The story so far.
Here's a timeline of events surrounding the proposed crematorium.
• Jan. 10, 2006 — The Oro Valley Development Review Board gave the Harpold family the OK to develop Vistoso Memorial Chapel, a funeral home and crematorium, at 2285 E. Rancho Vistoso Blvd.
• Around May 16, 2006 — The town posted notice of the Development Review Board's first review of the funeral home and crematorium's final development plan. The notice was posted at Town Hall, 11000 N. La Cañada Drive, on the Town's Web site, www.townoforovalley.com, and at the site of the development.
• June 13, 2006 — It was announced at a Development Review Board meeting that the Harpolds asked that the review be postponed until some site plan issues could be addressed.
• Aug. 25, 2006 — The town posted notice of the board's rescheduled review of the final development plan at Town Hall, on the town's Web site and on the site of the proposed development. The town also mailed out 45 notices of the review to owners of property near the site.
• Sept. 19, 2006 — The board unanimously approved the development plan.
• Oct. 12, 2006 — The town posted notice of the Oro Valley Town Council's review of the final development plan at Town Hall, on the town's Web site and on the site of the proposed development. The town also mailed out notices to the same 45 property owners.
• Nov. 1, 2006 — The Town Council unanimously approved the development plan.
• Around Jan. 15 — This is the date Larry Ryan, one of the three Oro Valley residents now suing the town, says he first read about the town's approval of the funeral home and crematorium. He and his neighbors began calling and e-mailing the Town Council.
• Feb. 5 — Larry and Brenda Ryan met with Oro Valley town staffers about the issue.
• Feb. 22 — The Ryans, Gregory D. Santoro, who is also suing the town, and another resident, Tim Horne — who is not involved in the lawsuit — attempted to file an appeal of Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Director Sarah More's decision that a crematory is a permitted use on the site. That same day, Town Attorney Melinda Garrahan sent a letter to the residents' attorney, Katharina Richter, saying why their application was refused.
• March 2 — Garrahan sent Richter an analysis of the issues, including the reasons the town refused the application.• March 8 — The residents attempted to file an appeal of the planning and zoning administrator's decision to the Oro Valley Development Review Board.
• March 22 — Garrahan sent Richter another letter saying no administrative remedies were available to the residents.
• March 27 — Garrahan, the Board of Adjustment and More received a Superior Court summons.
• April 9 — The Superior Court issued a stay order on the town's approval of a crematorium as a permitted use on the site, so the town cannot issue any building permits for the project except for a grading permit.Superior Court issues stay on building of crematorium
Thursday, April 12, 2007
AZ STAR Reports on Judge's Ruling on Crematorium
By Danielle Sottosanti
arizona daily star
Tucson, Arizona Published: 04.12.2007
The Town of Oro Valley for the next two weeks may not issue any building permits besides a grading permit for a controversial crematorium planned to be built in Rancho Vistoso, a Superior Court order issued earlier this week says.
The 14-day order, which Judge John F. Kelly issued on Monday, will remain in effect until after a Superior Court hearing scheduled for April 23.
The issues are complex enough and the plaintiff showed enough support to mandate keeping the status quo for 14 days, Kelly said.
But the order "has no effect because probably only grading would be done in that 14-day period," said C. Brad Woodford, the town's Tempe-based private attorney.
At the April 23 hearing, the town of Oro Valley will defend its refusal of residents' administrative appeals of the town's decision that a crematorium is a permitted use on the site, at the corner of Rancho Vistoso Boulevard and Vistoso Commerce Loop.
The three Rancho Vistoso residents who are taking the matter to court — Gregory D. Santoro and Larry and Brenda Ryan — are among other residents who have been fighting the development of Vistoso Memorial Chapel, a funeral chapel and crematorium, at 2285 E. Rancho Vistoso Blvd.
If Kelly decides in the residents' favor, the town will have to schedule an Oro Valley Board of Adjustment hearing for their appeal and could have to pay their attorney's fees and expenses.
Katharina Richter, the residents' Tucson-based attorney, is requesting that the court decide whether the town of Oro Valley denied them their constitutionally protected right to due process of law.
"It's my clients' position that they have a right to appeal to the Board of Adjustment that a crematory is a permitted use in the zone, and the town refused to accept their right to submit an application for an appeal," she said.
At the hearing, the town will try to prove it was justified in refusing the residents' application for appeal.
"The town's interest in this matter really lies in defending its own process," said Town Attorney Melinda Garrahan.
