The Pinal County Planning and Zoning Commission voted on May 15th to deny a rezoning request for Rio Blanco, a proposed residential subdivision that would have brought over 2,000 homes to unincorporated Pinal County southwest of Maricopa, described by developers as a master-planned community.
Project Overview
The controversial 597-acre development, located at the northwest and southwest corners of West Teel Road and North Amarillo Valley Road, sparked heated debate during the May 15 commission meeting. The proposal sought to rezone the property—including an area previously approved under a 2005 PAD overlay which allowed 917 homes on 277 acres—from General Rural (GR), Local Business (CB-1), and Single Residence (CR-3) to Single Residence (R-7) and General Commercial (C-3), and to amend the PAD overlay from 2005 (case PZ-PD-007-05).
The new proposal would increase the number of planned homes from the 917 allowed under the 2005 PAD to 2,089 homes—an addition of 1,172 homes—while extending development across the full 597-acre site.
Rio Blanco LLC, owned by the Burgos family, planned to build approximately 2,089 residential lots on the property. The site currently consists of undeveloped agricultural land, with the northern portion used for field crops. While cattle are still present on the property, the Burgos family no longer operates it as a dairy – they now raise beef cows instead of dairy cattle.
The county’s Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Moderate Low Density Residential (MLDR), allowing 1 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre. The proposed development matched this maximum density at 3.5 units per acre.
Development Details
The Rio Blanco plan featured minimum lot sizes of 40 feet by 120 feet, with other options at 45 feet and 50 feet wide. The developer proposed 28% open space, exceeding the minimum 18% requirement. Amenities included pocket parks and an equestrian trail designed to be outside the community’s fence wall, specifically for use by Hidden Valley residents and other county residents who wish to ride horses.
The development initially included 9.21 acres of commercial space. During the hearing, Jordan Rose of Rose Law Group, representing the applicant, announced an additional five acres for a medical complex, bringing the total commercial area to 15 acres.
“We’ve heard that there’s a need for doctors’ offices and that kind of thing. So we’re adding acreage there,” Rose said. “We’re hopeful that that’s helpful to the neighbors and to the community at large.”
The Burgos Family Story
The property owners, Arnaldo and Rosemary Burgos, were described by Rose as “the American Dream story.”
Rose stated that Arnaldo came from Honduras in 1997, and “helped to start what is now Arizona’s burgeoning dairy industry,” describing him as a dairy nutritionist who was “innovative on the nutrition” for dairy cows throughout Arizona.
According to additional documents, Arnaldo Burgos founded Dairy Nutrition Services in 1977 with “a passion and love for cows,” growing it into “one of the top leading consulting firms for dairy cow nutrition in the United States and globally.” Dr. Rosemarie Burgos-Zimbelman, serves as COO and head nutritionist.
Planning Concerns
County staff highlighted two main concerns with the proposal. First, they questioned the roadway improvements planned at the intersection of West Louis Johnson Drive and Amarillo Valley Drive. Second, they recommended including a wider variety of lot sizes to create more diverse housing options for future residents.
Both staff and commissioners worried that the limited range of housing types—primarily focused on smaller lots—failed to provide the mixed residential options needed in the area. This concern became a recurring theme during the meeting.
The proposal significantly modified standard R-7 zoning requirements. While county code normally requires minimum 7,000 square foot lots with 50-foot widths, Rio Blanco sought to reduce these to just 4,600 square feet and 40 feet wide. The plan also included smaller setbacks—reducing side yards from 10 feet to 5 feet and rear yards from 25 feet to 15 feet—allowing homes to be built closer together and to property lines.
| Code | Proposed | |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum Lot Area | 7,000 SF | 4,600 SF |
| Minimum Lot Width | 50′ | 40′ |
| Maximum Building Height | 30′ | 30′ |
| Minimum Setbacks | ||
| Minimum Front Yard Setback | 20′ | 20′ / 10′ |
| Minimum Side Yard Setback | 10′ | 5′ |
| Minimum Rear Yard Setback | 25′ | 15′ |
This 4,600 square foot minimum lot size also represented a reduction from the 5,150 square feet permitted under the existing 2005 PAD overlay for the northern portion of the property.
Community Opposition
The development faced significant opposition, with the county receiving 110 letters against the project and only one in support.
Vice-Chairman Robert Klob questioned the reduction in lot size from 5,150 to 4,600 square feet, asking, “Why is the need to bring it down further?”
Rose responded that while the density remained the same at 3.5 units per acre, the smaller lots reflected current market standards. “We’ve just adjusted the lot size to be more market standard,” she said. She argued that any increase in lot size would lead to price escalation, potentially pricing first-time homebuyers out of the market. Rose added that despite similar dimensions, different lot sizes serve distinct needs: “A 40-foot wide lot may be for a single couple with a baby or something. And a 45-foot wide lot may allow for more bedrooms, office, something like that,” explaining that variations in garage placement and living space create meaningful differences between the housing options.
Klob expressed concerns about market saturation, noting, “There’s 600 homes for sale in the City of Maricopa right now. And you combine this with all the new product that’s coming online… things aren’t selling, and this product’s not selling.”
