Cave Creek restores 15 acres to development-friendly zoning after reversing December decision

Cave Creek Council Reverses SAP Removal in Split Vote, Reinstates 15 Acres to Development Designation Amid Litigation Threat and Process Criticism

At its April 26, 2016 meeting, Cave Creek Council voted 4–2 to adopt Resolution 2015-20, restoring three parcels totaling approximately 15 acres to the town's Specific Area Plan (SAP) designation. The decision reversed the council's own December 1, 2014 action to remove the same properties from the SAP following citizen objections—a reversal that staff and legal advisors attributed, explicitly or implicitly, to a threatened Proposition 207 property-rights takings claim. The vote exposed deep divisions over the proper balance between legal risk mitigation, public process, environmental stewardship, and development accommodation.

Key Speeches

"I believe said I believe the actual resolution that you're considering is clear it restores three properties to the specific area plan stay competitive inconsistent with the suggestion that eliminates the specificity." — Town Attorney (clarifying legal scope of resolution)

"I'm obviously very confused with a lot of this the essay p the way you explained it to me is that properties can remain in second way it is and labs everything them for that the essay p doesn't give them commercial it just puts them in a potential special area plan… the essay p doesn't give it a commercial designation at all I just shows up as this could possibly have value in there for a group." — Councilmember (seeking clarity on SAP function)

"I do not want the town to be exposed timber lost it… I think that the carefree highway the saes was originally proposed is a great idea I think including these parcels with a terrible idea." — Councilmember (explaining opposition)

Timeline

• Staff presentation: Explained SAP as a planning tool allowing town to condition future development; noted property owners filed Proposition 207 takings claim after December 2014 removal; clarified that SAP designation does not automatically authorize commercial use but signals potential zoning pathway for future applicants.
• Public comment: Approximately 15 speakers, mixed strong opposition and limited support; resident concerns focused on lack of neighbor notification, last-minute agenda additions (added Thursday for Tuesday vote), procedural fairness, environmental impact, and whether property owners other than the visible applicant had sought or endorsed the reinstatement.
• Council discussion: Tension between legal exposure (Proposition 207 liability) and process concerns; divided council on whether Prop 207 threat justified reversal; discussion of notification protocols and whether prior council had authority to remove properties; council members questioned viability of takings claim and staff's investigation thereof.
• Vote: Resolution 2015-20 passed 4–2 on roll call; two councilmembers voted no citing insufficient information and legal risk concerns.

Opposition

Number of speakers against: Approximately 9–10 of the 15 total public commenters opposed the motion.

Main concerns:

1. Lack of transparency and process: Multiple residents stated they received no notice of the agenda addition until late Thursday (with Tuesday vote deadline); neighbors unaware of the change until contacted by other residents; property owners appeared to slip the three parcels into the agenda at the last minute without public disclosure of intent or reasoning.

2. Insufficient notification to affected property owners: One commenter stated she held a neighborhood meeting of 13 households and none understood what was happening; another noted that only one of three property owners had appeared to advocate for reinstatement, yet all three parcels were being restored without clear evidence that all owners had requested or desired the change.

3. Environmental and quality-of-life impact: Residents expressed concern that restoring SAP would enable hospitality, commercial, or other development that would impact rural character, increase traffic on narrow roads (especially Ellesmere Road), and conflict with equestrian heritage and open-space preservation goals in the general plan.

4. Contradiction of prior council decision made after community input: One resident noted that the prior council's December 2014 removal had followed six months of community meetings and documentation showing systemic concerns; the current council's reversal appeared to the resident as capitulation rather than good policy.

5. Fear of lawsuit as improper motivation: Multiple councilmembers and residents questioned whether the town's primary motivation was avoiding a Prop 207 claim rather than sound land-use policy; one councilmember stated "I think we should women inked that threat" (addressing the litigation threat directly) and another said "I don't think that's our primary purpose to avoid lawsuits I think it's a good idea to avoid lawsuits where possible."

6. Ownership and development intent unclear: A commenter identified the larger parcel (the approximately nine-point-six-acre parcel) as having changed ownership in November 2014 to "Long Way LLC" and noted a dramatic tax assessor value drop and reclassification from animal boarding/breeding; questioned whether the new owner's development intent was being imposed without full transparency or neighbor input.

7. Procedural violation of prior agreement: One resident challenged the reinstatement as a violation of the town's own SAP process, noting that there was no application, no zoning change request, and no Planning Commission reconsideration—just a council motion to rescind the prior removal resolution.

Most compelling arguments:

• Procedural fairness: The resident who held a neighborhood meeting and documented the process objected that the town had reversed a decision made after months of community engagement without equivalent process or notification. She stated: "I don't want to take a department when it was in the corporate world you have six months to make changes I guess I can commend you on making changes because you've changed almost every council meeting you have changed what we have worked for."

