Showing posts with label Neighborhood Meeting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Neighborhood Meeting. Show all posts

Friday, December 9, 2022

Bits and Pieces

Monday...Neighborhood meeting of Drive-Thru at LaCanada and Oracle
After years of vacancy, the bladed lot on the northwest corner of LaCanada and W Naranja Drive is proposed for two medical buildings and a drive-thru restaurant. The last neighborhood meeting on this was two and half years ago. Read more about the project here.

Delightful rain last weekend
Last weekend, more than 23,000 acre feet of water fell over Oro Valley. It was mostly a gentle rain. It was the kind that benefits the town's groundwater supplies. More days like that are good!

An awesome holiday display light show
The awesome holiday light show is back. It located at a home at the intersection of W Golf View Drive and W Landoran.  Show starts around 6pm. Well worth seeing.

Next OVCN sports facility hearing in February
The next public hearing on the request by the Oro Valley Church of the Nazarene (OVCN) for a major sports facility is in February. It will be held by the Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission. At that time, the Commission will vote on whether it approves or does not approve the application. Or, they could approve it with conditions.  After that, the The Oro Valley Town Council will  hear the application. Approval will require a supermajority (three quarters approval) of the council.  

At Wednesday's hearing, town staff planner Hannah Oden stated that the facility will impact views, increase traffic, and increase noise in the area. The only mitigating measure to some of that to is require that the Church not hold more than one event a time. Residents speaking at Tuesday's hearing are staunchly opposed to the project because of its negative impact on their community.

Oro Valley to cut the ribbon on Steam Pump Ranch Garage restoration
"ORO VALLEY, Ariz. (Dec. 7, 2022) – The Town of Oro Valley invites the community to a ribbon cutting ceremony to celebrate the restoration of the Garage building at historic Steam Pump Ranch (10901 N. Oracle Road) on Saturday, December 10 at 10 a.m. Guest speakers include Mayor Joe Winfield and Parks and Recreation Director Kristy Diaz-Trahan." (Source: Town of Oro Valley Media Release)

Monday, September 10, 2018

Mark your calendars




Tangerine State Land Rezoning
Neighborhood Meetings



This Thursday, September 13th
6:00 to 8:00 PM
Town Council Chambers

Next Thursday, September 20th
6:00 to 8:00 PM
Town Council Chambers

Please read the below Guest View for complete details on what is being proposed for this 885 acre parcel and why you should attend this meeting.

Monday, December 11, 2017

REMINDER: Mark Your Calendars ~ Two Important Town Meetings This Week

Once again, we know that this is a busy time of year for many people but we hope that each of our readers will make an effort to attend at least one of these important meetings.

Tuesday, December 12th at 6 PM
Community Meeting – Town Council Chambers
Golf Courses Update
Special meeting with Town Manager, Mary Jacobs.

Ms. Jacobs will review the Golf Consultants’ recommendations (from the $50,000 Golf Consultants’ Report) and also where the Town currently stands in the process of evaluating golf operations. Attendees will have an opportunity to ask questions and offer feedback.

The final recommendation to Council will be presented in January 2018.


Wednesday, December 13th at 6 PM
Public Meeting/Neighborhood Meeting – Hilton El Conquistador
Proposed Development - Commercial/Senior Care/Apartments

25 acres located on the NE and SE corners of Oracle Road and El Conquistador Way
This project is located within the Oracle Road Scenic Corridor.

The applicant is proposing to rezone the property FROM single-family residential R1-144 (144,000 sf lots), Resort District and Technology Park TO Planned Area Development with an underlying zoning designation of Neighborhood Commercial.

NOTE: This property is owned by HSL Properties (Humberto Lopez, who infamously dumped the money losing golf courses on the town and who has donated almost $80,000 to the campaigns of all 7 current sitting council members.)

$15,730 to the 2014 Election campaigns of Hiremath-Hornat-Snider-Waters
$25,750 to the 2015 Recall Election of Hiremath-Hornat-Snider-Waters
$38,000 to the 2015 Election campaigns of Pina-Rodman-Solomon

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Guest View: Robert Peters ~ Oro Valley is Nothing More Than a Profit Center for Developers

My wife and I recently attended an Oro Valley Neighborhood Meeting regarding the proposed annexation of a 321-acre parcel of State Trust Land on the NE corner of Tangerine and Thornydale.

