---
The following remarks of Mike Zinkin were read to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting last evening. These remarks relate to Mike's opposition to the mixed use general plan amendment.
As you can see, Mike stands with the people.
---
"I am a citizen of Oro Valley. I repeat: I am a citizen of Oro Valley. It is important to understand that because it is the citizens of Oro Valley that helped write the General Plan, and it is the citizens that ratified the General Plan. Our town attorney has stated that "The General Plan drives code."
In November of 2003, 60% of the town's voters disapproved a General Plan proposal, primarily because it contained a land use designation called "mixed use." The citizens wanted the term better defined. The modified proposal of the General Plan excluded the mixed use designation. The voters ratified this plan on November 8, 2005. This is now the General Plan we are discussing.
On page 11 of the General Plan there is a chart which denotes whether a General Plan amendment is major or minor. On the vertical access are existing land use categories. On the horizontal axis are the proposed new designations. Pages 23 and 24 of the plan define the land use designations. Neither axis lists a designation of "mixed use". On pages 23 and 24, there is not definition of mixes use designation.
What this agenda item is proposing is not an amendment of the General Plan, but rather a re-write of the General Plan. Neither the learned Oro Valley planning staff, nor you, the Planning and Zoning Commission, have the authority to re-write the General Plan. Only the citizens of this town have the authority to re-write the General Plan.
If there is an applicant that desires to develop any mixed use area, and we all know there is, and who it is, then the applicant should be lobbying the town to draft a change to the General Plan and go to the voters to ask for approval of this change.
Please do not rely solely, totally on the staff's recommendation. It was the staff that failed to advise you of the correct wording in the Vistoso Pad that lead to you incorrectly approving an apartment zoning on land that was not so designated. It was a concerned citizen that had to bring this to the attention of the town.
It the town staff really represents the General Plan, they should be conducting open meeting trying to sell the public of the need to modify the General Plan. They should not be here trying to sway seven volunteers to do something that is in the purview of the 41,000 citizens of Oro Valley.
I realize that this commission is only advisory to the council; but, in this case, the final decision must come from the citizens, the voters. It this body believes that there should be a re-write of the General Plan, then forward that recommendation. There is an election schedule for May15 that could be used to give the citizens an opportunity to add or reject a new land use designation.
Remarks of Mike Zinkin
January 3, 2011
---
10 comments:
Mike,
Eloquently stated and thank you for putting citizens first.
Hopefully, the citizens of Oro Valley know, or will soon know, that Mike Zinkin is a candidate for council in the upcoming election.
Every citizen that has any concern for the welfare of themselves and their neighbors need to vote for Mike, as well as Bill Garner & Brendan Burns---three individuals that put the interests of the people above ANY Special Interest Group.
Mike's words prove his allegiance to us.
Well done! Thanks for speaking up on this important issue that affects ALL of us. Mixed use neighborhoods always end up looking like a run-down hodgepodge. Just clutter with no continuity of style.
Well said. Unfortunately, ignored by P&Z. Big surprise.
Let me preface my remarks by making the disclaimer that I am not speaking on behalf of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
I am not sure what the point/motive was of this blog posting Mr. Zinkin’s comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission. I completely understand the fact that Mr. Zinkin is seeking a seat on the Town Council and that this blog supports that candidacy. However when there is something so contrary to fact attributed to your endorsed candidate, I would think that you would make an attempt to at least put a positive spin on it or make some attempt to explain the misstatements. Unless of course accuracy is not a factor to be considered by the proprietors.
The action that came before the Planning and Zoning Commission last Tuesday evening (Minor Amendment to the Town General Plan adding a new zoning designation titled “Mixed Use”), was directed by the Strategic Implementation Program (SIP). The SIP is available on line at the Town web site and is a state statute directed supporting document to the VOTER APPROVED General Plan for the Town (see page 14 of the General Plan). Mr. Zinkin seems to be either completely ignoring that provision of the plan or is unaware of it. Either should be considered troublesome to the educated voter.
Here is the statement from the SIP:
“LU.8 1.3.1, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.6, 1.5.5, 7.1.4, 7.2 (all), 7.3.1
Define and develop a Complementary Use District (as defined below) Zoning Ordinance and design standards that will be utilized in developing master plan proposals including commercial, office, and/or housing.”
I don’t know how much more clearly it can be stated. The biggest issue to be raised is why this hasn’t happened prior to 2012 when it was described to be accomplished in the “short term” in 2005 when the Plan was approved by THE VOTERS.
In addition, I have previously described the provisions of the VOTER APPROVED General Plan that allow amendments to the Plan. The guidelines for amending the Plan begin on page 10 and continue on to page 16. Nowhere in these pages does the term,”must be approved by the voters” appear. Again Mr. Zinkin is either ignoring the statements contained in the Plan or is simply unaware of their existence. For Mr. Zinkin to make a statement that there is no authority to amend the Plan should also be troublesome to the voting public.
Allow me to quote from another reliable source….the Webster’s New World Dictionary:
“Amend, vt: to change or revise (a law, etc)”
“ Amendment n: a revision or change proposed or made in a bill, law, etc.”
There is simply no excuse for Mr. Zinkin to be so far removed from the reality of what is and is not contained in the General Plan.
People of Oro Valley--- Don't get "sold" on this cox dissertation.
He, his cronies, and the Oro Valley Town Planning Department---or whatever it's now called, are playing with semantics.
To say this is a MINOR Amendment change would be like saying; "The patient is scheduled for a MINOR heart/lung transplant procedure."
General definition of a MINOR Amendment
"As a general matter, a MINOR Amendment is defined to mean a minor variation to an approved scheme which does not raise significant new issues (requiring submission of a new application) provided that, cumulatively, the changes would not result in substantial departure from what was originally approved."
Would anyone consider this amendment approved by cox & the P & Z to be MINOR, if their views of the mountains were obliterated by an apartment complex?
Don't let it happen!
Heed the words of Mike Zinkin and vote for Mike, Bill Garner & Brendan Burns, so the Oro Valley Council won't have a Super Majority that don't concern themselves with the people
OVOT:
In regards to: "... Define and develop a Complementary Use District (as defined below) Zoning Ordinance and design standards that will be utilized in developing master plan proposals including commercial, office, and/or housing.”
I read/interpet this SIP action statement as... including plan proposals for commercial, plan proposals for office, and/or plan proposals for housing.
We, the Citizens, voters in OV, are allowing THE TOWN COUNCIL, to determine what MU (Multiple Use) qualifers are.
Please do not give The Town Council this power.
Except for Mr.Garner, I do not trust them......Solomon, Waters, Hornat,Snider, Hiremath,
and I shall miss Mr. Gillaspie. He must have more $ than the (5) :)
Ferlin,
Well said!
Post a Comment