Board Takes Action
The Pinal County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted on February 5th, 2025 to cancel the Development Services Code Update. Residents packed both the board room and overflow areas to voice their concerns about the January 6th proposal.
Background
Pinal County launched this process in December 2024 by announcing its first comprehensive zoning revision since 2012. The county initially planned to modernize regulations and address current needs. In response, concerned citizens formed a Facebook group called “Pinal Code Watchers.” Subsequently, the group quickly grew to over 4,000 members. As a result of mounting concerns, Chairman Miller added the cancellation to the February 5th agenda.
Supervisor Comments
At the February 5th meeting, Supervisor Serdy first addressed the board’s communication limitations. “Because of open meeting law we have to meet because I can’t talk to these guys during the week,” he explained. “I can speak to one without breaking the rules.” He then revealed his earlier work with Supervisor Goodman “to making it more animal friendly.” Furthermore, he noted that many residents “don’t realize you don’t have it that good right now” noting he wanted to improve the situation with the current code.
Community Leaders Respond
David Long, who directs the San Tan Valley Veteran Center, focused on property rights. He specifically asked the county to “allow our organization and other land owners within the county to enjoy the privileges of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Meanwhile, Richie Kennedy, speaking as President of Pinal County Farm Bureau and Chairman of the board of appeals and adjustments, addressed concerns about Michael Baker International, the Pittsburgh-based consulting firm that drafted the code. Kennedy advocated for finding ‘a firm that isn’t so heavily influenced from the East Coast that we would find somebody that would understand and respect rural Southwest values.
Additionally, Jennifer Hilsbos, chair of the Pinal County Democratic party, expressed strong opposition. She stated she was “appalled at how drastically these proposed changes would change the personality of rural Pinal County.” Moreover, she questioned the costs involved in developing the rejected draft.
Planning Commission Perspectives
Two Planning and Zoning Commission members who helped develop the draft code over the past year and a half presented their perspectives. Morris Mennenga, chairman of the commission, reported investing hundreds of hours in the project. As president of Discovery Building Companies Inc., Mennenga develops residential properties which includes, for example, the waterfront homes project in Casa Grande Lakes. “The last thing that this Planning and Zoning commission wanted to do was over regulate that was never our intentions,” Mennenga stated.
Robert Klob, vice chair of the commission, said that he personally invested more than 150 hours in creating the comprehensive document. As president of Robert Klob Designs Inc. and a former Planning & Zoning Commissioner for the City of Chandler, Klob brings extensive experience in production home design and urban development. He strongly opposed canceling the update: “A small but vocal minority has taken it upon themselves to speak for the entire County using intimidation tactics to derail years of hard work. This is not how sound policy is created.” Throughout his career, Klob has specialized in custom homes, production homes, and planned developments, serving on multiple municipal planning commissions and working with builders across Arizona.
Residents Voice Concerns
Many residents highlighted problems with code enforcement in neighborhood disputes. For example, Jon Mott, who leads Country Farms Irrigation and Management Company, described becoming “the victim of the weaponization of the code.” He explained how people actively sought ways to use code violations against others.
Several speakers then pointed to Apache County’s code as a better model. Stephen Kohut particularly praised its simplicity: “You want to build a barn, you want to build stables… two-page form, fill it out, give it Building Safety, goes to County Recorder’s Office, guess what go build.” He emphasized that Apache County’s code protects property owners’ rights while maintaining simple, straightforward processes.
Questions About Process
Residents also raised concerns about Michael Baker International’s role in drafting the code. They specifically requested details about the firm’s selection process, guidelines, funding sources, and competing bids. In response, Chairman Miller indicated he would release budget information about these costs to the public.
Looking Ahead
The supervisors indicated they would seek more public involvement in developing new regulations that reflect the needs of rural communities. For now, the county continues to operate under its existing code.
