We are happy to report that council chambers were three-quarters full that evening and twelve people spoke during the Public Hearing. Nine spoke in opposition. Only three spoke in favor and those three people are connected to the Episcopal Church of the Apostles. The church is the applicant who was requesting the GPA and Rezoning in order to sell off 22 acres of their land for development as a way to raise money to cover financial problems that they are having.
The proposal called for 47 lots of approximately 7,000 square feet and six “transitional” half-acre sized lots on the north side of the property.
Excerpts from The Planning Center’s presentation
Despite holding multiple Neighborhood Meetings, a spokesman for The Planning Center stated that the applicant and the neighbors were too far apart on the lot sizes to reach an agreement and that the church could not meet their financial goals with the large lot sizes that the neighbors were demanding. (Adjacent neighbors live on lot sizes of 3.3 acres and up with some living on lots sizes of 40 acres or more).
Excerpts from the Town Staff presentation
Even though the Town Staff was recommending approval, they admitted that the proposal was only “Generally consistent with the General Plan” and that the half-acre “transitional” lots represented “the minimum” of a transitional lot and that “larger lots would serve as a more effective transition.”
Speakers in Favor
One representative of the church stated that the church goes out of their way to be wonderful neighbors and that later this month they will be adding church services for those with autism and other special needs.
The church Vicar said they have gone out of their way to be a center for music and arts and that they are committed to being a good neighbor. The third person who spoke in favor was a member of the church but not an Oro Valley resident.
Note that none of the above speakers said anything about the proposal meeting the General Plan criteria or how this proposal would make Oro Valley a better place. They claimed that the new residents moving into this new development would become members of their church and this would help them to raise more funds for the church, a statement that they later could not prove when questioned by a P&Z Commissioner.
Speakers in Opposition
Topics discussed during their speeches included the proposal not being in accordance with the General Plan, destroying nearby property values, current residents paid a premium for large lots in a rural setting and their way of life needs to be respected, well-water issues, increased traffic in their rural area, setting a precedent for all the remaining undeveloped land north of Tangerine to also be rezoned down to 7,000 sf lot sizes, blading of the desert, loss of more wildlife habitat, and that the proposal would increase the current density by 20 times.
Some of the best one-liners from the evening included:
1. A resident discussed the wants of the citizens as noted in the “Your Voice, Our Future - General Plan,” and he asked:
In the General Plan, whose voice is it? The residents or the staff?
2. Another resident compared the low-density rural residential lot sizes currently surrounding the subject property vs. the proposal for tiny mass-graded 7,000 sq. ft. lots, and she pointed out that:
One of these is not like the other.
3. Another resident noted that since it was a church that was requesting this GPA and Rezoning, that it seemed fitting to close her speech with a biblical reference:
Thou shalt not approve!
Some of the Questions asked by P&Z Commissioners prior to the vote
Commissioner Gambill
• If this fails to pass, is the church likely to foreclose? No.
• How many members of the congregation are Oro Valley citizens?
They didn’t have an exact count but said that their members come from Oro Valley, Marana, and Saddlebrook. (This was proof that people don’t choose a church because it’s located next door to them, rather, they drive long distances to attend the church of their choice. This is where their argument fell flat that building new homes next door to the church would increase their attendance.)
Commissioner Bergsma
• Is selling this parcel to Richmond American homes contingent on this rezoning? Yes.
The Vote
During the discussion, Commissioner Gambill stated that the neighbors comments bear a lot of weight with her and she didn’t see this proposal as benefitting Oro Valley as it did not preserve the scenic beauty or the unique community identity as a special place. Other commissioners stated that they were disappointed in the small lot sizes, and that the half-acre transitional lots were not a large enough transition next to rural low density residential.
The General Plan Amendment was denied by a 5-1 vote. Commissioner Hong was the lone vote to approve it.
The Rezoning was denied 6-0. (Once the GPA was denied, the rezoning had to be denied as well).
We all know that this would have been a very different outcome if it had been heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission that was in place during the Hiremath years.
