Cave Creek approves Desert Hills Brewery site plan; directs public comment policy review
CAVE CREEK, ARIZONA — February 6, 2024

Cave Creek approves Desert Hills Brewery site plan; directs public comment policy review

Regular Cave Creek town council meeting featuring contentious debate over four-year term lengths, public comment process disputes over brewery development approval, and emergency wastewater system repair response.

Brewery Approval Exposes Rift Over Planning Commission Transparency; Council Promises Process Review

Cave Creek's town council unanimously approved a 1.51-acre site plan for Desert Hills Brewery on Tuesday evening, but the decision was overshadowed by a contentious debate about whether nearby residents were denied a fair opportunity to ask questions at the Planning Commission level—a departure from past practice that the council acknowledged and pledged to remedy.

The brewery proposal itself faced no technical obstacles. It met all zoning, bulk, and design requirements. The Planning Commission had voted 7-0 to recommend approval on January 18. Yet the lack of public comment during that Planning Commission hearing, coupled with what residents described as confusion about when and where they could speak, created a procedural fiasco that the council spent nearly two hours untangling.

Timeline

Applicant presentation: Senior Planner Stephen Paralis presented the site plan for Desert Hills Brewery, a 1.51-acre eating and drinking establishment at the northeast corner of 53rd Street and Olson Road in General Commercial (GC) zoning. Applicant Jim Loftus, representing Red Rock Investments, proposes a building with less than 25 feet height, five parking spaces above the 17 required (22 proposed), and compliance with all bulk regulations including setbacks, landscaping, screening, and lot coverage (6.8% proposed vs. 60% maximum allowed).

Staff recommendation: Paralis walked through all compliance criteria—building height, setbacks, landscape requirements, parking, outdoor lighting, signage, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, and drainage/traffic review by the town engineer. No variances or exceptions requested. Planning Commission voted 7-0 for approval on January 18, 2024.

Public comment: Eight speakers addressed the council, a mix of supporters and critics focused primarily on process, not the brewery itself. Neighbors Julie Goldhammer (34022 North 52nd Street) and Scott Weller had filled out request-to-speak forms at the Planning Commission meeting on January 18 but were told no public comment would be taken on the site plan—a decision by Planning Commission Chair Breckner that surprised them and, later, Vice Chair Cynthia Driscoll herself. One resident, Ron Sova (a current Planning Commission member), defended the administrative nature of site plan review, noting that because no variances were requested, the applicant met 100% of code requirements and the commission had no discretion to alter the plan. Janet Moore, an Area 18 resident, argued the neighborhood should be differentiated from residential areas and pointed out the commercial area was designated specifically to generate revenue for the town. She also noted the neighborhood has a private Facebook group where discussions occur.

Council discussion: The council split into two camps: those who believed public input is essential to good governance, even if it cannot change the outcome, and those who argued that public comment on administratively compliant site plans creates false hope and wastes staff time.

Vote: Motion to approve site plan passed 7-0 (unanimous).

Opposition

Number of speakers against: One person explicitly opposed the process (Vice Mayor Kathryn Royer), though her concerns were procedural, not about the brewery itself. Residents had questions, not objections.

Main concerns:

  1. Procedural denial of public comment: Planning Commission Chair Breckner announced at the start of the January 18 meeting that public comment would not be taken on the site plan, described as "administrative." Residents who submitted request-to-speak cards were not informed they could not speak.

  2. Lack of transparency about decision-making: Residents did not receive notice of how they could participate. The 500-foot mailing radius captured approximately 28 properties, but not all residents opened mail or read posted notices.

  3. Safety concerns on 53rd Street: Dusty Rhoades raised repeated concern about children and horses using 53rd Street (a dirt road). He worried about drunk exiting patrons onto that roadway.

  4. Operational questions unanswered: Residents wanted to ask about dumpster handling, odor management from brewing, noise levels (citing precedent from Pet Suites approval discussions), and parking impact.

  5. False hope of input: Planning Commission member Ron Sova argued that inviting comment on a site plan that cannot be changed gives residents "false hope" that their voice matters to the outcome.

  6. Inconsistency with prior council direction: Dusty Rhoades recalled that in a prior discussion (several months earlier), the council had decided not to delegate site plan approval to the zoning administrator alone, instead leaving it to the Planning Commission—partly to retain public visibility. No one recalled the council then instructing the Planning Commission to exclude public comment.