Contrary to what your real estate agent may have told you when you agreed to pay a premium to live next to State Trust Land, this is not public land that will never be developed. It is land governed by the Arizona Constitution that can be sold at auction to the highest bidder for the economic benefit of “Trust Beneficiaries.” In this case, that beneficiary is the schools (K-12).

Oro Valley is proposing annexation of this land to prevent Marana or Pima County from doing the same. Their reasoning is that they would prefer to have control over how this land is eventually developed. For those of you who have been living here for many years, the notion of Oro Valley getting their hands on a large parcel of pristine desert is not a comforting thought.

Councilmember Solomon was more interested in his phone
The Neighborhood Meeting was packed. The following five councilmembers were in attendance: Mary Snider, Lou Waters, Bill Rodman, Rhonda Pina and Steve Solomon. It should be noted that Solomon spent most of the evening looking down while scrolling on his cell phone. This is not the first time we’ve observed him doing this during a Town meeting. This should give you some insight as to how much he cares about listening to his constituents.

Residents speak up
After the Town’s presentation, the Q&A session became quite heated. People were justifiably concerned about their property values, their privacy, and the impact to both flora and fauna. They were well-aware that recent land rezonings in our town have featured mass grading, tiny 7,000 square foot lots, and a mix of one and two story homes separated by the smallest setbacks allowable under building codes, leaving little room for indigenous desert plant species and wildlife.

Comments from the audience included the following [paraphrased]:

• They need to come up with a better plan to fund education other than destroying the desert.

• Why bother building wildlife tunnels when there will be no wildlife left to use them?

• First you sell the land to raise money for schools. Then developers build more homes on that land, thereby increasing the school population, which will then necessitate the selling off of more State Land to raise money for more schools. It’s a never-ending cycle of desert destruction.

• Since money is all this town cares about, we can all protest by not shopping in Oro Valley. Spend your money elsewhere.

• One woman began her speech by connecting the Town Council’s poor financial decision in purchasing the Community Center and Golf Courses as the reason why they don’t have any money for ball fields at Naranja Park which has led to a property tax proposal in order to fund them.  Regarding the annexation, she stated that you can expect them to mass grade this beautiful land in their never-ending quest for money. She ended her speech with, “We need to vote these [expletives] out of office!”

And that will give you some idea of the anger in that room that night.

Oro Valley Standards?
The Town’s Senior Planner, Roosevelt Arellano, explained why Oro Valley wants to annex this land:

“We want to assure a good design that’s compatible with Oro Valley standards; something that we’re used to in our community.”

And therein lies the problem, because for many years, what we have become “used to” with “Oro Valley standards” is wanton destruction of the desert with barren, bladed landscapes free of any living plant or animal with homes packed so closely together that you can look out your kitchen window and watch your neighbor’s television.

A Studied Observation
Having the retrospection of 14 years of experience attending these Neighborhood Meetings and working with town staff, land owners and developers, we have come to realize an all too familiar pattern. Going forward, this is what you can expect:

Step 1: The highest bidder
Unless someone who cares about preserving the land can come up with enough money to outbid them, the land will be sold to a wealthy land developer.

Step 2: Enter the usual suspects
Most or all of the following people/entities will be involved in the development of this parcel: The WLB Group, Greg Wexler, Mike Carlier, Meritage Homes.

Step 3: Neighborhood Meetings
Neighborhood Meetings will be held where the developer will attempt to convince the surrounding neighbors that their proposal is the best use for this land. (NOTE: Similar to how a car dealer does not give you his best price upfront, it has long been rumored that the initial development plan includes much more than what they actually want. This gives them room to negotiate when neighbors form a Citizens’ Group to protest the development).

Step 4: Divide and Conquer
The Town and the developer will then use a divide-and-conquer strategy to covey favor with certain members of the citizens’ group in order to lure them away from the larger and stronger group, thereby weakening the group. They may approach individuals to discuss plans and negotiate terms privately and/or elect Neighborhood Captains of their choosing to help win over support for the proposed development. They will usually single out the owners of the most expensive homes as well as those in the group that they believe will be the easiest to convince and manipulate.

Step 5: Full Speed Ahead
The developer will make a few concessions to the neighbors, most of which were never high on their priority list anyway. Then, despite any remaining protests, the developer (most likely the WLB Group) will convince the Town Council to rezone the land to the highest density possible, after which you can count on Meritage Homes to be “the chosen builder.” The land will be mass-graded to cram in their usual 5-6 homes per acre for a total of over 1,000 homes.

