Planning and Zoning Commission passed 5-3. Individual votes not stated in transcript; council appears to have been divided along property-rights vs. preservation lines.

Opposition

Number of speakers against: 7-8 (out of 9 total public commenters)

Main concerns:

1. Water insufficiency: Town has only ~40 additional unit capacity under CAP allocation; 56 units (or 52 reduced) exceed available supply. 2014 request for additional authorization from U.S. Department of Interior remains ungranted. Irresponsible to approve development pending water allocation.

2. Density incompatibility: Proposed units violate neighborhood character—existing homes are one-acre-minimum; 56 units on undisclosed acreage creates multi-family/multifamily density inconsistent with rural equestrian lifestyle and general plan's stated preservation of open space and low-density residential.

3. Process fairness and reconsideration grounds: Reconsideration lacks legal justification. March 21 vote was not hasty, ill-advised, or based on incorrect information. No "problem" exists to correct. Reopening a decided matter sets dangerous precedent and undermines council and Planning Commission credibility.

4. Commercial buffer risk: Concern that approval of commercial buffer zoning could permit unintended commercial uses (restaurants, bars, retail) that would materialize after zoning, despite developer promises. "Pig in a poke" risk.

5. Enclave and transient character: Proposed project design (with nature walk buffer) isolates development from neighborhood. Homes are designed for short-term turnover, not stable long-term residency—incompatible with community values.

6. Private benefit at public cost: Project serves developer profit motive at expense of broader community. No clear public benefit commensurate with impact on rural character and infrastructure.

7. Lack of site plan: No concrete design presented; neighbors cannot assess actual impacts. Cannot meaningfully evaluate project based on conceptual renderings.

Most compelling arguments: Carrie Smith's water analysis was data-heavy and specific; Jane Roads' procedural challenge directly questioned the legal foundation for reconsideration. Steven Orville's framing of density as fundamentally incompatible with neighborhood character resonated with visual/lifestyle concerns.

Organized groups (if any): No formal organization named; however, speakers referenced neighborhood mobilization ("I will fight for it tonight," prior Planning Commission attendance).

Support

Number of speakers in favor: 1 (Troy-Bilt, Meritage Homes representative)

Main arguments:

1. Commitment to reduction: Developer reduced density from 56 to 52 units—a material concession acknowledging neighbor concerns.

2. Collaborative intent: Offered to work with neighbors on solutions. Claimed recent (pre-hearing) meetings with 12-15 residents to understand concerns.

3. Process participation: Requested opportunity to proceed through Planning and Zoning process, where alternative designs could be vetted. Implied willingness to abandon commercial buffer and explore residential zoning.

4. Problem-solving openness: Acknowledged traffic, water, and site plan as legitimate issues; expressed readiness to address them in Planning and Zoning proceedings.

Council support (speakers 2-5 in council discussion): One to two councilmembers argued for developer property rights and democratic process. Reasoned that sending back to Planning and Zoning does not guarantee approval; allows community input on any redesigned proposal; respects Meritage Homes's right to modify project and resubmit. One councilmember noted that neighbors also have property rights and the vote allows both to be vindicated through proper process.

Project Details

• Case number: Not explicitly stated; referenced as parcel 11-27-S-016-A and 11-27-S-017 or similar legal descriptions (transcript audio quality inconsistent on exact parcel designations).

• Applicant / developer: Meritage Homes

• Representative: Troy-Bilt (identified as Meritage Homes representative; no attorney name provided in transcript).

• Location / address: Parcels located north of Carefree Highway, Cave Creek, Arizona. Described as within or adjacent to historic established neighborhoods (Sendero area referenced by one speaker as context for 1.5-2 mile neighborhood radius).

• APN: Transcript references parcel numbers 11-27-S-016-A and 11-27-S-017 (or similar).

• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: Current zoning R8-9 (or R8). Proposal: Commercial Buffer (denied March 21); reconsideration motion requests Planning and Zoning review of Multifamily Residential as alternative.

• Density / units / square footage: Original proposal: 56 units. Meritage Homes offered reduction to 52 units. Acreage of parcels not stated. Density per acre not computed in transcript.

• Changes from previous version (if reconsideration): Meritage Homes offered reduction from 56 to 52 units (4-unit reduction). No other site plan modifications presented. Fundamental change is shift from commercial buffer zoning request to multifamily residential consideration, but this was driven by council referral motion, not by Meritage Homes resubmission.

Vote Breakdown

• Final: 5-3 (motion to refer back to Planning and Zoning Commission passed)

• Yes: Individual council members' names not stated in transcript. Five councilmembers voted in favor.

• No: Individual council members' names not stated in transcript. Three councilmembers voted against.

• Abstentions / absences: None noted.

Outcome & Next Steps

The Planning and Zoning Commission will reconsider the property and is directed to evaluate a multifamily residential zoning option. The case is not closed; Meritage Homes retains the right to redesign the project and submit to Planning and Zoning with a new development application. If Planning and Zoning recommends approval of residential zoning, the matter will return to town council for a final vote. Meritage Homes has committed (on the record) to presenting a full site plan addressing traffic, water, and neighborhood interface issues when returning to Planning and Zoning.

