If you think this issue may not impact you, think again. Without getting involved in constitutional issues, if other than a "Conditional Use Permit" on religious uses is approved, you may well have your next door neighbor operating a "religious institution" in his home.
Please read the following email our friend Bill Adler sent us, as a means of alerting our neighbors to this issue.
Thank you Bill.
Art
*************************************************************************************
Art
An item your blog readers might find either interesting, alarming or amusing:
The Town Council is considering a code change to allow religious uses in all zoning districts, including residential districts, where religious use is presently prohibited.
So, a minister could buy or lease an existing home within an existing neighborhood, and convert it to a religious use. The proposed change as it stands would allow this change of use "by right," which means automatically. I've been advocating for a change in use to require a "Conditional Use Permit," which requires notice to neighboring homeowners, and an opportunity for those folks to speak at a public hearing.
The issue isn't whether religious use is good or bad in a neighborhood. Freedom of Religion is basic. The issue is whether a person or group buying a home next to yours or mine, and converting its use from residential to religious is acceptable in all neighborhoods. If not, can conditions be placed upon that change in use so that noise, parking and any other impacts can be mitigated? My answer is, probably.
Anyway, the elected officials considered this matter last night, and tabled it to the second meeting in September. There is time now for residences to visualize the benefit or detriment of this proposed code change, and let the elected officials know. The elected officials who seem to be especially interested in this matter are, Paula Abbott, Barry Gillaspie and Helen Dankwerth. However, comments to any or all of them would be appreciated.
The Town has maintained that it has tried to notice ALL HOAs in Oro Valley regarding this proposed code change, but I have not observed citizens showing up at either the Open Houses, Planning Commission hearing or last night's Town Council meeting.
Thanks for helping to publicize this proposed ordinance change.
Bill Adler
8 comments:
Why the change in code? What's broken.
The term "religious use" will have many interpretations.
This will be abused.
Now this is going to be a first and I want most of the die-hard followers of this blog to sit down and take a deep breath before you read the following.
Mr Adler and I are in complete and total agreement on this issue and you had better take this one to heart. This is one of those very important ONE VOTE issues and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is completely justified. I sent a letter to the P&Z Commission urging them to so recommend.
Five years on the Planning and Zoning Commission afforded me significant knowledge into such matters. Our zoning code requires that a public hearing be held if an individual wants to teach piano lessons in a primary dwelling unit (residence) to more that one person but not more than six at any one time. There must be a public hearing. The same applies to simple tutoring of students.
But the Planning and Zoning Commission, recommended approval to a code change that will allow a religious institution to be operated in a primary dwelling unit (residence) WITHOUT PUBLIC NOTICE OR ANY PUBLIC HEARING. There is simply no logic in that kind of a decision.
I commend Barry, Helen and Paula for opposing this measure and urge you to contact the remaining council members and ask them to rethink their position. Mr. Parish was not present for the vote so there is no indication at this time how he will vote. Don't leave him out.
Requiring a CUP is not discrimination, which federal law prohibits. It is not onerous. It is good government protecting the rights of neighborhood home owners.
Freedom of religion is not the issues here. Maintaining continuity in how we protect the property rights of residential owners is the issue.
Vistoso Community Association HAS NOT notified anyone in Neighborhood 2, as far as I know.
Lewis Mgt. is "famous" for their up-to-date and correct information :) But what can I say, they really WORK FOR Vistoso Partners.....and I mean really work.
I'm also in Rancho Vistoso and never got notified. Notifying HOAs is NOT an approved method of notification under Arizona law, which Oro Valley supposedly follows.
Ferlin, I hope that you or someone like you who knows the score will run for the RV HOA board when the residents take control, and then maybe we can get rid of Lewis Management and put someone in there who works for the residents.
Ferlin and OV Mom.....
The notification laws are well established and followed very closely by the Town.
PLEASE, PLEASE learn them.
OVOT,
The Oro Valley Town Code, Article 2-5, ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS, paragraph 2-5-3, Public Hearing Required, states:
"No ordinance, except emergency ordinances, shall be passed without a public hearing. Notice of public hearing shall follow state law."
You can read it here.
So let’s look at the state law. Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 9, Section 462.04, Public hearing required, states:
A. If the municipality has a planning commission or a hearing officer, the planning commission or hearing officer shall hold a public hearing on any zoning ordinance. Notice of the time and place of the hearing including a general explanation of the matter to be considered and including a general description of the area affected shall be given at least fifteen days before the hearing in the following manner:
1. The notice shall be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation published or circulated in the municipality [sorry, but the Daily Territorial does not qualify], or if there is none, it shall be posted on the affected property in such a manner as to be legible from the public right-of-way and in at least ten public places in the municipality [obviously, not applicable in this case]...