• Legal exposure without investigation: One councilmember pressed staff on whether the town had conducted a viability assessment of the Prop 207 claim or whether the takings claim was even valid—and staff acknowledged no independent investigation had been done, raising the specter of capitulation to an unvalidated legal threat.

• Rural character conflict: Multiple residents emphasized that the general plan identified the area as rural and residential, with the carefree highway corridor as the appropriate location for commercial expansion; including parcels deeper in the residential area contradicted the plan's own values.

Organized groups: No formal neighborhood association appeared to speak, but evidence suggested ad hoc coordination; one resident reported holding a meeting of 13 households and distributing materials to council.

Support

Number of speakers in favor: Approximately 2–3 of the 15 total commenters supported reinstatement.

Main arguments:

1. Let the people decide: One commenter advocated for a referendum rather than council decision, arguing the council should defer to voters if the issue was contentious.

2. Support for commercial development: Another commenter stated general support for commercialization and tax revenue and argued that if the property met all town ordinances and standards, the council should not obstruct it.

3. Property owner rights and fairness: The Diwali Group LLC representative (counsel for the applicant) and one councilmember emphasized that the property owner had a legitimate development interest and that restoring the SAP designation did not automatically authorize development—it merely restored the planning pathway the previous council had eliminated.

Most compelling arguments:

• Legal remedy for prior council overreach: One councilmember argued that the December 2014 removal had been an improper exercise of council authority and that restoring the SAP designation corrected that error, regardless of the Prop 207 claim. Staff confirmed that the SAP is a tool available under Arizona Revised Statutes and that the town can lawfully amend its general plan or SAP.

Project Details

• Case number / Resolution: Resolution 2015-20 (Specific Area Plan Amendment).
• Property owners / applicant: Not clearly identified in discussion; one parcel (approximately 9.6 acres) identified as held by Long Way LLC as of November 2014; two smaller parcels (totaling approximately 5.4 acres) not clearly named.
• Attorney: Diwali Group LLC counsel (name not stated in transcript) represented an applicant interest, though whether representing all three property owners was unclear.
• Location / address: Three parcels in a residential area south and east of Cave Creek Road, near Ellesmere Road; commenter identified as "northwest corner of where the McDonald's supposed to be going" and one parcel coinciding with an earlier church rezoning application at northwest corner of State Route 57 and Carefree Highway.
• APN (Assessor Parcel Number): Transcript references parcel numbers 211-47-016 (or similar) and 211-47-102, but full APNs not clearly restated; approximately 15 acres total (9.6 acres for one parcel, remainder in two smaller parcels).
• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: The SAP is not a zoning designation itself; it is a planning tool that allows the town to identify an area and conditions for potential future rezoning applications. Restoration of the SAP did not change current zoning; property remained in underlying zoning (likely agricultural or rural residential) unless and until an applicant applied for rezoning in conformance with the SAP and Council approved.
• Permitted uses under SAP: SAP permitted consideration of "general commercial" and "hospitality" uses with up to 33-foot building height and 12,000 square feet maximum building footprint on certain parcels (per one resident's research; not confirmed by staff).
• Prior action: Parcels were included in the SAP when it was adopted by council in 2014; Planning Commission voted to recommend removal in December 2014; Council approved removal on December 1, 2014 following citizen objection; current motion seeks to restore them.

Vote Breakdown

• Final: 4–2 (Resolution 2015-20 passed)
• Yes: Four councilmembers (names not individually recorded in transcript; implied from four "yes" votes in roll call).
• No: Two councilmembers (names not individually recorded; inferred from context that at least two voted against based on prior discussion by those expressing concerns about legal exposure, process, and insufficient information).
• Abstentions / absences: None stated.

Note: Individual votes not explicitly named in transcript; identification of yes and no voters relies on recorded roll call and contextual council discussion indicating which members expressed opposition.

Outcome & Next Steps

Resolution 2015-20 was adopted, restoring the three parcels to Specific Area Plan designation.

Consequences:

• Property owners may now file applications for rezoning and conditional use permits in conformance with the SAP, which would trigger Planning Commission review and public hearing before Council consideration.
• SAP restoration does not automatically authorize any development; future projects will require separate applications, environmental review, and public process.
• Town remains potentially exposed to Proposition 207 takings claim by property owners (the basis for the reinstatement); however, staff acknowledged no independent viability assessment had been conducted.

Staff commitments:

• Council requested that staff continue working with equestrian community members on trail compatibility and separation between bike lanes and equestrian use.
• No specific timeline given for property owner applications or next steps on the three parcels.

