Last week, the Oro Valley Town Council heard 3 general plan amendments. Read our posting to learn more about the details of each request. The Olson property amendment was approved 7-0. The Miller Ranch amendment was continued. The Vistoso Highlands amendment was rejected.
This is the first part of a two part posting on the Vistoso Highlands amendment.
----
Council Members Burns, Garner and Zinkin stood up for your general plan at last Wednesday special town council meeting. Because of their vote, the Oro Valley Town Council did not approve a general plan amendment for Vistoso Highland. The amendment would have changed land use from neighborhood commercial to residential. In the form that it was being discussed, it also would have moved Oro Valley into unchartered legal waters.
It took a while to get the final vote. This is because of the bizarre manner in which Mayor Hiremath conducted the discussion. Clearly in favor of approving this amendment, he did everything he could to keep it alive and then to cajole, coax or otherwise intimidate council members to support its approval.
Lest you think we're "off the rails," here's what happened.
The applicant started the discussion of the amendment by requesting that the item be continued. The applicant requested the continuance for 3 reasons: The request had not been approved by Planning and Zoning Commission; it was not recommended for approval by town staff; and the request was probably not going to achieve the needed super majority approval by council. In the end, the applicant was right.
Rather than leave it at that, Mayor Hiremath opened the discussion to a public hearing. His reasoning was that some residents had come to this meeting to specifically state their opinion on the amendment. Six residents spoke on the request.
Others would have spoken. However, Mayor Hiremath had recommended that one not speak if they were merely going to repeat what others had said. So much for an "open" public hearing.
The primary concern of those who spoke was not with the land use change. In fact, they wanted the land used changed to residential. However, they wanted changed to residential only with specific restrictions to which the applicant had agreed. They would approve of the amendment if these restrictions were part of the amendment. They would not approve of the amendment if it did not include these restrictions.
Restrictions passed as part of a general plan amendment, other than a density per acre restriction, are not enforceable, noted town planner David Williams. Restrictions of land use other than a density per acre restriction can only be enforced at the rezoning stage. Williams recommended, several times, that the restrictions be considered during rezoning hearings as this is where enforcement does occur. So, at best, the conditions, if included in the amendment, are guidance for use during rezoning hearings.
Apparently the fact that the restrictions would not be enforeceable did not matter to the majority-4: Mayor Hiremath and Council Members Hornat, Snider and Waters. They were eager to hear this item and to approve it. In fact, the Mayor was so eager that he asked the applicant if they wanted to reconsider their request to continue the item. The applicant then agreed to move forward with the request. A mistake on the applicant's part, as it turns out.
Council then began to discuss the amendment. Council Member Zinkin observed that the general plan does require space for neighborhood commercial and that taking this 25 acre parcel out of commercial land use is in contrast to the plan. "This is an ideal location for commercial." Council Member Garner asked how the request met the criteria for changes to the general plan. Council Member Snider said she was in favor it it. Council Member Hornat had motioned and Council Member Waters had already seconded its approval. They were ready to close the discussion.
As the conversation proceeded, it was clear to town council Kelly Schwab that some council members simply wanted to push this amendment forward without clear definition. Carelessness creates the possibility of mistakes that could not be easily corrected. Schwab recommended that the council continue this amendment so that town staff could further review it under guidance from the council. She was concerned that the discussion was far too vague; that members would be voting on an item on which they did not have the same understanding and agreement.
So, we have, at this point in the discussion, a Mayor and 3 council members who want to push this amendment forward. They want to do it against the advice of their town attorney, who wants them to "take a breath" and document what they are talking about. They want to approve it with no support from the Planning and Zoning Commission. They want to approve it despite lead town staff saying that restrictions at the general plan level are simply not enforceable.
What happened next? Tune in tomorrow.
---
No comments:
Post a Comment