Conclusion
This, as always, will be an uphill battle as the Town’s number one job is to collect revenue and the higher the density, the more revenue they will collect from development impact fees. It will always be a war to protect our lush desert surroundings (or what’s left of it) when there is money to be made.

Robert Peters is an Army veteran who served in Germany and South Korea. He has a Bachelor’s degree in Russian and Eastern European Studies and a Master’s degree in Business Management. He relocated from New England to Arizona in 2003 and was employed by Raytheon Missile Systems for 12 years, retiring in 2016 after 50 years of working. He’s been active in dog rescue organizations for the past 20 years. He’s also an avid reader and history buff who has traveled extensively throughout the U.S., Europe and Russia. A former hippie, he attended the 1969 Woodstock Festival in Upstate New York.

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

LOVE Contributor ~ Proposed Big Wash - Rancho Vistoso General Plan & PAD Amendments (Part 2)

Another Neighborhood Meeting…another proposal to build 500-600 new homes on 108 acres of undeveloped land. Another group of irritated residents asking what reasons they can provide that will convince the town to say "No." Part 1 was published yesterday. Today we present the Question and Answer portion of the meeting.

Neighborhood questions and concerns

What is the benefit to the community of this General Plan Amendment?
Staff responded that the Amendment will minimize the impact to Open Space areas in terms of hillside/flood plain encroachment into Big Wash. No other benefits were presented.

When will construction start if these General Plan and PAD Amendments are approved?
Ground breaking is anticipated in 2019.

What are the setbacks between homes?
10 feet.

How will this area be accessed?
The development of these parcels will expand Moore Road, which will loop back south to the intersection of Rancho Vistoso Boulevard and Arrowsmith Drive.

Is there a housing shortage?
There is a strong demand for housing because Oro Valley is a great place to live. Rancho Vistoso was developed at roughly two-thirds of its originally envisioned residential density because people wanted larger lots than designated in the original PAD.

Why then, do developers continue to seek and receive approval for “postage stamp size lots” throughout Oro Valley? Why blade some of the Town’s most pristine land for more cookie cutter houses?

What about the $60K premium I paid for my view lot on the ridge? My builder assured me that nothing could be built in the wash because it’s a flood plain.
The lower parcels have been in the Plan for over 30 years. There is a 60 to 100 foot drop so the building heights of the new homes will be well below the existing homes. They will not block the view of the wash or the mountains.

What is the distance between the Horizons Neighborhood homes and the school property?
200 to 300 feet.

Isn’t the General Plan supposed to be “Our Voice?”
One astute gentleman commented that the General Plan is such that he “could make a case for this amendment anywhere in the country.” A cursory review of the Vision page in the General Plan confirms that statement.

How can Oro Valley "manage growth" when some residents are concerned about rapid growth and others think the current growth rate is about right?

How can Oro Valley preserve the scenic beauty and environment and keep its small-town, neighborly feel when there are numerous proposals (not yet approved) on OV Projects to add 1,700 to 1,870 new homes, not including potential annexations?

The General Plan is supposed to be “Our Voice.” Yet this and other significant changes through General Plan Amendments are not what we approved. 

Learn more about this project HERE

Monday, August 28, 2017

LOVE Contributor ~ Proposed Big Wash - Rancho Vistoso General Plan & PAD Amendments (Part 1)

Another Neighborhood Meeting…another proposal to build 500-600 new homes on 108 acres of undeveloped land. Another group of irritated residents asking what reasons they can provide that will convince the town to say "No."

Current Entitlements vs. Requested Proposal
The land in question is located due west of the intersection of Rancho Vistoso Blvd and Moore Road, along the Honey Bee Wash and the Big Wash. To be fair, there are existing entitlements for development of this land. The designated land uses currently in the General Plan allow Open Space, Park, Resort/Golf Course and Medium Density Residential. This is what Vistoso Partners is entitled to develop.

However, they want to eliminate the Resort/Golf Course use and add High Density Residential to the mix. They are not entitled to that change unless the Town Council approves it. Council approval will also then be required to amend the 1987 Rancho Vistoso PAD zoning to match the revised General Plan.

Only a “smattering” of attendees were familiar with Oro Valley’s General Plan
Paul Oland of the WLB Group, representing Vistoso Partners, began his portion of the Neighborhood Meeting with the question, “How many of you are familiar with the General Plan document?” When only a few hands were raised, Oland acknowledged, “A smattering.”