The town's Planning and Zoning Department in January 2006 gave the funeral home's owner — Harpold Trust LLC — the OK to proceed through the development process, and the Town Council approved the site's development plan on Nov. 1, 2006.
Though Harpold Trust LLC is not a defendant at the April 23 hearing, it has hired an attorney, Tom Parsons of Tucson.
During Monday's Superior Court hearing, Parsons argued against the delay of his client's plans to develop the funeral chapel and crematorium and said he hoped the court would take into account that the process for developing the multimillion-dollar project started two-and-a-half years ago.
Harpold Trust LLC is ready to grade the project site, he said. In his order, the judge said the town can issue a grading permit.
Since February, the residents have attempted twice to appeal the town's earlier decisions to approve the development.
They attempted to file an appeal with the town's Board of Adjustment on Feb. 22 and the town's Development Review Board on March 8. The town refused both applications for appeal.
In a letter dated Feb. 22, Garrahan wrote that their application to the Board of Adjustment was refused "because neither its factual nor legal premises are correct."
"Considering all the facts, there is no 'appeal' process available at this time, whether to the Board of Adjustment or any other branch of the town government," Garrahan wrote.
But the residents and their attorney say the town's refusals have denied them "due process of law," a constitutionally protected right.
● Contact reporter Danielle Sottosanti at 618-1922 or at dsottosanti@azstarnet.com.
arizona daily star
Tucson, Arizona Published: 04.12.2007
The Town of Oro Valley for the next two weeks may not issue any building permits besides a grading permit for a controversial crematorium planned to be built in Rancho Vistoso, a Superior Court order issued earlier this week says.
The 14-day order, which Judge John F. Kelly issued on Monday, will remain in effect until after a Superior Court hearing scheduled for April 23.
The issues are complex enough and the plaintiff showed enough support to mandate keeping the status quo for 14 days, Kelly said.
But the order "has no effect because probably only grading would be done in that 14-day period," said C. Brad Woodford, the town's Tempe-based private attorney.
At the April 23 hearing, the town of Oro Valley will defend its refusal of residents' administrative appeals of the town's decision that a crematorium is a permitted use on the site, at the corner of Rancho Vistoso Boulevard and Vistoso Commerce Loop.
The three Rancho Vistoso residents who are taking the matter to court — Gregory D. Santoro and Larry and Brenda Ryan — are among other residents who have been fighting the development of Vistoso Memorial Chapel, a funeral chapel and crematorium, at 2285 E. Rancho Vistoso Blvd.
If Kelly decides in the residents' favor, the town will have to schedule an Oro Valley Board of Adjustment hearing for their appeal and could have to pay their attorney's fees and expenses.
Katharina Richter, the residents' Tucson-based attorney, is requesting that the court decide whether the town of Oro Valley denied them their constitutionally protected right to due process of law.
"It's my clients' position that they have a right to appeal to the Board of Adjustment that a crematory is a permitted use in the zone, and the town refused to accept their right to submit an application for an appeal," she said.
At the hearing, the town will try to prove it was justified in refusing the residents' application for appeal.
"The town's interest in this matter really lies in defending its own process," said Town Attorney Melinda Garrahan.
The town's Planning and Zoning Department in January 2006 gave the funeral home's owner — Harpold Trust LLC — the OK to proceed through the development process, and the Town Council approved the site's development plan on Nov. 1, 2006.
Though Harpold Trust LLC is not a defendant at the April 23 hearing, it has hired an attorney, Tom Parsons of Tucson.
During Monday's Superior Court hearing, Parsons argued against the delay of his client's plans to develop the funeral chapel and crematorium and said he hoped the court would take into account that the process for developing the multimillion-dollar project started two-and-a-half years ago.
Harpold Trust LLC is ready to grade the project site, he said. In his order, the judge said the town can issue a grading permit.
Since February, the residents have attempted twice to appeal the town's earlier decisions to approve the development.
They attempted to file an appeal with the town's Board of Adjustment on Feb. 22 and the town's Development Review Board on March 8. The town refused both applications for appeal.
In a letter dated Feb. 22, Garrahan wrote that their application to the Board of Adjustment was refused "because neither its factual nor legal premises are correct."
"Considering all the facts, there is no 'appeal' process available at this time, whether to the Board of Adjustment or any other branch of the town government," Garrahan wrote.
But the residents and their attorney say the town's refusals have denied them "due process of law," a constitutionally protected right.
● Contact reporter Danielle Sottosanti at 618-1922 or at dsottosanti@azstarnet.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)