Thursday, March 6, 2008

Zev Cywan Needs Help--Re: Arroyo Grande

On our posting noting that the OV Council initiated action to amend the General Plan to accommodate the potential annexation of Arroyo Grande, Zev Cywan has concerns figuring where all the 68% of "open space" will come from.

Perhaps Council Member Parish, an avid blog reader can help Zev and others understand where the "open space" will come from with up to 16,000 new "dwellings."

Below is Zev's comment:
Art
******************************************************************************************

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.

1 comment:

Zev Cywan said...

Have I perhaps found 'THE ANSWER' to my own dilemna?

Under the 'CONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLANNING PROGRAM' as presented to
"the Town of Oro Valley, Mayor, Council, and Citizens, January 16, 2008, the following is stated:

DESIGNATION OF OPEN SPACE
"In applying an open space element or a growth element of a general plan, a local jurisdiction shall not designate private land or state trust land as open space, recreation, conservation or agriculture unless the local jurisdiction receives the written consent of the land owner or...allows at least one residential dwelling unit per acre."

Is it my imagination or is this a bunch of mumbo-jumbo (including the 3 dots as they appear in lieu of whatever) designed to parse, confuse, and obfuscate, in order that the State and the Town can virtually concoct whatever THEY want for whatever purposes THEY designate at whichever time is convenient - for THEM?

THIS LEGALESE BS HAS GOT TO STOP AND ANSWERS AND DEFINITIONS, IN ENGLISH, MUST BE DEMANDED!