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.

Though the rezone passed, a citizen’s group obtained enough signatures for a referendum which was to take place in January but was repealed at the request of BC2.

Since that time, GJR purchased 40 acres from BC2 and has requested a zone change for 6.2 acres of those acres for an RV park.

Community Development Director Cody Blake offered a recap of what he had already shared at planning and zoning and a community information meeting regarding the current zone change request.

Blake said the first application was received in September 2019 and the project “has gone through several iterations, adjustments and changes based on public comment and concerns based on access to diversity to buffering.”

“The developer has tried to address many of the concerns of those that are going to live close to this project,” said Blake, who named and answered the six concerns:

  1. Lighting – the town has a lighting ordinance
  2. Traffic– the developer did a traffic study for 86 units, though not required, and at stage one the study says there is no need for a traffic light
  3. Clear cutting of trees – Under the town’s site plan review, the developer is required to keep as many of the natural trees as possible; the town also has an ordinance requiring them to plant more trees to beautify the project
  4. Firewise – the Town has a Firewise ordinance which requires the park to maintain a safe Firewise project requiring them to take out dead trees and ladder fuels
  5. Buffering between the citizens that live off of Vallery Lane — Project began with no buffering; went to 100 foot buffering and now 150 buffering. Blake provided a photo with a 30 foot red banner for illustration which was 150 feet back; it was barely visible
  6. First impression – The park is 700 feet off from the highway and will eventually be behind a commercial project. It is about 1400 feet from Camp Tatiyee and over 2,000 feet from Mountain Gate Community.

“So, the developer has tried to address all of the concerns,” said Blake.

“Some of them he cannot address. He’s got a project that we as staff or a town feel is a quality project that will provide a benefit to the town and will provide a needed resource for the town, as we do not have any real RV park in the town and will give those traveling through town a place to stay instead of going up to Hon-Dah or out into the forest.

“They can now stay some place closer.”

Blake added that the RV park will provide additional revenue for the town through sales tax revenue which results in a benefit to provide better roads, police services and more.

Mayor Stephanie Irwin invited James Gappmayer of GJR Development to speak.

Gappmayer announced that due to concerns heard at planning and zoning over congestion on 260, they will be putting in a deceleration lane, even though it is not required.

He said the deceleration lane is 300 feet and then there is 700 feet to the RV park.

“The project has been downsized to make sure it works. We do not want to touch any of the forest if we don’t have to and I think we are touching very little of it compared to R-Low zoning which would take a lot of streets and bigger area,” said Gappmayer.

Opening up the meeting for public hearing, Irwin said,

“I would just like to remind everybody that wants to talk tonight that this council has attended – we get all the minutes from the planning and zoning meeting; we attended a community meeting and we’ve all toured the property.

“So I think we are pretty aware of some of the concerns that you have and I would like you to remember that when you talk tonight, don’t continue voicing those same objections because we have heard you loud and clear and we appreciate that.”

Three persons spoke. Rob Ingels, Mary Ellen Bittorf and Lon Hoffman.

Ingels expressed concern over safety and in summary said, “I just know that if I heard discussion on how a rezoning like this is compliant to the General Plan and it is adhering to the Forest Service Land Exchange agreement, I would be more comfortable with it.”

Bittorf, who stated concerns over the trees and the town listening to the its citizens over the developer said, “I am against over development and I think that this is a perfect example of what that is.”

Hoffman, who is listed as the agent for GJR Properties on the zoning application, reiterated the developer’s concessions and recounted the financial benefits to the town.

He spoke of the recent zone changes for Lion’s Club International and Camp Grace, and of both camp’s "hypocritical" opposition to the RVP zone change.

“The elephant in the room, once again, is the threat of a referendum,” said Hoffman, who also said, “There are no winners in the threat of a referendum.

“With actions come consequences. The threats have again blackened the eye of Pinetop-Lakeside from an economic development standpoint. Businesses and developers pay close attention to the climate within a community prior to investing.”

Councilor Paul Watson, who has spent a number of years courting economic development for growth and development for Navajo and Apache counties said he believes that after a review of the project, it meets the idea of economic development.

“Typically, it is commercial development, transitioning from the commercial back to the residential, or commercial to high density residential, then on to your low density,” said Watson.

The zone changed passed with the recommendation that the developer maintain as many trees as possible; there be no permanent RV residents, no RV skirting or built on decks and RV residents be limited to nine months in duration.

Reach the reporter at

Barbara Bruce is a reporter for the White Mountain Independent, covering arts and entertainment on the Mountain and the Pinetop-Lakeside town government.

(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.