Most compelling arguments:

Vice Mayor Kathryn Royer stated:

"I would like it to go back to the Planning Commission and be done properly. The whole reason I moved to Cave Creek from Chandler is because I'm on the edge of town. I love the desert. I have a problem with the Planning Commission not taking comments, but it's within [the chair's] discretion and we don't agree. We're second-guessing his discretion. I would like to change that ordinance... the public needs to have an opportunity to give their opinion." — Vice Mayor Kathryn Royer

Councilmember Dusty Rhoades articulated a governance philosophy rooted in-person engagement:

"In a small community we don't have to be like the big cities. There is wisdom that is absorbed by speaking to people. Many times they're not informed, or they're inflammatory before they're informed, but this is not a pension system. We're here to make a difference with our own passions and our own visions to work collaboratively with one another. I just don't see a benefit to the community for this now... when you only have three seats open, you're not getting ten applicants. You're getting three, and those are decided in comfortable settings outside the sunlight... I think true turnover should be seven people standing up one time." — Councilmember Dusty Rhoades (in reference to the four-year terms debate, but expressing his broader philosophy on transparency and public process)

Resident Julie Goldhammer testified:

"In the interest of good people... I'm hearing about this in detail for the first time. It seems that everybody said they're for it, actually. You know, it's about hearing the people—that's it. There's nothing more complicated. So the rules are... I know it sounds harsh, but it seems like the rules are hiding the idea that people could have a First Amendment right." — Julie Goldhammer, resident

Support

Number of speakers in favor: Four residents or Planning Commission members spoke in favor of the project or defended the administrative process.

Main arguments:

  1. Project meets all code requirements: The applicant requested no variances, no exceptions. The site plan complies with bulk regulations, zoning, design guidelines, and technical standards. Under state law and town ordinance, the town has limited discretion to deny or modify it.

  2. Commercial zoning designation was intentional: Area 18, where the brewery is located, was explicitly designated for commercial use to sustain the town's tax base. Janet Moore, a neighboring resident, noted that fewer than 2% of Cave Creek is commercial and that commercial Area 18 is not a residential neighborhood.

  3. Administrative efficiency argument: Planning Commission member Ron Sova argued that site plan review (for compliant plans) is administrative, not legislative, and that inviting public comment creates false expectations of influence.

  4. Ample notice was provided: Staff posted a sign on the property, mailed notices to properties within 500 feet, published in the newspaper, and posted the case online with contact information for the applicant and staff. Residents could have reached out individually.

  5. The owners are good people and good neighbors: Supporters, including Julie Goldhammer, spoke positively about the brewery owners and their character.

  6. Previous councils approved the commercial framework: Janet Moore credited prior mayors and the white-paper committee with identifying the Carefree Highway Corridor for commercial development—a policy that has sustained the town.

Organized support: None identified; support was individual and informal.

Project Details

Vote Breakdown

Outcome & Next Steps

The site plan was approved. The applicant will proceed to the building permit stage, where the town engineer, utilities director, building official, and zoning staff will review grading, drainage, traffic, access, utilities, and compliance with all applicable codes and guidelines. Conditions of approval are outlined in Exhibit E of the staff report and include demonstration of compliance with landscaping technical design guideline number four, screening of HVAC and trash enclosures, and coordination with town staff.

Separately, the council directed staff to review the town's ordinance and procedures governing public comment at Planning Commission meetings and to return with proposed changes. Dusty Rhoades explicitly requested this be added as a future agenda item, and the council agreed.

Kathryn Royer stated:

"I think we need to look at the procedure within the Planning Commission and consider to what extent do we want to listen to people there. I think the process needs to be changed but I don't want to hold up this particular project because I think everybody agrees it's an excellent project." — Vice Mayor Kathryn Royer

Controversies & Context

The Planning Commission public comment dispute:

The core controversy stems from Chair Breckner's January 18, 2024 decision to conduct the site plan review without public comment. According to testimony from Vice Chair Cynthia Driscoll:

"The way the business was conducted was, at the start of the meeting, Chairman Breckner indicated that public comment was available at the beginning of the meeting. I don't think there were any members of the public there to speak. The case proceeded and was discussed. And then later a member of the public asked questions... It was not discussion directly with the commission. It was an administrative choice that the chairman conducted business that way, and it was a departure from how the commission has worked in the past." — Vice Chair Cynthia Driscoll, Planning Commission

Resident Julie Goldhammer provided a detailed account:

"Chairman Breckner after the niceties... announced and said, 'Does anyone from the public have any comments on anything that's not on the agenda?' That's what you need to listen to [in the recording]. I didn't stand up nor did Scott. We were right there. We gave her [the clerk] our sheets to speak. Why would I stand up then? It's because my item was the only thing on the agenda. Then he went ahead and read a little statement that said that normally this is an administrative process in other municipalities and that they are not allowed to vote against anything if the applicant is in compliance. They proceeded to ask the applicant... then the commission asked questions... We were not allowed to speak." — Julie Goldhammer

This appears to have been a misunderstanding or miscommunication. Chair Breckner announced that public comment was available "at the beginning of the meeting" for items not on the agenda, but residents interpreted this to mean comment was available on items on the agenda if they submitted a speaker card. The distinction between agenda items and non-agenda items was not clarified until after the motion and vote.