The effect of the vote is to reset the zoning discussion on different terms: instead of debating commercial buffer (which carried risk of unintended commercial uses), the town will now formally review residential alternatives. This does not guarantee approval; it creates a second opportunity for Planning and Zoning to hear evidence and for the public to comment.

Council indicated expectations that Meritage Homes will work directly with neighbors to refine the proposal before resubmission. No timeline was stated in the transcript for Planning and Zoning's next action.

Controversies & Context

Process integrity and reconsideration grounds: The central procedural controversy was whether council had valid grounds to reconsider a March 21 decision made only weeks prior. Opponents, led by Jane Roads and Cheryl Olin, challenged the legal and ethical foundation for reopening the matter. Arizona Rules of Procedure (Roberts Rules) govern reconsideration; town attorney's explanation that no "problem" existed—no hasty action, no new information—gave weight to opponents' skepticism. The mayor's initial request for reconsideration at the March 21 meeting was noted as unusual; at that time, the attorney explained, a lesser-intensive use could not be entertained because Planning and Zoning had not been noticed to consider residential zoning (only commercial buffer had been on the agenda). This created a procedural catch-22: the town could not authorize residential zoning without Planning Commission review, but could not open reconsideration of the commercial buffer vote without valid grounds. Council resolved this by framing the April motion not as a reversal of the March denial but as a directive to Planning and Zoning to consider a different (residential) use class—a forward-looking referral rather than a direct reconsideration of the prior vote. This framing was contentious and some speakers questioned its legal sufficiency.

Water allocation uncertainty: Carrie Smith's detailed analysis raised a threshold question: does the town have sufficient water supply? She cited 2014 requests for additional Central Arizona Project water authorization, pending as of the meeting date with the U.S. Department of Interior. No allocation had been confirmed. This created a fundamental feasibility problem: approving 56 (or 52) units when only 40 additional connections are available within current CAP allocation could be an act of reckless planning. The town attorney and staff did not directly address water availability during the hearing; this silence was interpreted by opponents as evasive or dismissive of a critical constraint.

Rural character and general plan alignment: The town had recently approved a general plan emphasizing open space and low-density rural character. A 56-unit multifamily or mixed-density project in an established one-acre-minimum neighborhood was widely viewed as incompatible with that vision. Supporters of reconsideration argued that Meritage Homes should have a chance to redesign to align with the plan (e.g., lower density, more spacing, equestrian-friendly layout). Opponents argued that no redesign could make a 50+ unit project compatible with a neighborhood of 1-acre estates and equestrian properties.

Property rights vs. community preservation: The deepest ideological divide was between councilmembers who believed developers have a right to redesign and resubmit projects through proper process and those who believed that the March denial should be treated as final and not reopened for political or developer-friendly reasons. Supporters of the referral motion emphasized that the democratic process—Planning and Zoning + public hearing + council vote—is the legitimate mechanism to weigh competing rights. Opponents saw the referral as a capitulation that devalued the March vote and signaled to developers that "no" is negotiable.

Nonprofit funding fairness (tangential to Meritage Homes issue): One speaker, Carrie Smith, also raised concerns about town nonprofit funding consistency, noting that the Cave Creek Museum received funding while the library had been denied twice. This sparked a debate about objective criteria for nonprofit support, but is separate from the Meritage Homes zoning case.

Duration

• Meritage Homes item (Item 2 / Reconsideration motion): Approximately 45-60 minutes (applicant presentation, 9 public speakers, council discussion, vote).

• Total meeting: Approximately 2.5-3 hours (includes resignation acceptance, Buffalo Chip update, expenditure limitation resolution, museum and nonprofit funding votes, water line approval, other consent items). Exact duration not stated.

Other Notable Items

Buffalo Chip Saloon & Steakhouse Rebuild: Owner provided a progress update on reconstruction using reclaimed lumber over 100 years old from Washington State. Project includes new kitchen, bathrooms, and dance hall facilities. Break ground expected mid-May. Owner praised town and council support during recent Bike Week, noting strong community engagement and positive business impact. Item passed without controversy; community sentiment was supportive.

Alternative Expenditure Limitation Election Resolution (Second Reading): Council voted 5-2 to approve a resolution authorizing submission to voters of an alternative home rule expenditure limitation. Current statutory limit is 11.2 million; town budget is 17.6 million, necessitating voter approval to increase limitation and cover water, sanitation, and town operations. Carrie Smith raised questions about separating water/sanitation enterprise fund from general fund to increase transparency and fairness in rate-setting, rather than cross-subsidizing sanitation from general fund transfers. Town staff explained that alternative methodologies exist but the single-budget approach has been used since 1999 and is the clearest path forward. Vote passed 5-2, sending measure to voters.

Museum Funding Approval: Council voted 4-3 to approve town funding for Cave Creek Museum. Museum director presented annual report and volunteer hours (401 hours). One councilmember (identity not entirely clear, but implied to be Thomas McGuire or similar) raised fairness concerns, noting that the library had been denied funding twice and questioning whether objective nonprofit criteria were being applied consistently. Despite objection, motion carried 4-3 in favor of museum funding. This item highlighted broader governance concerns about transparent nonprofit support policies.