This is part 2 of our posting on the Oro Valley Town Council deliberations on the Vistoso Highlands general plan amendment. We posted part 1 yesterday.---
Despite not having any support for the amendment from the Planning and Zoning Commission and from town staff and despite proceeding counsel from council attorney Kelley Schwab that the manner in which the discussions were proceeding was confusing and subject to misunderstandings...
Mayor Hiremath was determined to move this item hearing of Vistoso Highlands amendment. He ignored Schwab's advice. He observed that the council could approve something verbally and that she could write it up later.
More confusion then ensued. It seems that the Mayor had allowed the council to discuss this item after a motion to approve had been made by Council Member Hornat and seconded by Council Member Waters. Oops! The Mayor had neglected to hold the public hearing of the staff report and the applicant's request, which is customary in such hearings.
Council Member Hornat, perhaps perturbed that this discussion was taking too long, observed that he and most council members had read everything and that a public reading of the staff's report was not needed. Nonetheless, he agreed to withdraw his motion so that this discussion could happen.
Town Planner Chad Daines then presented the staff report: "I am here to present the report. I will try to be brief." Council Member Hornat interrupted: "Oh, you will be." Then, the Mayor and Hornat laughed.
After hearing from staff and the applicant, the council continued their discussion.
"Conditions have changed," Hornat said.
"Conditions have changed," Snider stated.
"If the majority of residents are ok with it" then the council should approve it, Hiremath said. He continued: "The direction of this town has changed."
(We're not sure what Council Member Waters thought. He was silent during the entire discussion. Was it that the topic did not engage his interest?)
Rather than focus on the generalized statement that "things have changed" since the general plan was adopted, Council Members Burns, Zinkin and Garner returned the discussions to matters of substance.
Council Member Burns sought input from council attorney Schwab on whether any restrictions imposed by the amendment would be legally severable, therefore not enforceable, if someone sued to remove one of the items and won. Schwab's response was that she did not know. "It is unprecedented," she noted, "putting such detail conditions in a general plan policy document... This is unchartered territory from a legal perspective."
Adding special provisions to a general plan amendment is not unprecedented. The town added number of conditions to the Arroyo Grande General Plan Amendment. Enforcement of these conditions occurs at the zoning approval level if the town chooses to do so. There is no legal requirement that, when the rezoning hearing occurs, which could be several years in the future, the provisions will be enforced. At that time, the land may be owned by an individual other than the person applying for the amendment, someone who may not like the restrictions.
The discussion continued. Council Member Zinkin expressed his concern that the general plan is the governing document when it comes to amendments and that it should not be so lightly considered. He referred to the general plan: "The general plan is an agreement with 41,000 people. Where are our priorities. This [the general plan] gives us direction for all elected and appointed officials to base their decisions," he quoted from the general plan.
On and on it went until the vote: 4-3 in favor. Zinkin, Burns and Garner voted against, therefore upholding the general plan. This major amendment failed because a 5-2 majority was required. The majority was so surprised that it failed a super majority that they asked for a roll call vote.
Even after that vote, Mayor Hiremath wanted to continue the application. Scwhab told him that the discussion was over. The motion had failed. There is no reconsideration unless 2 of the 3 dissenting members agree to do so. That is not going to happen.
We're not making this stuff up. Simply watch the entire hour discussion contained in the video minutes. If you have a different take, please let us know.
---
8 comments:
I have a different take.
And I might preface my remarks with the comment that the original postings were in part false (pc for a complete bold faced lie) and very lisleading. Both characteristics are the 'norm' on this blog.
I amendment had support from three of the P&Z members. So to say that there wasn't any support from the P & Z is a lie....pardom me, false.
And one of the many misleading statements is the headline for the post. As usual, Zinkin, Burns and Garner only stood up for a small percentage of (You). And it would be those who don't believe the General Plan should be followed. The applicant followed the guidelines of the general plan. They presented their case at the P&Z hearing and recieved very specific feedback that some thought that their plan was feasable but that their requested density was not. It was suggested that they lower their density to a level that was compatable with the surrounding (west and north) use.
This change was supported by the neighbors many of whom testified at both the P&Z and the hearing before the Town Council.
(And just as an aside, it is disingenousn for the maker of the original post to make the comment, "so much for an open meeting". It is common practice for the Mayor to request that in the interest of time that residents refrain from repeating the same commentary made by others. It is just another example of the lack of objectivity on the part of the love blog.)
The applicant then agreed to meet all of the demands of the neighbors and agree to cap their density and to limit their project to single story residences only.
And what did the minority do? They completely disregarded "Prodedures for Amending the Plan", which begins on page 13 of the General Plan. They completely disregarded the will of the local residents. The only reason they voted the way they did was because they could and it was in opposition to the majority of the other members of the Council.
You can bet that when it comes time for Garner, Zonkin and Burns to run for office (and I would hope that they don't), the folks in that neighborhood will be reminded of this vote. Trust me on that. ;-)
I do not favor more density. I like the fact that the applicant agreed to cap density and to limit the project to single story homes.
You keep referring to Zinkin as "Zonkin" and then you claim that he is the one who is being petty.
D.....
I am going to revise my former stance of not responding to your comments. Why, you may ask? Because they are usually so outlandish that they are fertile ground for response. I urge you to continue. I just looked at my keyboard......which may be different from yours and the "i" and "o" are right next to each other. I didn't take a typing course and I am prone to making typos. So what exactly is your point?
Is a typo in the same category of a general plan amendment vote. Maybe in your point of reference it is. Which probably also explains why you still support ZInkin.
I am somewhat amazed that, as a woman, you would be supporting a person who has degraded women by his vile comments. One who threatens women who have outed him for his comments.
Maybe you would like to explain your position.
Hey, I finally smoked you out of your cave!
You have referred to Zinkin as Zonkin on more than one occasion recently. Since you had no trouble spelling his name correctly in the past but are having trouble with it now, that appears to be deliberate, not a typo. Also, you always correct your typos in a follow-up post. You haven't corrected any of these "typos." These are two indications that "Zonkin" was deliberate.
My position is that I have no position on the so-called vile comments until I know specifically what they were and in what context they were said.
If you know what they were, please enlighten. If you do not want to post it here, I'm sure you still have my e-mail address.
And if you don't know what they were, then how can you state that the words were vile?
Given that Diane has made vile remarks herself about females who do not share her views on town matters, I am not at all surprised anymore that she continues to blindly follow the LOVE cult leader Mike Stinkin.
Ooops. Now that was a typo, huh? ;)
VC....You are so full of yourself it's actually funny. I do believe the term "cave" is far more applicable to you than me.
And look at 'poor ole' OV Dad. He made a typo too. The "S" and the "Z" are only one space apart, huh?
As for the comments. I do know what they are and they range from vile to completely inappropriate. But confidentially takes precedence. But maybe you should ask Zinkin since he is the one who made them. You might even want to ask some other councilmembers.
Since you are the one laying claim to being able to smoke someone out of their cave, have you noticed that Zinkin has never denied the alledged comments. In all of his correcspondence he never once stated that what was alledged did not occur. He only stated that he was not civily charged. Isn't that interesting? Smoke him out of his hole.
Post a Comment