He also pointed to successful alternatives in nearby communities: “Queen Creek has done really well with their ranches, their one-acre, acre and a quarter. Those homes are selling million two, million five, million eight.” Klob argued that the area needs more variety in housing types beyond small-lot developments, stating, “Our only tool is a hammer here, it feels like, and we need to make, we need to have a bigger toolbox.”
Commissioner Schnepf questioned whether the small lots provided meaningful diversity: “40 feet isn’t very big. And 50 feet, 10-feet difference isn’t very big,” adding, “At what point does it become detached apartments?” He was questioning whether the dense pattern of uniform small homes was meaningfully distinct from higher-density multifamily housing.
Several other commissioners also expressed concerns during the deliberation about compatibility with the surrounding rural character and infrastructure impacts.
Rose countered, “The home builders who would be most interested in this… they say, ‘We can’t build this fast enough.’ The amount of jobs that you’re creating in the state… there’s a lot of people that need housing.”
Master-Planned Communities vs. Rural Character
Rose emphasized that the project aligned with surrounding development plans. “This site has been planned for 3.5 units per acre since 2005,” she said.
She displayed a map showing nearby master-planned communities. “The hatched beige color, those are all master plan communities. They connect with the properties here,” Rose explained.
Rose noted planned transportation improvements: “To the north, the parkway that will be there. To the south, the I-11 freeway that will be there. And then you can see there’s a number of minor and major arterials.”
Addressing the commission’s authority regarding the Comprehensive Plan, Rose stated, “Your hands may be tied in terms of, like, you can’t vote for something that’s not in line with the comp plan. That’s what the plan is. That’s what the voters approved.” She specifically claimed that “the voters approved, in 2009, a comprehensive plan change” and that “the voters have always retained that this property would be consistent with other properties in the area.”
Resident Testimony
Local resident Sonya Loveland quickly challenged Rose’s claim about voter approval: “She keeps mentioning about the comprehensive plan being voted on by the voters, and she was corrected on this last year, I believe, that it wasn’t something that the community voted on. It was something that was implemented by the board of supervisors.” Multiple other residents echoed this correction throughout the hearing, disputing Rose’s claim that the Comprehensive Plan was approved by voters.
Loveland emphasized the rural character at stake: “We have people that have a lifestyle out here that allows them the flexibility to raise animals, to raise their children in an environment that is not a city lifestyle. This is a city lifestyle.”
Dedra Warwick, a resident from Thunderbird Farms, presented a detailed account of existing development approvals in the area. “As of today, no more than two-thirds of the Amarillo Valley Creek is either sold, occupied, or built out. How can we add more homes when one development just shy of three years old is not fully built out?” she asked.
She listed 15 developments already approved for the area, potentially adding up to 30,000 more houses and 96,000 more people. “Isn’t this enough?” she asked.
Real Estate Market Concerns
Local real estate professionals disputed claims of high housing demand.
Dorie Levy, a realtor selling homes in Thunderbird Farms, noted, “What is popular is the rural lifestyle in our area and preserving that.” She reported selling custom homes on 3.3-acre lots for nearly $700,000, arguing, “There is a demand for upper-level custom homes in our area.”
Susan Buonsante, another local agent, provided market data: “As of yesterday, there were 669 active listings in the City of Maricopa alone. That does not include the additional 33 available in Amarillo Creek. So one buyer coming to town to view homes has 702 choices.”
She added, “The reality of the situation is that with inventory rising and pending sales slowing, prices are dropping. These are real community members that are being negatively impacted by the unbridled sprawling and irresponsible development.”
Horse Trails and HOA Concerns
Commissioner Karen Mooney raised concerns about the proposed equestrian trails, citing her experience with HOAs restricting such amenities after development.
“Several communities in that area had allowed for that. However, there was nothing that was included within the HOA documents. And so when they got enough homeowners to complain, they basically are trying to shut the horses off,” Mooney explained.
Rose acknowledged the concern: “We actually had that conversation with the Burgos’. And they were very firm about the fact that, in those HOA documents, right from the outset, there needs to be provision for the HOA,” Rose said.
Last-Minute Negotiations
As opposition mounted during the hearing, Rose attempted to salvage the proposal with concessions. She offered to stipulate that only one-story homes would be built adjacent to rural neighbors and to replace all 40-foot-wide lots (18% of the total) with 55-foot-wide lots.
However, these substantial changes raised procedural concerns. Under commission procedures, substantial revisions to a proposal after public notice typically require a continuance to allow adequate public review. After a brief executive session for legal consultation, Chairman Morris Mennenga indicated the commission would need to continue the case due to the wholesale changes.
Rose protested, stating, “We agreed to a continuance last time because some of the neighbors claimed that they didn’t get noticed… So we would much prefer not to have a case continued again.”
Despite her objections, Commissioner Karen Mooney moved to recommend denial of both the rezoning request and the Planned Area Development overlay. The commission voted 7-1 to deny both applications, with only Chairman Mennenga opposing the denial.
What’s Next
The Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation for denial will now go to the Pinal County Board of Supervisors for final consideration. The Burgos family could revise their proposal to address the concerns raised or move forward to the Board of Supervisors, who will make the final decision regardless of the commission’s recommendation.
The case highlights ongoing tensions between rural preservation and development pressures in Pinal County, especially in areas surrounding Maricopa. For now, the Rio Blanco property will retain its current zoning, maintaining the status quo for neighboring rural residents.