Controversies & Context

The Proposition 207 Threat and Legal Risk Management

The central dynamic of this vote was the implicit (and occasionally explicit) reference to a threatened Proposition 207 property-rights claim. Arizona's Proposition 207, the Private Property Protection Act, permits property owners to seek damages if a land-use regulation "results in a diminishment of value" of their property. Under Prop 207, a property owner may file a notice of claim (the first step toward a takings suit) without first obtaining an appraisal or proving damages.

Staff and at least one councilmember indicated that the property owners had filed or threatened to file such a claim after the December 2014 removal. One councilmember stated: "this is really hidden this has not been tabled well in when and I'm fighting chance i have known criticism of staff I think that councils upon which I was a part did not handle this properly… I'm going to bail just a fortress a large measure because i do not want the town to be exposed timber lost it."

Another councilmember explicitly challenged whether the town had investigated the validity of the claim:

"I'm uneasy with the town running as fast as it can away from something that it doesn't understand… is there any assessment been made about the viability of their direct to the circuit event we talked about guinea we can't we cannot talk about executive session that would be illegal so what you're asking we're asking Council loss or even asking our comes hands are moving goods are you dressing house now if dressing up on council yeah I remember hearing about any assessment made about a lawsuit was day was there discussion."

The town attorney acknowledged that no independent investigation of the Prop 207 claim's merit had been conducted and that discussion of the property owners' legal threat could not occur in open session if it involved executive session advice. This left councilmembers in the position of voting on the reinstatement without clear knowledge of whether the takings claim had actual merit.

Prior Council Decision and Process Reversal

The previous council had removed the three parcels from the SAP in December 2014 following a period of community objection that began in June 2014. One resident, who had organized neighborhood meetings and tracked the process, testified that she had held a meeting with 13 neighbors and documented the systemic concerns before the December removal. She expressed deep frustration at the reversal: "I don't want to take a department when it was in the corporate world you have six months to make changes I guess I can commend you on making changes because you've changed almost every council meeting you have changed what we have worked for and from a year and it's some justice surgeon."

This framing highlighted a governance concern: the town appeared to have a pattern of making decisions based on political wind rather than sustained policy, with the Prop 207 threat as the excuse to reverse a decision that had been made after public process.

Notification and Process Transparency

A critical procedural criticism was that the SAP reinstatement had been added to the council agenda late (Thursday for a Tuesday meeting, based on one commenter's remarks about turnaround time). Residents testified that they had not been notified of the change or given opportunity to respond. One commenter explicitly asked why the property owners "slip in the Brussels at the last minute" and why staff had not required "any written request reasoning or anything" before processing the amendment.

Staff confirmed that the original SAP adoption in 2014 had prompted 740 notification letters to residents within a half-mile radius, and that those notified property owners had opposed the inclusion. Yet the reinstatement motion appeared to have proceeded without equivalent transparency. This raised questions about whether the council was deliberately insulating itself from public comment by avoiding advance notice.

Property Ownership and Intent Ambiguity

One commenter conducted tax assessor research on the larger parcel and noted that ownership had changed in November 2014 to "Long Way LLC," with a significant drop in assessed value and reclassification from animal boarding/breeding to (apparently) "naked Lane nonprofit AG." This research suggested that a new owner with undisclosed development intent might be driving the reinstatement—yet the town had not clearly identified the applicant or the proposed use to the public.

Staff's responses did not clarify whether all three property owners had requested or consented to the SAP reinstatement or whether the change had been sought by only one owner. This ambiguity fueled resident suspicion that the process lacked legitimacy.

Equestrian Heritage and Trail Compatibility

A secondary but persistent theme throughout the meeting concerned the compatibility of commercial development with Cave Creek's equestrian heritage. Residents spoke passionately about the importance of horse trails and riding, the narrow roads that made vehicles and horses coexist unsafely, and the need to prioritize equestrian use in planning. While the five-way bike lane and trail project (approved unanimously earlier in the meeting) was designed to separate bikes from horses, residents expressed concern that the SAP amendment would enable further development that would impinge on the remaining equestrian corridors.

One resident stated: "I see how you have three paths and if there isn't a question in a ton of private property so if you happen to libel i will just write it out the trails and people kicking me off because they're not me the cross their driveway." This pointed to the challenge of maintaining equestrian use in an increasingly developed town where trail access depended on negotiated cross-property agreements.

---

Related Item: Tractor Supply Commercial Development (Resolution 2015-19) — Parking Space Reversal

While the SAP amendment was the meeting's most contentious item, the approval of the Tractor Supply development (Resolution 2015-19, passed 6–0) revealed a parallel concern: the current council appeared willing to undo negotiated agreements from the prior council when applicants objected.