That’s all? The General Plan was just approved by 70% of Oro Valley voters in the 2016 election. How many residents voted for it without knowing what was in it and now regret their decision? And why it is being changed so quickly? Could there be any connection to the development community’s generous campaign donations to all seven members of Council?

Reconfiguring the Parcels
Mr. Oland continued his presentation, referring to maps to explain the somewhat complicated parcel shuffle in Neighborhood 5. The golf course (designated as a place holder for Parcel 5-I when the school rejected that location for its middle school) will be eliminated and Parcels 5-M, 5-O, and 5-Q will be reconfigured since they no longer need to fit around the golf course envelope.

Proposed Land Use
Reconfiguring and clustering the parcels for development will “allow for more efficient infrastructure, less hillside disturbance, and less wash disturbance.” Portions of the sites will be mass graded. A park will be developed and the Rancho Vistoso HOA will assume responsibilities for it. All remaining land outside of the subject development parcels will be re-designated as Open Space.

Flood Zone, Cultural Resources, and Wildlife Concerns
Portions of the site have been designated as Zone A by FEMA, meaning the area is subject to a one percent or greater annual chance of flooding in any given year. Zone A requires the mandatory purchase of flood insurance per FEMA.gov.

There are no known cultural resources on this land based on a 1986 survey. If any ground-disturbing activities reveal the presence of undiscovered human remains or funerary objects, construction will stop within the area of the remains.

When asked about a wildlife study, Mr. Oland responded that 50% of the Rancho Vistoso PAD was set aside for Open Space protection in 1987, which included the most sensitive areas and major wash/wildlife corridors.

One would suspect that wildlife movement would have changed during the past 30 years as a result of development. And in fact, an Arizona Game and Fish Department Environmental Online Review contained in the PAD Amendment Site Analysis requested further coordination to:

(1) provide project species specific recommendations for wildlife and plants predicted to be within the project vicinity, and

(2) address the needs of wildlife in regards to movement, connectivity, and access to habitat needs.

History of the School Site
The former school/current golf course site, Parcel 5-I, was reallocated to Parcel 5-R (behind Safeway) in 2009. It's important to understand why Amphi rejected the former site for a school. According to a 2008 Council Communication, Parcel 5-I is "located near the confluence of the Honey Bee and Big Washes, an environmentally sensitive area that has challenges for access and hydrology." Yet if this General Plan Amendment is approved, residential development will be allowed in this flood plain. 

Part 2 will be published tomorrow and includes the Question and Answer portion of the meeting.

Thursday, August 17, 2017

LOVE Contributor ~ Community Opposes Oro Valley’s Future Annexation of State Land (Tangerine North)

Outside the meeting room at Casas Church, local Save the Cactus activists greeted attendees and passed out flyers detailing their concerns with Oro Valley's unwanted and incompatible overreach into their community.

Oro Valley Planning Manager, Bayer Vella, faced a room packed with passionate area residents who came to learn the reasoning behind the potential Tangerine North State Land General Plan Amendments and future Annexation.

Mr. Vella assured the group that this meeting would provide staff with a good listening opportunity for their concerns but that the land would be developed regardless of whether Oro Valley annexes it or not. He further advised attendees to say "ditto" during the open question segment rather than repeat someone else’s comments and to “Be kind and treat each other the way you want to be treated.”

 "The properties currently under consideration for annexation
by the Town of Oro Valley are the two State Land‐ owned sites
indicated on the map below, referred to as Tangerine North
(302 acres), and Tangerine South (550 acres)."
He then proceeded to clarify various misconceptions related to the potential annexation of the two State-owned properties referred to as Tangerine North (302 acres) and Tangerine South (550 acres.) The meeting primarily focused on the proposed Plan Amendments for Tangerine North.

Background
Oro Valley is 90% built out and is looking at annexation to grow the town. At the April 5, 2016, Planning and Zoning Commission Community Academy session, developers expressed an urgency in establishing lot supply during 2017 and 2018.

To that end, Tangerine South was added to the Town’s official Planning Boundary and designated as a Master Planned Community in the Town’s voter approved General Plan in 2016. While many residents were likely unaware that this was in the Plan, it was included with the expectation of annexation due to its commercial potential.

The possibility of also annexing Tangerine North arose during Tangerine South annexation conversations with the State Land Department. It is primarily suited for residential development due to limited frontage on Tangerine Road and is currently zoned to allow one residence per three acres under the current Pima County jurisdiction. Oro Valley, however, is recommending a land use designation of Master Planned Community as this will offer the most flexibility for development and increase the value of the property.

