Today's Weather

Click for Sierra Vista, Arizona Forecast

Homepage » News

County closer to approving two plats

By Ted Morris
Herald/Review
Published/Last Modified on Wednesday, Nov 19, 2008 - 05:12:34 am MST

Font Size

BISBEE — The Cochise County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday unanimously approved two new tentative high-density residential plats in Whetstone.

Once the plats are approved, County Supervisor Pat Call said afterward, “Then that area can’t be split into the wildcat 4-acre lots anymore, with individual wells. It has to go into development. And if it develops, it will develop much more water-consciously than if it was an RU-4 lot split.”

The supervisors approved the Mountain Ridge Subdivision Tentative Plat, which consists of 37 lots on 42.35 acres; and Sonoran Estates Subdivision Tentative Plat, with 73 lots on 160 acres.

The developer of both neighborhoods is CVE Inc., an Arizona company that is from out of town and is represented by Jim Huff of Shade Tree Consulting. Jason Harral of Kleingers & Associates is the project engineer.

Tuesday’s action by the supervisors is just one in a series of steps. Before final plat approval, the developer still faces hurdles that include providing the county with a letter of assured water adequacy from the Arizona Department of Water Resources and expensive road-building that will provide legal access to Highway 90, “as approved by the Cochise County Highway and Floodplain Department.”

The planned subdivisions are located about two miles south of Mustang Corners and within a half-mile east of Highway 90. The developments represent “the end game of a long process,” Call said.

Call and fellow supervisors Paul Newman and Richard Searle enacted the Babocomari Area Plan in 2006, which imposes water-conservation measures on developers.

“We would much rather have that kind of development there than unregulated high-water-use development. That’s the whole point,” Call said.

“What we did with the Babo area is we allowed more intense development, more than the basic RU-4, which is one home per four acres,” Call said. “But for the developers to have that more intense development, they had to jump through some very rigid water hoops, if you will, because of the closeness to the watershed.”

He added, “To their credit, the developers now have come along and adhered to those rules, plus some.”

Call said, “If people just go out and lot-split, and drill a well, helter-skelter, they don’t put in the transportation, they use a lot more water. But if we can encourage them to go into a subdivision, now we can say, ‘OK, well, you can’t use evaporative coolers if you do this. You have to set up for gray water. You have to limit your landscaping. All those high water uses. In return, what we’ll let you do is have an intensification of density.’ ”

Some land is in the Babocomari area within the northern fringe of the Hubbard Assault Strip Encroachment Area. Thus, some future homebuyers will have to be informed during real estate transactions of the caveat that C-130 Hercules military aircraft on training maneuvers will be flying low over their homes, Call said.

Hubbard Assault Strip is part of Fort Huachuca.

Herald/review City Editor Ted Morris can be reached at 515-4614 or by e-mail at cityeditor@svherald.com.

Print this story Email this story

Font Size

Use the form below to post a brief comment to this story, or respond to other readers. Please use the word count tool to assist you in keeping your remarks to 100 words or fewer.
Comments appear once they are approved. Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

Whetstone Green wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:46 AM:

" ...The Babo Plan is precedent setting in several respects and is a step forward compared to the alternative. Keep in mind, state law ties counties hands in terms of regulating development; the County cannot force landowners to adhere to the plan. It can only provide incentives. Without incentives, you might end up with 1000 homes and wells spread over 4000 acres with unlimited irrigation, instead of 1000 homes on one and two-acre lots with water meters and landscape limits. Those who oppose the plan either have their head-in-the-sand or they are NIMBY's who don't care about the fort or river. "

Whetstone Green wrote on Dec 4, 2008 9:27 AM:

" The Babo Area Plan imposes development restrictions (especially water) that don't exist elsewhere in county. After a large chunk of the ranch was sold off several years ago, the County and Fort were alarmed by a jump in building permits in wildcat developments. The Plan was created to give land owners an incentive to go through the subdivision process rather than continue unregulated lot-splitting. The Plan is both a carrot (TR36 zoning) and a stick (additional restrictions, limits TR36 to certain areas). The Fort and Nature Conservancy have been acquiring parcels close to the river as a buffer. "

HUH wrote on Dec 3, 2008 7:27 PM:

" What is so great about the "Babo Plan?" Doesn't it allow even more development vis a vis more water? "

progress wrote on Dec 2, 2008 6:02 PM:

" "other than those already on the books"....now "Independent" you are starting to understand why the supervisors deserve some credit. The recently written ("on the books") Babo Area Plan is a prime example what is needed. Kudos to the Supervisors for that and other work being done. I agree the other commenters here that the rabbit warren method is not smart in the long run. Only breeds chaos and confusion. "

General Disorder wrote on Dec 2, 2008 5:18 PM:

" In other words these homes WILL encroach on Ft Huachuca. How can these Mor0ns approve this! What there is such a shortage of space in WHETSTONE, thousands of people are lining up to buy homes there? This is deliberate encrroachment which effects the Military Mission of the Fort. "

Independent wrote on Nov 30, 2008 6:05 PM:

" Progressive, you are wrong. EVERY subdivision in the last eight years has been approved by the county, without any special requirements for water conservation, other than those already on the books. If the supervisors have not approved every development, please state the name(s) of those developmentys that have not been approved. Please check your facts before writing misinformation. Also, 100 gallons a day x how many houses? That is STILL 100 gallons a day more than what is available. We already have a deficit. Still waiting for a progressive idea. "

Progressive wrote on Nov 29, 2008 1:50 PM:

" Nice try "Independent". Progressive is exactly what the supervisors have done by enacting the Babocomari Area Plan in 2006. More planning is coming. Good thing. The supervisors are not approving "every single city/county development". That is a complete distortion which we have come to expect from the likes of Smeegle and Jackson. Supervisors are only approving those developments which achieve maximum water conservation. That is progressive. "

Whetstone Green wrote on Nov 29, 2008 12:35 PM:

" I'm one of the Babo developers. No one can build 1-acre subdivisions until roads are built and water infrastructure in place. Given current economy, it may be a year before road improvement district can get bonded and at least another year before roads complete. Most Babo developers are looking long term. You want progressive? My project will be 100% solar (net-zero energy). On-site wastewater treatment plant will recharge 100% of water. All homes LEED Silver or better with rainwater catchment. My wife and I only use 100 gallons/day, including landscaping (only water plants when new). "

Independent wrote on Nov 28, 2008 5:08 PM:

" I don't think anyone is implying that growth should not be managed. In fact, it appears the opposite and that Smeegle and Jackson are advocating growth that is based on reality. Reality being that we have a water deficit,the Charleston gage went dry for the first time in recorded history, and private wells are going dry; none of which are "sustainable". Managed growth is not just about approving every single city/county development. Aren't there any progressive ideas out there? "

you can stop growth by wrote on Nov 27, 2008 7:16 PM:

" ...continuing to raise taxes, allowing crime to spiral out of control, and running off the military. Cochise and SV have enjoyed relatively modest growth in recent years compared to metro areas. Our rate has generally been healthy, manageable and sustainable. In recent years, Pima County switched it's posture toward suburban development to encourage higher densities after planners realized how much of a burden low density rural development was putting on Pima taxpayers. The worst thing a county can do is ignore growth. I've lived in areas where growth wasn't managed and the result wasn't pretty. "

Smeeg wrote on Nov 26, 2008 8:01 AM:

" I don't see how politicians are representing the public at large when subdivision after subdivision is approved and all the private wells that are already in place will go dry. If you don't believe it, this is exactly what happened to me. That's OK because when everyone finally sees what's happening when wells and the San Pedro River go dry we will finally vote someone responsible into office. Of course, our property values will be worthless, but that's what you voted for, all so C & C, Bella Vista, and KEG can keep raking in the money. "

Mike Jackson wrote on Nov 25, 2008 6:38 PM:

" From 1920 to 1950, Cochise County didn't grow. It shrank. Tell me again how we can't stop the growth. You know some secret unknown to the rest of us, JH? "

who cares if there is a deficit wrote on Nov 25, 2008 12:12 PM:

" quit crying ... you cant stop the growth ... the best thing for right now is to plan smart which is what call and searle are doing ... deficits will be controlled through storm capture and augmentation and smart planning that steers people away from evap coolers and failure to use gray water, low flush toilets, showers, etc, etc "

To Population Growh wrote on Nov 24, 2008 4:52 PM:

" You didn't answer the question: If there is water, why is there a deficit? "

To Population Growth wrote on Nov 24, 2008 4:51 PM:

" It's no tragedy that Call was reelected, as long as he stops trying to push his Sierra Vista agenda onto the rural parts of the county. It's no tragedy that Searle was reelected, as long as he increases his independence from Call, and starts represent his rural constituents. But it is depressing that you're manic in your confusion. Don't you think that anyone except Pod People can conserve water? Why don't you take a breath and explain how 4 families can use less water than 1, if everyone conserves? "

Population Growth wrote on Nov 24, 2008 10:33 AM:

" Smith Ranch was just a bump in the road. MANY other developments are coming in the long term. You cannot stop me. I am Population Growth. I am coming here! So you might as well be smart in accommodating me. Your inefficient sprawling rabbit warrens will not get the job done. And, since you're in denial about it, I will refresh the painful news for you--Call and Searle were re-elected. IN YOUR FACE! "

Smeegle wrote on Nov 23, 2008 5:45 PM:

" Yes, the election results were very clear on Smith Ranch, which was defeated. "

