You can read Part 1 HEREBelow is the speech that I gave before the P&Z Commissioners:
Point #1: There’s a document in the P&Z Packet that describes the surrounding neighborhood land uses. It describes the neighborhood EAST of the property as being “single-family residential 7000 and 10,000 sf lots.” This is false.
A map that I obtained from the Town shows that it was actually zoned for a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet (not 7000 sf)…and more importantly, although that parcel was zoned for 10,000 sf minimum lot sizes, it was not developed that way.
The majority of homes in that neighborhood (Ironwood Canyon) are on lot sizes between 16,000 and 19,000 square feet. The smallest lot is just under 15,000 sf and the largest lot is 33,000 sf. There are a total of 65 homes and 22 of them are on lot sizes of over 20,000 sf.
The developer (WLB Group) is asking to build 167 homes on lot sizes of 7000 square feet and less with only 11 lots of 16,000 square feet, meaning that the average lot size will be way under 15,000 sf. This means that the entire buildable portion of the property will be mass-graded. (When the average lot size is less than 15,000 sf, the developer is allowed to mass grade the entire property). This not in harmony with the surrounding neighborhoods as the developments directly to the east and to the north were not mass-graded.
Point #2: The Staff Commentary (in the packet) states that this proposal conforms with the General Plan because it will provide housing for employees and students of the adjacent schools.
Those schools have been there for years and the employees and students haven’t needed housing in the immediate area in all that time. Why do they suddenly need it NOW? We already have 570 new homes planned at Capella…right next door.
What did the applicant present to the staff that supports the housing need for employees and students of adjacent schools? Where are these people and how many of them are there?
In 2014, the surrounding neighbors agreed to a rezoning request on that parcel to allow 118 semi-custom homes on lot sizes ranging from 1/3 acre to 1.5 acres. What significant change has taken place in the last 4 years to support this new proposal?
Point #3: The documents state that, “Staff recommends approval.” Well, they also recommended approval of the original plan that was presented for this property in 2014 --- 118 semi-custom homes on large lots with no mass grading and no connecting walls. So does this mean that the staff was wrong when they recommended approval of that project in 2014? And if they were wrong in 2014, why should we trust their judgment now?
I want names
A few days later, I contacted the Town and asked for the names of everyone involved in compiling the informational packet for the P&Z commissioners and the Power Point presentation and reviewing it for accuracy. I was provided the following names:
Bayer Vella (Planning Manager/Planning & Zoning Administrator)
Michael Spaeth (Principal Planner)
Rosevelt Arellano (Senior Planner)
Milini Simms (Planner)
Getting into the weeds
So that’s FOUR Town planners who worked on this who either didn’t know that the information they provided was false (incompetence) or they knew but their number one job is not to tell the truth, but rather to do the mayor’s bidding by pushing through new developments as quickly as possible. Either way, the citizens are not being properly represented.
Mayor Hiremath always says that he doesn’t “like to get into the weeds” but shouldn’t the staff be getting in there? The staff should be visually inspecting the neighborhoods adjacent to the subject property to ensure compatibility and not just assume that the developer’s submittal and Town documents are accurate.
Since P&Z and the Town Council base their votes on the information provided to them by staff, that information needs to be accurate and up-to-date.
The Vote
The initial vote was a 3-3 tie with one commissioner absent.
Voting YES to approve the rezoning were Chairman Charlie Hurt and Commissioners Tom Drzazgowski and Don Cox.
Voting NO were Vice-Chair Melanie Barrett and Commissioners Thomas Gribb and Bob Swope. (Commissioner Gribb mentioned my speech as his reason for voting no.)
They reworded the motion and voted again. The second vote was 5-1 to DENY the rezoning. Commissioner Tom Drzazgowski was the lone YES vote. It will still go before Council, but with the caveat that P&Z does NOT recommend approval.
Once again, town staff controlled the message and the message was false.
Below is the erroneous information that was included in the P&Z packet and in the Power Point presentation. It appears in Row 3 where it describes the zoning to the east of the subject property.
Below is the false statement made by Planner, Milini Simms, during the Town’s presentation in support of the Saguaro Viejos rezoning:
“The existing zoning is 20,000 square feet and the applicant is requesting to rezone the property to 7000 sf lots…..I do want to point out that at 7000 square foot lots, it is located to similar sized lots especially to the east and to the south.”
As you can see, if I hadn't spoken up, the P&Z Commissioners would have assumed the information in their packet was correct and they would likely have approved the rezoning. You have to wonder how many other times they have unknowingly voted to approve a rezoning based on false information.
Diane Peters has lived in Oro Valley since 2003, moving here to escape the humidity of the East Coast. She’s been involved in OV politics and development issues since 2006. In 2014, she organized a citizens group, Citizen Advocates of the Oro Valley General Plan, who over a 9-month period, successfully negotiated a controversial 200-acre development project. In her past life, she worked in medical research at various University Hospitals in New England. Her interests include reading, writing, nature photography, travel, art galleries, museums, and politics.