Who will purchase and develop the two properties?
Oro Valley will not assume ownership of these properties if they are annexed. Rather, the State Land Department will sell the land at public auction to the highest bidder. No purchaser or developer has been identified.

Why is Oro Valley interested in annexing these properties?
Oro Valley wants to manage growth and control the potential impacts of land near or within its boundaries to ensure quality developments and environmental resource conservation. Annexations however, must make fiscal sense and be approved by the Town Council.

The costs will outweigh the revenues
Tangerine North offers NO advantage in terms of a revenue stream for the Town as Oro Valley has no property tax. The cost to the Town (additional police, road maintenance, etc.) will outweigh the revenue derived from construction taxes and impact fees. Over time, a purely residential annexation loses money. There is also little chance that Tangerine North residents will increase our sales tax revenue by shopping or buying gas in Oro Valley since it will be more convenient for them to shop in Marana (unless Tangerine South is also annexed by Oro Valley and provides those commercial services).

Residents raised the following concerns:
  • Desert conservation, wildlife and riparian areas – Oro Valley has lost a significant amount of credibility with recent land management. The motto, “It’s in our nature” is inaccurate. Their "Nature" is bladed every day by developers with Town Council's approval.
  • Developers’ campaign donations and cozy relationship with Oro Valley Town Council. Residents fear that they “will work behind the scenes to get whatever they want.”
  • A Master Planned Community is not compatible in this rural area with 3+ acre homesites/horse properties.
  • Traffic and road conditions (Thornydale Road)
  • Water resources
  • Loss of property value
  • Lack of fiscal analysis (Staff is unable to prepare this analysis until State and Oro Valley agree on land use.)
  • Lack of representation - Neighborhood meetings are all about the process and checking off a box that meetings were held.

Given this extensive list of concerns, it was no surprise to hear the room echo with “dittos” when one person commented that he didn’t want to be part of Oro Valley or be surrounded by it. He said that they moved here to get away from the city and they do not want Oro Valley bringing the city to them.

A second Neighborhood Meeting is scheduled for August 21st at 6 PM in Council Chambers, 11,000 N LaCanada Drive

Learn more HERE or contact Michael Spaeth at mspaeth@orovalleyaz.gov or 520-229-4812.

Visit savethecactus for additional information on how you can help.

Tuesday, August 1, 2017

Two Important Neighborhood Meetings this Week

During both meetings, the applicant will provide a presentation and Town staff will facilitate the meeting. The focus will be on addressing your questions and concerns.

For more information on either of these two proposals, please contact Michael Spaeth at mspaeth@orovalleyaz.gov


Neighborhood Meeting

Tangerine State Land General Plan Amendment

Wednesday, August 2, 2017
6:00 PM
Casas Church
10,801 N. LaCholla Blvd.

This proposed amendment will extend the General Plan Planning Boundary and add a land use designation of Master Planned Community to 321 acres of State-owned property at the NW intersection of W. Tangerine and N. Coyote Crossing (and bordered by W. Moore Road and N. Thornydale Road).

For more information, click HERE

Neighborhood Meeting
Big Wash General Plan and Planned Area Development (PAD) Amendments

Thursday, August 3, 2017
6:00 PM
Icagen
2090 E. Innovation Park Drive

This proposed amendment is for the remaining undeveloped parcels in Rancho Vistoso Neighborhood 5, comprising approx. 108 acres between the future Moore Road loop on the west and Rancho Vistoso Blvd. on the east.

For more information, click HERE

Thursday, April 27, 2017

Shannon Road-Manning Property: Neighborhood Meeting Summary

On Tuesday, April 25th, a Neighborhood Meeting was held regarding the proposal to change the Land Use of the Manning Property (76 acres at Shannon Road and Owl Vista Place) to allow the development of 108 homes to be clustered on 6,250 square foot lots. (Current zoning on that parcel is for large lots of 1 home per 144,000 square feet.) Approximately 40 neighbors were in attendance.

Information provided by the Town and the Applicant (WLB Group)
This is the 4th rezoning application on this property. All previous applications were withdrawn after vocal citizen opposition citing that the proposed developments were not compatible with surrounding homes and would also have detrimental impacts on the environment, water, schools, drainage, and traffic.

The property now has a new owner, known at this time only as “a local investment group.”

The current proposal calls for the clustering of homes on the northern half of the property (near Ironwood Ridge HS) while leaving the southern half of the property (adjacent to Owl Vista) as natural open space due to the considerable amount of ironwood trees on the southern portion of the property.

