PTLS Council approve RVP zoning, again

Filling the PTLS council chambers once again regarding the controversial rezone of 6.2 acres off of Highway 260 from R-Low to RVP, only three people spoke at the public hearing, but all awaited the outcome.

PINETOP-LAKESIDE — Up once again before the council on April 15 was the recommendation from Planning and Zoning for a rezone from Residential (R-Low) to Recreational Vehicle Park (RVP). This time the application was at the request of GJR Development, LLC for 6.2 acres. and it passed unanimously.

Since September 2019 the Town of Pinetop-Lakeside and citizenry in the surrounding communities have been at odds over converting first, 25.2 acres, and most recently 6.2 acres from R-Low to RVP. The first request was made by BC2 for GJR who planned to purchase the property contingent upon a rezone.

Reach the reporter at

With 20 plus years media experience, Barbara Bruce is an award winning journalist, senior reporter and monthly columnist for the White Mountain Independent.

(4) comments


PTLS will regret this decision when all 40 acres are developed into an "RV" subdivision, to become another eyesore to make ours a trailer-trashy town. Move these types of "developments" (read "over-developments") out into the County where they belong. Adios cute mountain Town.


yep. Cody blake and the rest of the elected officials cave to developlers and ignore the people who voted them in. So sad for the residents near this location. Residents of Pinetop-Lakeside WAKE up! vote out these losers who don't even care about you!


First, as a former City Manager, I believe it to be totally inappropriate for the Town Manager to pen an unsolicited, open, partisan, letter-editorial to all the citizens detailing his personal support of a controversial Developer, no matter who that is, nor even the merits of the project. [Letter Now Deleted?] Just an aside here, but I see the Town Manager taking a position in support of this project which apparently percolated down over Town Staff to bend the direction of the decision. I think that this is totally wrong, a Town Manager should listen to staff, listen to Council, listen to the people, both for and against, and let the elected Town Council do the politicking, Not, the “Manager”. Can you imagine being an employee working for him (Planning Director?) and trying to point out the flaws in the project. It is obvious to me that this “Manager” is far too political in his orientation such that he appears to have been working for this Developer. I say Yes, by all means, let’s have a referendum on this Project (and the same on the rest of the remaining 40 acres) AND let’s have an Initiative to Vote this Manager Out! He is more appropriate for strip-mall development in Vegas, rather than a once picturesque Mountain town, like PTLS! I see what has happened here, and IT IS the Town Manager. My advice is to get rid of him ASAP. Second, I move to strike this 1-sided letter from the record. It is so pro-development that I’ll bet the POTLS citizens were denied Due Process of the Laws by through this “Manager”. I intend to take back Due Process by signing the Referendum on this trailer-park-“Resort”.


I'm really curious as to what people want this developer to do? He owns it; any residential development will 1) take out more trees than an RV park; 2) have "permanency" in the people who will live there for years in their houses; and 3) close off the trail for sure (whereas an RV development will likely allow trail access since trails are an attractive amenity to entice RV stays. What they do NOT want to see will be exactly what will occur if this development doesn't happen! I don't get it. An RV park is NOT a mobile home subdivision with permanent residents; it's a place where people with RVs traveling through park for a few days, maybe stay for a few weeks in the summer, then leave. There are quiet hours/noise regulations (which won't happen with a residential development) and maintenance of the tree canopy. What do opponents of this project want this developer to do instead? What's preferable?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.