The Oro Valley Planning and Zoning Commission voted last week to approve a UHaul facility for the Ace Hardware located at Tangerine and First Avenue. Their approval occured even though there is no provision in the code for truck rental. There is one for auto rental. Oro Valley planner David Williams noted, at the hearing, that an automobile and/or car are the same as a truck for code purpose; therefore, the Oro Valley Code for car rental facility also apply to a truck rental facility. William's interpretation is considered to be an administrative decisions that can be challenged at the Board Of Adjustments. Generally, it is the applicant who makes the challenge.
"If the code was intended to include truck rentals the code would have used vehicles as the Use Category and included Trucks and other vehicle type within the “Specific Use Types”", writes resident John Musolf. He continues: "I rented hundreds of car rentals and never once called a car rental facility to rent a truck. I also rented a number of UHaul trucks to help relatives move and always called a Truck Rental Facility to obtain a truck. They are not the same."
Does town staff interpret town code so as to find and loosely match a use that will conform to the applicant’s request? For example, Mr. Williams recently inrecommending a use for the Desert Sky/Oracle memory care facility as a “skilled nursing facility" so a conditional use permit could be granted on that basis. His basis for doing so was the it looks like a skilled nursing facility on the outside.
The town had recommended granting the permit with the provision of an 8' wall to screen residential view of the trucks. The applicant rejected the idea. The Planning and Zoning Commission helped out the applicant by amending the permit to include trees, hedges, or some method of vegetation as the screening requirement instead of wall modification. Exactly, we ask, how is this going to be enforced? Who is going to maintain this vegetation?
Next step: The Oro Valley Town Council will hear this item at a future session.
---
(John Musolf contributed to this posting)
4 comments:
A car and truck are now the same for Oro Valley code purposes.
The applicant rejected an 8' wall to screen the unfortunate residents' view of trucks, and P & Z helped him. No tree, hedge, or any other form of vegetation is ever going screen the view of these trucks and the signs painted on them.
Each time the owner of ACE has been at a meeting, he yells about how difficult it is to do business in Oro Valley.
When do the citizens/residents of Oro Valley get their time to "yell" about how easy it is to have codes changed in Oro Valley?
The argument that the term "car" as used in the code would disqualify the application is, in my opinion, laughable. It also is an indication to me just how petty some folks can be with their objections. They lose credibility when these kinds of arguments are raised.
Is an SUV a car. Is a van a car? Is a pick-up truck a car? You can rent all three at most any "car" rental agency. I
Richard......... You wrote " The Planning and Zoning Commission helped out the applicant by amending the permit to include trees, hedges, or some method of vegetation as the screening requirement instead of wall modification."
There was no "wall modification" possible. The existing wall would have to be destroyed and a new wall built according to the engineering staff of TOV.
I view it as the charge of the P&Z to assist the applicant OR the Town when the recommendation provides a better solution for all concerned.
Cares....You continue to be either uninformed OR just simply dead set on misleading.
1. The applicant did not yell.
2. The wall would not screen the residents view of the trucks.
3. No codes were changed.
4. Trees, hedges,or other forms of vegitation will provide an adequate shield the residents and were the choice of the resident closest to the parked vehicles. In addition they are more aesthetically pleasing to the eye from both sides of the planted buffer than a plain faced wall and are ecologically beneficial.
You have an opportunity to provide input at every public hearing that is held on conditional use permits. How often do you take that opportunity.
OV Objective Thinker,
WOW... this article and my comments must have pushed your buttons. It is so interesting that you consider only your opinions and thoughts to be truthful.
How dare you, a representative of the OV government, call some folks and their objections petty.
Let me assure you, I am not uninformed and never share misleading statements. I never said this applicant yelled at a P & Z meeting. I have heard him angrily yell at other meetings. Unfortunately, none of those informational meetings were recorded.
The applicant certainly did reject the 8' wall, suggested by the OV Staff. An 8' wall would have helped screen some portions of the trucks. Trees, vegetation or hedges will screen less of the trucks and not be an adequate shield. It seems to me that any CUP applicant should be willing to cooperate with the approval process and volunteer to make suggested changes.
It is my understanding that if an applicant must apply for a CUP, then that use is currently not allowable under their zoning codes. Thus, the codes are changed for the CUP.
Mr. Cox, as a long-time appointed member of the P & Z, could you please answer a question? How many CUPs, which have come before the commission during your tenure, have been rejected?
What about the secret meetings regarding a Grand Canyon University campus in the OV?
Where are they going to plant this new campus?
OV is as transparent as the Obama Administration!!
Post a Comment