At the March 5 Oro Valley Council meeting, the vote was 6-1 to initiate amending the General Plan. This was the first step in the potential annexation of the area north of Oro Valley known as Arroyo Grande.
Is Paula Abbott the only one who understands the issues of lack of water, too much traffic, too many new homes, not enough wildlife corridor, not enough infrastructure and not enough knowledge?
Will we once again see a decision made with "unintended consequences?" This council has a propensity to do just that on too many occasions.
The argument that the land would be better in the "hands of Oro Valley" than some other entity doesn't mean Oro Valley knows what's going on.
It seems Mayor Loomis wants two legacies: An annexation and a "theme park!"
PLEASE------ Elect Bill Garner & Salette Latas to bring some sanity to our government!!!!
Note: Thanks to "Cyclone" for correcting the fact the Council voted to Initiate Amending The General Plan.
4 comments:
Actually the vote was to intiate the amendment to the GP. There is still a long way to go before the GP is actually amended, at least two public hearings before P&Z and another Council meeting at the end of the year where all GP amendments are considered. Just a clarification.
Good point cyclone.
However, we all know that citizen input does not register with most on the council.
Watch the body language of most of the council when a mere citizen speaks.
It is obvious that our opinions are of no interest to most of the council and then only or barely tolerated because of rules and regulations.
Now, according to Ms. More she seems to be 'getting it' as to those requirements for public notifications both as outlined in the Zoning Codes for Oro Valley as well as the Arizona Constitution; at least that is what she acknowledged in her commentary at last night's Council meeting. I find her admissions' on several occassions, of her unfamiliarity with 'this or that' zoning code or public hearing requirements rather astounding. Were the criteria for her hire only that she carry a reference book and be able to 'bend' at the drop of His Majesty's hat? I can assure you SHE WILL KNOW WHAT IS REQUIRED IN THIS MATTER. Mr. Mayor WILL KNOW it also!!!
HELP!I can't get the numbers to work!
Within the General Plan Initiation 'packet' handed out at the TC meeting on Wednesday, March 5, OPEN SPACE is defined as follows: "Land designated Open Space and for Wildlife corridor will be public, natural open space".
State of Arizona, Section 37-311, definitions:
"Open Space means land that is generally free of land uses that would jeopardize the conservation and open space values of the land or development that would obstruct the scenic beauty of the land"
Town of Oro Valley, Zoning Code, Chapter 31, Definitiions, section 236A:
"Common Open Space shall mean any landscape or natural open space other than frontage open space, INTENDED FOR USE BY ALL OCCUPANTS OF A DEVELOPMENT"
From my years in the real estate profession, open space was most aptly defined as [those areas which are unencumbered by private ownership and available for the use and enjoyment of ALL persons](the Town Zoning definition is more in keeping with this standard); streets, curbs and gutters were not included as open space except for 'path streets' that may be included in a park or similar application. COMMON AREAS were those areas within a subdivision, campus, or multi-commercial entity with limited availability for patronage.
According to the Council, 68% of the annexed land is to be designated OPEN SPACE; THIS LEAVES 32% FOR INHABITED AREAS - houses, condos, apartments, commercial, streets, curb and gutter - that is if we utilize the most commonly accepted analysis of the 'OPEN SPACE' terminology application.
BEAR WITH ME
If the annexed property in ARROYO GRANDE is 14 square miles as is noted in several publications and 68% of said property is set aside as OPEN SPACE then we would be left with 32% or 4.48 square miles for development. Translated into acreage this would total out at 2867 acres included for structure, curb, and gutter. 16,000 dwellings and commercial entities within this size of an area? IMPOSSIBLE!
So, are we being led to believe, and, is the state and our town parsing in muck, that we are going to get this glorious open
and vastly natural addition? This appears to be a myth, cleverly worded to present merely an impression and hide the truth.
Post a Comment