To Pod People wrote on Nov 23, 2008 7:51 AM:

" You'll be the loser if you think that it's "splitting hairs" to use math that shows your plans don't work. Tennessee once passed a law setting the value of pi equal to 3, so that calculations would be easier. That was no less insane than thinking you can vote water into existence. Cochise County is filled with the ruins of housing developments planned by big talkers who thought their talk mattered more than reality. Good luck. "

Pod People rule wrote on Nov 22, 2008 9:38 PM:

" Hey Smeeg there's no guarantee a tsunami wont wipe out California. Same with your splitting hairs on "the math". Smart planning is here and The PEOPLE endorse it. Or did you miss the election results? HA HA HA what losers! Dismissed!! "

Smeegle wrote on Nov 22, 2008 5:08 PM:

" Population Growth: So you are going to guarantee that each house will use 1/4 or less the water than one house does currently? Funny, I don't see that in any county regulations. Otherwise, the same amount or more of water will be used. But with four times the amount of houses, it will probably be more like four times the amount of water will be used. If there is water, why is there a 4500 ac/ft/yr deficit? "

Population Growth wrote on Nov 22, 2008 3:58 PM:

" No, "Smeegle", you miss the point. The math which you ignore has been done. There is water and we are going to use it smarter. (Gray water plumbing in, evaporative coolers out, etc. Jeeze, you dont seem to be keeping up with the news.) The old time RU4 lot splitters have not used water as efficiently as the new generation is being forced to. Growth is inevitable - the question is will it be smart growth. Your and Mike Jackson's model of Every Man For HimSELF is not smart growth. Goodbye Crotchety Old Timers. "

Smeegle wrote on Nov 22, 2008 7:41 AM:

" Population Growth, you missed the point entirely. We don't have enough water. Your property and everyone else will be worthless if we have not water. The San Pedro River is already dead from the developments Searle and Call have approved for the next 25 years. Does having one house per acre with each house using half the amount of water still use less water than one house on 4 acres? You do the math,if you can (hint: four houses on on one acre uses TWICE the amount than one house on four acres) "

Pod People rule wrote on Nov 21, 2008 5:29 PM:

" "Pod People" ? ? Ha ha. Wow. That hurts. . . . . . . . Not. "

To Population Growth wrote on Nov 20, 2008 8:09 PM:

" We selfish hillbillys, in our ugly and confusing neighborhoods, say, thanks for revealing what you Pod People really think. Call and Searle as worthy public servants. I blench. "

Population Growth wrote on Nov 20, 2008 11:50 AM:

" You may not have noticed but I have been arriving for decades and you cannot stop me with your selfish words. I don't want to live in your hillbilly rabbit warrens with their metastasizing lot splits. They are ugly and confusing neighborhoods. Bulldoze, please! I prefer smart planning and growth. I am Population Growth. I keep bringing more votes to keep worthy public servants like Call and Searle in their seats because they truly serve the people. "

Ken wrote on Nov 19, 2008 8:57 PM:

" I own and live on 4+ acres and would gladly allow you to put a meter on my private well and compare my usage with that of 4 or 5 of my neighbors living on 3/4 acres lots. I have talked to them about their water usage and 4 out 5 use a comparable amount and the 5th actually uses more. "

Remember wrote on Nov 19, 2008 4:49 PM:

" Those who voted for Call and Searle, we will all have to live with the density factor until the whole area becomes a city from the Mexico to I-10. Good luck to the home owners with wells: by the time the commercial wells are drilled, our wells will be sucking sand and mud. Thanks for nothing Pat Call, Richard Searle and bye-bye Paul Newman. "

Bob1024 wrote on Nov 19, 2008 9:13 AM:

" Come on Mr Call. You don't have to be a savant with numbers to know that your MATH is faulty. If you want to support residential grow over rural living, just say so! We know you are a business man with money to make. Folks in Whetstone should follow thw lead from J Six last year and get this up for a vote BY THE PEOPLE. "

Mike Jackson wrote on Nov 19, 2008 8:24 AM:

" Pat, Pat, Pat--there you go again, pushing your line about rural water usage, when you know that rural people on private wells use only about half as much water per person as people "served by" a water company. You use your phony line to tout housing projects that claim to conserve, even though it's ridiculous to claim that 2-4 families on 4 acres, using a water company, use less water than 1 family on a private well. Can't you represent Sierra Vista, including its builders, realtors, and water companies, without misrepresenting the facts about rural life? "

Ken wrote on Nov 19, 2008 6:49 AM:

" Another rubber stamp. The County has already approved a large number of mini subdivisions, none of which have roads even cut to them and NO water. Algonquin had a huge well drilled and then left it open to the elements and the danger of small children and animals falling into it. The County still thinks that five 3/4 acre residences use less water than one 4 acre residence. Another new Math? "