2. In proceedings involving rezoning of land which abuts other municipalities or unincorporated areas of the county or a combination thereof, copies of the notice of public hearing shall be transmitted to the planning agency of such governmental unit abutting such land. [I have no idea if this was done.] In proceedings involving rezoning of land that is located within the territory in the vicinity of a military airport or ancillary military facility as defined in section 28-8461, the municipality shall send copies of the notice of public hearing by first class mail to the military airport. [n/a] In addition to notice by publication, a municipality may give notice of the hearing in such other manner as it may deem necessary or desirable.
3. In proceedings that are not initiated by the property owner involving rezoning of land which may change the zoning classification, notice by first class mail shall be sent to each real property owner, as shown on the last assessment of the property, of the area to be rezoned and all property owners, as shown on the last assessment of the property, within three hundred feet of the property to be rezoned. [This paragraph seems applicable and was not followed.]
4. In proceedings involving one or more of the following proposed changes or related series of changes in the standards governing land uses, notice shall be provided in the manner prescribed by paragraph 5:
(a)-(d) [These sections don’t’ appear to be applicable.]
(e) An increase or reduction in permitted uses. [This appears to be applicable.]
5. In proceedings governed by paragraph 4, the municipality shall provide notice to real property owners pursuant to at least one of the following notification procedures:
(a) Notice shall be sent by first class mail to each real property owner, as shown on the last assessment, whose real property is directly governed by the changes. [That would be all of us.]
(b) If the municipality issues utility bills or other mass mailings that periodically include notices or other informational or advertising materials, the municipality shall include notice of such changes with such utility bills or other mailings. [This would have been the most cost-effective method, but I did not get notified this way.]
(c) The municipality shall publish such changes prior to the first hearing on such changes in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality. The changes shall be published in a "display ad" covering not less than one-eighth of a full page. [I don’t recall this happening, either.]
6. If notice is provided pursuant to paragraph 5, subdivision (b) or (c), the municipality shall also send notice by first class mail to persons who register their names and addresses with the municipality as being interested in receiving such notice. The municipality may charge a fee not to exceed five dollars per year for providing this service and may adopt procedures to implement this paragraph. [I am not aware that this service is available.]
7. Notwithstanding the notice requirements set forth in paragraph 4, the failure of any person or entity to receive notice shall not constitute grounds for any court to invalidate the actions of a municipality for which the notice was given.
B. If the matter to be considered applies to territory in a high noise or accident potential zone as defined in section 28-8461, the notice prescribed in subsection A of this section shall include a general statement that the matter applies to property located in the high noise or accident potential zone.
C. After the hearing, the planning commission or hearing officer shall render a decision in the form of a written recommendation to the governing body. The recommendation shall include the reasons for the recommendation and be transmitted to the governing body in such form and manner as may be specified by the governing body.
D. If the planning commission or hearing officer has held a public hearing, the governing body may adopt the recommendations of the planning commission or hearing officer without holding a second public hearing if there is no objection, request for public hearing or other protest. The governing body shall hold a public hearing if requested by the party aggrieved or any member of the public or of the governing body, or, in any case, if no public hearing has been held by the planning commission or hearing officer. [more non-applicable verbage about military airports] Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be given in the time and manner provided for the giving of notice of the hearing by the planning commission as specified in subsection A of this section. [Again, this was not done.] In addition a municipality may give notice of the hearing in such other manner as it may deem necessary or desirable...
You can read the statute here:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/9/00462-04.htm
OV Mom....
And there has been at least two public hearings, properly noticed on this subject. Notifying the HOA's is one way the Town goes beyond the minimum requirement of the statutes.
There is no rezoning of any land and therefore no requirement to notify specific individual land owners. It is a change in the zoning code (permitted uses within a zone) of Oro Valley mandated by changes in federal law.
"the planning commission or hearing officer shall hold a public hearing on any zoning ordinance"
So, was this a zoning ordinance? Yes, ORDINANCE (O) 07-33 OV7-06-04 to be specific.
So what is required? First and foremost, a notice needed to be "published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation published or circulated in the municipality".
Secondly, "In proceedings involving..." "An increase or reduction in permitted uses" (which is certainly the case here) "the municipality shall provide notice to real property owners pursuant to at least one of the following notification procedures:
"(a) by first class mail to each real property owner,... whose real property is directly governed by the changes" [i.e., all property owners, except anyone who might own a park].
"(b) [by including] notice of such changes with such utility bills or other mailings
"(c) [by publishing] such changes prior to the first hearing on such changes in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality...in a "display ad" covering not less than one-eighth of a full page."
Finally, if the Town chose the utility mailings or the 1/8 page ad, it needed to "also send notice by first class mail to persons who register their names and addresses with the municipality as being interested in receiving such notice."
I haven't seen any evidence that any of the required notifications happened.
Apparently, some council members were unsatisfied with the public notification process in this case as well.
Post a Comment