Background: At a previous meeting, the prior council had negotiated a reduction in parking spaces for the Tractor Supply project from 87 to 75 spaces (a reduction of 12 spaces) to increase undisturbed land area on the approximately 10-acre site. The developer had agreed, albeit reluctantly, to this reduction at that time.

The current council considered reversing that agreement, increasing parking back to 87 spaces. The Diwali Group LLC representative argued that the parking reduction had been accepted "under fear of losing the project" and that the tenant (Tractor Supply) required the full 87 spaces for adequate customer parking. The representative stated:

"Well i'm authorized to make that decision on behalf of property ownership with respect to our tenant they were very unhappy to see that reduction in the number of parking spaces… 87 spaces is what we're asking for."

Councilmember response: One councilmember who had been on the prior council objected strongly, noting that the developer had agreed to the reduction without hesitation:

"I was here that night you didn't hesitate when I said sure no problem I won't be a good guy and we're saying he doesn't have to be a good guy because if because of technicalities… I thought that's what was agreed to that night and I wouldn't want to do what happened that night for what I mean I understand what you're saying and I would you all for revisiting those minimums and maybe they need to be adjusted for the benefit of the town but he breathe and accepted the proposal that night why would we want to undo that."

The planning commission had voted 6–1 in favor of the development with the reduced parking. Staff noted that the applicant met all minimum ordinance requirements (20% undisturbed area) and that development agreements exist precisely to allow properties to be considered as a whole, with some lots contributing more undisturbed area if others do not.

Vote: Resolution 2015-19 passed 6–0; all council members voted yes, including the member who had cautioned against reversing the prior agreement (suggesting she was outvoted or decided not to block the motion).

Outcome: The Tractor Supply project was approved with 87 parking spaces restored, effectively undoing the prior council's negotiated reduction. This decision mirrored the larger pattern of the current council reversing prior council decisions and illustrated the tension between applicant preference, community environmental concerns, and council consistency.

---

Other Notable Items

Five-Way Trail and Bike Lane Project (Intergovernmental Agreement) — Unanimously Approved

Item: Resolution 2015-17 authorized the town to execute an intergovernmental agreement with Maricopa County for design and construction of a bike lane and trail project on Cave Creek Road (State Route 2) between Carefree Highway and Stagecoach Pass Road.

Funding: Town contribution of $75,000; state and county funding covering approximately 94% of the $94,000+ total project cost.

Estimated timeline: 80 days to complete after commencement of work; work anticipated to commence around July 10, 2016.

Project scope: Bike lanes to be adjacent to travel lanes, integrated into existing roadway medians with no additional right-of-way acquisition; non-motorized trails (pedestrian and equestrian) to be maintained separately on public and private easements where possible.

Key discussion: Extensive debate over equestrian compatibility. Residents raised concerns that the bike lanes would conflict with horse use, create safety hazards (bikes and horses sharing confined spaces), and implicitly deprioritize equestrian heritage. Staff committed to working with the equestrian community on trail separation and design modifications. Council emphasized the need for communication with horse owners to ensure smooth integration.

Vote: 6–0 (unanimous).

Outcome: Project approved; staff directed to engage equestrian community on implementation details.

---

2014-15 Budget Appropriations Transfer — Unanimously Approved

Item: Resolution authorizing transfer of appropriations totaling $55,000 from general fund contingency to Pioneer Park (project or improvement not specified in clear transcript language).

Vote: 6–0 (unanimous).

Outcome: Approved; funding transferred to Pioneer Park.

---

Duration

• This meeting (total): Approximately 2+ hours (transcript shows discussion spanning multiple agenda items and extensive public comment).
• SAP amendment item (Resolution 2015-20): Approximately 45 minutes to 1 hour (staff presentation, extensive public comment, council discussion, and vote).
• Tractor Supply item (Resolution 2015-19): Approximately 30–40 minutes (staff and applicant presentation, public comment, council discussion, and vote).

---

Key Procedural and Political Takeaway

The April 26, 2016 meeting revealed a council divided on how to balance legal risk mitigation (Prop 207 exposure) against process integrity and policy consistency. The 4–2 vote on the SAP amendment suggested that a narrow majority prioritized avoiding litigation over honoring the prior council's decision and community input. Two councilmembers—one citing insufficient information and the other citing concern for the town's legal exposure—voted no, signaling discomfort with the decision.

The unanimous approval of Tractor Supply's parking-space reversal suggested broader consensus on approving development, even when it meant undoing prior negotiated reductions. Together, these votes framed a governance pattern in which the current council appeared more developer-friendly and litigation-averse than its predecessor, at the cost of community trust and consistency.