This parcel is surrounded by custom homes on 3.3 acre lots (and larger) west and south of the property. The plan calls for several hundred feet of buffer between the development and the homes to the south on Owl Vista. There will be a 300 foot buffer on the western edge of the property along Shannon Road. There will be some buffer on the northern and eastern edge of the property as well but the amount was not specified.

The entire Right-of-Way on Shannon is Town controlled. The ROW ends at Lambert Lane. The Town does not control that intersection. Additionally, all streets west of Shannon are part of Pima County and not Oro Valley.

Neighbors raised the following questions:
Are you allowed to come back at a later time and develop the southern portion of the property?
No, we cannot deviate from the plan once it’s approved by council. (Caveat: They can come back later and ask for a rezoning on the southern portion and develop it separately. There is nothing preventing them from doing this at a later time.)

Voters just approved the General Plan in November. Why are you already asking for a rezoning?

All property owners are allowed to request land use changes. It makes more sense to go through the standard amendment process rather than to change it during the General Plan process.

Why can’t we limit the number of rezoning applications to maybe 3 in 10 years? How many times do we have to do this before we get peace in our neighborhood?

That has to be taken up with the Arizona General Legislature.

There are ironwood trees on the northern portion as well. Why is it OK to build there and not in the southern portion which also has ironwood trees?

The Town identified the lower half of the property as being more dense with ironwood trees.

What kind of light can we expect from this development? Stadium lights from the school already block our night skies and the stars during football season.

It will be Dark Skies compliant. There will be no street lights. Schools do not have to abide by the Dark Skies ordinance.

If we file a formal protest, where does the boundary begin?

150 feet from the property boundary to be amended.

What fees does the Town collect on these developments?

There are small application fees and review fees. There is also a construction tax. Then there are larger fixed fees—impact fees, due to impacts on our police department and roads. These fees are applied to the Town’s infrastructure.

Why would the Town vote no and dismiss this project when it means that it won’t collect these fees?

No answer given.

Neighbors presented the following concerns and comments:
All this talk about the water shed and traffic flow is a distraction. This proposal will never fit the character of this area. Shannon is rural. There are 5 acre properties on the west side of Shannon. This proposal is no more scenic now than the proposal we saw in 2008.

They argue that this is appropriate development because they have high density housing to the east. That’s not our neighborhood.

We moved to R1-144 zoning because we wanted a desert environment. We’re concerned about the loss of the desert and the wildlife. Traffic is already a nightmare every morning with IRHS traffic. We don’t need to add another 108 homes with another 200 cars added to this daily traffic.

Prove a hardship to the property owner if they’re not allowed to rezone the land to their desire. The new owners accepted the property “as is.” They knew the land use. They knew the zoning.

This proposal calls for bulldozing like at Capella Estates. You want to bulldoze one half of 76 acres. I’d rather see the entire parcel developed with the current zoning of 1 home per 3.3 acres with no mass grading.

The 7.5 foot side setbacks on each home is nuts. Deed the remaining land on the parcel to the Town so that this owner can’t come back later and ask for another rezoning and more development on the lower half of this property.

Will they listen?
The applicant said, “We’re here to listen.” But will they? Listening is one thing. Acting accordingly is another. Past history tell us that they will do whatever they think they can get away with.

If there is any friction on council about this development, the applicant will compromise in order to get the votes he needs. If there is no friction on council, there will be no compromise despite the valid concerns of the nearby residents. In other words, “Rural Shannon” residents will need to get some of the council members on their side.

Councilmembers in Attendance
In attendance at this meeting were Councilmembers Joe Hornat, Bill Rodman, and Lou Waters. Also in attendance were Planning & Zoning commissioners, Don Cox, Tom Gribb, and Bob Swope. Keep in mind that all six of them heard all of the dissent, opposition, and concerns of the residents in attendance. They heard the anger and frustration. They heard the loud applause after each resident spoke. Whom will they represent when the time comes to vote -- the citizens whom they were elected to serve or the developers and builders who fund their election campaigns?

The Process
This meeting was the first informational meeting after which the applicant will file a formal submittal with the Town. After that, there will be at least one more Neighborhood Meeting followed by two Planning & Zoning hearings. The first P&Z meeting is informational and the second is when P&Z will decide whether to forward this on to the Council for a vote. If they forward it to the Council, there will be a Town Council meeting which includes a Public Hearing prior to the vote.

You can learn more about this project at www.ovprojects.com