State legislative preemption concerns:

Mayor Robert Morris raised alarm over pending state legislation that would preempt local zoning authority. He cited the American Starters Home Act and SB 1376:

"We have another legislative session going on. We have a bill called the American Starters Home Act, which is another one that would absolutely gut zoning. I think our legislature is, in the name of affordable housing, turning us into New York City with higher density, different homes. You can't regulate lot sizes. Your preemption ability to balance density relaxes regulations. You can't have setbacks. Lot coverage is no longer allowed. It prohibits screening walls and fences. It really is, in my view, a mess. We had this last year and it looks like we're going to have to fight this again this year." — Robert Morris urged residents to contact state representatives Joseph Chaplick, Alex Ciden, and State Senator John Kavanagh (also cited as "Cavanaugh" in transcript) in opposition. The mayor also noted SB 1376 would require truckers hauling livestock feed to cover their loads—a burden on rural agricultural transport.

Tension between administrative process and democracy:

Town Attorney Luke Sims clarified the legal constraints:

"The site plan it's spelled out in your code. Property owners come, they look at the requirements. If they fill the requirements, they expect it to get approved. And if you don't, you'll probably get sued and lose. That's why [I] say you don't have discretion, but you do have discretion to make sure... if there was a current traffic study or a relevant traffic study, or if indeed there was a stamped engineer on drainage, just to make sure all the requirements [are met]." — Town Attorney Luke Sims

This created a philosophical divide. Some council members (Kathryn Royer, Dusty Rhoades, Alkama) believed that even if the town cannot legally change a site plan that meets all requirements, it has a moral obligation and discretion to invite public input, listen, and explain decisions transparently. Others (notably Ron Sova) argued that inviting comment on a non-discretionary decision wastes time and misleads the public into believing they have influence.

Duration

Other Notable Items

Four-year term amendment failed; original election resolution passed with term-limits directive:

Robert Morris brought a resolution to place four-year staggered terms for council on the November 2024 ballot alongside a home-rule expenditure limitation measure. An amendment by Dusty Rhoades to remove the four-year-term language failed 4-3 (Dusty Rhoades, Tom Augherton, Alkama voted yes; Bunch, McGuire, Kathryn Royer, Robert Morris voted no). The original resolution then passed 5-2 (Robert Morris, Kathryn Royer, McGuire, Bunch, Tom Augherton yes; Dusty Rhoades, Alkama no), but the council directed staff to include term-limit language in the resulting ordinances when they come back for council approval. The debate touched on accountability, campaign burden, institutional continuity, and precedent from the 1990s when Cave Creek had four-year terms and the council selected the mayor behind closed doors—a system that generated friction and was later reversed. No vote will occur on the merits of four-year terms tonight; instead, the matter will be placed before voters in November after the council drafts and approves ordinances.

Wastewater emergency repair and master planning:

Town Utilities Director Sean Cruz Weisner presented a crisis-management summary: an 8-inch force main collapsed at Cave Creek Road and Carefree Highway on January 17–18, 2024, threatening a major sanitary sewer overflow. Staff (plant supervisor Greg Fish and wastewater team member Richard Canham) detected the problem after hours on the 17th and prevented catastrophe by implementing an emergency bypass using three 20,000-gallon tanker trucks to vault and haul approximately 90% of the town's wastewater around the blockage to the treatment plant. The force main was a ductile iron pipe with a cement mortar lining that deteriorated from hydrogen sulfide gas attack due to improper cement lining; the plastic repair pipe is inert to H₂S. BNF Construction and contractors (Wolverine, SE Tankage) completed emergency repairs of about 30 feet of pipe, though an additional 20–30 feet and manhole rehabilitation remain, requiring another 4–5 day blockage of the intersection. The town has engaged Black and Beach Engineers to conduct a master plan and investigate other sections of the nearly 3-mile force main using inspection tools. Councilmember Paul Alkama noted that the Flagstaff Public Works director (mentioned by a resident who worked there) estimated the project would have taken six to eight months if done with standard planning; Cave Creek's team accomplished the emergency response in days.

Walmart shooting incident resolved within 48 hours:

Town Marshal Adam Stein and Sheriff's Office Captain Lerno provided a briefing on a January 14 shooting at the Walmart parking lot in Fountain Hills (not Cave Creek proper, but within patrol jurisdiction). One subject fired two rounds at the store; another fired at a pursuing citizen. Rapid police work—a license plate identified by a witness who followed the fleeing vehicle—led to the apprehension of all three 18-year-old subjects (none Cave Creek residents) by Wednesday. One had a federal warrant. The second was barricaded in a Peoria house and required SWAT intervention.

New Town Manager introduction:

Grady Miller was introduced as the new Town Manager at his first meeting. Outgoing Town Manager Carrie Davis was present for a one-week transition overlap. Miller expressed enthusiasm for the role and noted his initial day of staff coordination was productive.

Water Treatment Plant permit modification contract approved 7-0:

The council approved a $34,990 professional services contract with GHD Incorporated to submit an approval-of-proposed-plan (APP) to Maricopa County Environmental Services for making two membrane treatment units (installed in 2020 as temporary units) permanent fixtures at the water treatment plant. The temporary four-year permit expires in October 2024. GHD was involved in the original installation and understands the operational integration of the membrane trailers with the WestTech filters. A second phase for improvement documents will follow upon county feedback. David Phelps (in public comment) praised the town for "buying time the smart way" and extending the life of the existing filters rather than purchasing new, expensive equipment.