As we ponder all of the General Plan Amendment requests in progress, we wondered: "What in the history of the LOVE Blog can speak to this?" After all, we've been publishing for almost five years so there must be something in the past from which we can learn.
Was there another time and another Oro Valley Town Council facing these decisions?
We went back to October of 2007 and found a posting from our late friend, Zev Cywan, that spoke exactly to this. Zev refers to former Mayor Loomis in this post. Today it is more than just the Mayor, it is the rest of the super-majority who may be on a path to breaking their agreements with us... agreements grounded in our General Plan, in our PAD's and in our Zoning Codes... to do the bidding of their special interests.
---
WHAT WAS THAT?
Was it a ‘tweak’, was it a ‘variance’, was it a
‘text amendment’ or was it subterfuge!? What was it that gave the Town
Council the right to spot raise the height limit and change a ‘permitted
use’ in order to accommodate the will of an hotel developer? Our
esteemed Zoning Administrator and some others labeled it a ‘text
amendment;' it cannot be a ‘text amendment’ according to both state and
local ‘constitutional’ definitions. It was referred to on several
instances as a ‘variance’; it cannot be a variance as it does not meet
the ‘variance’ qualifications. In other contexts it was referred to as a
'tweak.' So, was it a tweak? What IS a tweak? It was stated (and
accepted by the Mayor and Council) that because the zoning rules and
regs were 20 years old, occasionally it was necessary to ‘tweak’ them in
order to keep up with the times; area ‘X’ was ‘tweaked’, area ‘Y’ was
‘tweaked’, area ‘Z’ was ‘tweaked’; therefor it’s OK to ‘tweak’ whatever
needs to be ‘tweaked.'
Yet, interestingly enough, the Mayor
defends ... ‘tweaking’ the ‘old’ Rancho
Vistoso PAD plan ‘as needed’, and thus plays willy nilly with our rules
and regs, our processes, and viciously tramples on the public’s RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE in it’s governance by denying and defying our right to due
process.
Zev Cywan
2007
---
10 comments:
Blogger Kat said...
It does seem that history is about to repeat itself. I can't help wondering where our HOA is in all of this. They send Lewis Mgt to look for weeds in our yards but they don't have an attorney to represent the interests of the homeowners in Neighborhood 7? They're always saying how concerned they are about protecting our home values. Do they think "tweaking" the PAD to allow apartments on Woodburne is going to be a plus for our home values?
HA! yet another good question for Lewis Mgt.
Zee,
It doesn't appear that the new link dedicated to the 2012 elections is accepting comments yet. And by the way, Christopher Fox is not just my screen name, but my real name as well....
Blogger KAT
I am not trying to defend the Rancho Vistoso HOA or Lewis Management
However, there are some questions I would like to ask Blogger KAT:
How many HOA board meetings have you attended to stay informed on HOA activities prior to the apartment proposal?
Incidentally, Lewis Management publishes Minutes of HOA board meetings on line for residents to stay informed for the Master and every sub-master community they manage.
Did she talk to the Rancho Vistoso HOA board or Lewis Management to see if the HOA has a lawyer on retention? If you look at the budget document sent to all homeowners on November 30, 2010 you will see that account 61550 shows Professional Fees/Legal budgeted for $10,000.
I also know that our sub-master Monterey Community where I live has a lawyer on retention as well.
Our Monterey sub-master HOA also has Lewis Management. The HOA board directs the Lewis mangement company as to what activities it undertakes. Lewis Mangement would not undertake research on adjacent properties unless our board directed them to do so. This is what happened to the Monterey Community in 2006. The Town informed residents that a developer was going to build 36 three story luxury condos on property in front of the entrance to our community. The residents told the Monterey board. The Monterey board got involved with the assistance of Lewis Management and the HOA lawyer to fight that proposal.
The Rancho Vistoso HOA Board sent out a letter notice to homeowners on October 13, 2011 informing them of the 7-I and 2E proposed apartment complexes. The HOA also posted the same information about the proposed apartment complexes on their HOA website, www.ranchovistosohoa.com on October 17, 2011.
John Musolf
AZ Moose. I believe that the HOA only issued the information letter and the web info AFTER some pressure from several homeowners. I don't think they would have done so without the pressure.
If I am wrong. Apologies.
When I attended the town of OV citizen's institute I learned that the general plan is a citizen approved plan that is only to be modified when absolutely necessary. In the case of changing zoning to acomodate the building of apartments, it might be considered if 1. there is no available land that is zoned for apartments, and 2. there is a strong demand for apartments and there is no supply. It does not appear that either of these conditions exist and accordingly the request to change zoning should be denied. Logical?
Chuck,
That was very logical! Can you convince the Council?
Chuck....The General Plan (beginning on page 10) outlines how and when the plan may be amended. If you do not have a copy, it can be accessed on line at the Town web site. While one of the reasons you outlined (#2) is more clearly defined, your #1 is not a part of the Plan.
The state requires that the plan be review every ten years and the review is on the horizon.
Post a Comment