In fairness to our readers, to Mayor Hiremath and to the Oro Valley Town Council, we want to post this "broadcast email" from Mayor Hiremath to residents of Rancho Vistoso that was forwarded to us. The email was sent yesterday:
"Our Town Attorney received a correspondence via e-mail which said that the property owners of Parcel 7-i will be asking for a 60 day continuance this Wednesday (11-16-11). Also, there seems to be some misinformation being spread by some residents that the developer is marking trees for removal. This is not accurate information. Some trees are being marked for removal because they are infested with an invasive bug and must be removed. This is being done by the Rancho Vistoso HOA and NOT by the developer. This, unfortunately, is a coincidence and the property owner is NOT jumping the gun and starting development which has NOT yet been approved by the council. With regards to TEP marking the area, no one has any idea why they are out there but our Town Manager will look into this Monday when TEP reopens. I just wanted to pass this information on to you in a sincere effort to eliminate the preception of not communicating with all of you, as well as, clearing up any misinformation that is being spread to residents regarding parcel 7-i."
We appreciate that the Mayor has provided his viewpoint on this requested rezoning. His message demonstrates that he recognizes the "angst" that this requested rezoning is causing our residents.
Nonetheless, it remains important for those residents who are concerned with this and other rezoning requests to remain vigilant and active. An informed and active citizenry is the best ally the Mayor and our Town Council can have.
--
8 comments:
This makes me wonder... is there an ulterior motive behind this 60-day extension request? Are the owner and developer not prepared to make a presentation providing additional information this week? Does this give the owner and developer more time to find a way around the residents? Why would the Council approve an extension?
There was an article in the ARIZONA DAILY STAR on Sunday, “Builders bank on high-end rentals.” It talks about a local builder (not in Oro Valley) who is constructing 85 single-story, detached rental units that will resemble houses. Wouldn’t it be nice to have that in Oro Valley? It also mentions a more traditional 304-unit apartment rental, built by HSL Properties, at River Road and North La Cholla. HSL recently purchased land near West Tangerine Road and North Camino de Oeste. The company plans to build 272-unit complex there, and has plans for two more properties on the northwest side. (Is one of these on Parcel 7-1?)
HSL already owns and operates 7,400 apartments in 6 states. Why is Parcel 7-1 so important to HSL? With 1792 additional apartment units currently zoned for Oro Valley on 8 other sites, why is it necessary to disregard the residents/citizens of Rancho Vistoso?
Cares,
Agree: you have your finger on HSL's real motives.
This is a company which has $$$ woes...how is it that all of those properties are without problems in this economy? Don't think it is possible...Wonder where the weak link is...
Conculsion: hunch is that "continuation" gives HSL more time to negotiate the $$$ that will enbable this company to begin developing 7-1...or is it that HSL finally sees reality of this market? or the massive resistance that 7-1 and 2 E are launching to dissuade them from their fantasy?
It is my guess that the 60 day extension was designed to let things cool-off. The hope being that the citizens that are against this development will not have staying power. I think that they will, since this development is not appropriate for the property as long as other apartment zoned property exist.
As you may recall from the 10/19 TC mtg, Parcel 7-I has a legal protest due to the number of residents that wrote, called & emailed in opposition to the apts. I believe the "31% against" figure tabulated by Zoning is probably closer to 95% opposed. I agree that this continuance idea is a ploy to disenfanchise us & hopw we lose steam. But since the developer will not be taking up as much time at the mtg, we will now have more time to speak against the apts. I'm also hoping TC shares their ideas of pros & cons on the apts. We haven't heard from them on what this brings to the community. See you all there Weds.
Shirl, Cares, Chuck,
Star listed HSL's extensive properties in several states. He was Broke-o according to Nombe and scuttlebutt.
Might HSL have lost his $$$$ to build and needs time to find a substitute backer?
The mayor's email actually says it's the "property owners" asking for a 60 day continuance. I wonder if they have to state some kind of reason for the request. I'll keep going to meetings for as long as it takes.
Kat-I heard the sale of the property is contingent on approval to build apts.
All-be sure to read the DIS piece in the Agenda for Weds mtg. They have glossed over the community/legal protest & are still calling it an amendment instead of rezoning - even tho Solomon personally said they can't do that based on the "may" language. Reading it, you'd think a mere 20 people are opposed. Grossly inaccurate!!
Just finished reading ORDINANCE NO. (O)11-27I,which is to add Special Policy 13 to the PAD. I notice that Exhibit C, item 9, removes the condition stated in Exhibit B, item 5. That's the condition that states "The amendment only be approved if access from Tangerine Road be granted by ADOT." So the developer doesn't have to worry about that little problem. Also the number of apartments has grown again, now not to exceed 256 dwelling units.
Post a Comment