A proposed OVCN development project will forever change the character of "Old Oro Valley"
There is a development project that is being proposed by the Oro Valley Church of the Nazarene (“OVCN”). The Church is located on the northeast intersection of Concordia and Buena Vista. The Church is adjacent to an area zoned as large lot (144,000 sq ft) residential. It owns some of this land. These lots are what remains of the original Oro Valley. The Church wants to change the zoning designation on the land that it owns. As LOVE has reported, OVCN wants to build athletic facilities on this property. In order to do this, the land must be rezoned.
Residents have been attending planning and zoning hearings and town council meetings, stating their objection to the proposed project. In the interest of encouraging a discussion on the matter, LOVE plans to present the remarks of some who live in the area over the next several weeks. Residents ask only that you “put yourself in their shoes” and read what they have to say.
Our first of these remarks is from resident Ed Clary. Clary addressed the Oro Valley Town Council in May
- - -
“Hello, my name is Ed Clary, and I, my wife and sons have been residents of Oro Valley for nearly 10 years. This evening I would like to discuss with you the proposed rezoning of the property of the Oro Valley Church of the Nazarene, which, to be clear, I do not in any way support.
The proposal, which I’m sure you all are familiar with, is admirable on its surface, but it’s simply not the right area for such a facility.
I’m going to repeat something I’ve actually said to many of you in person or via Zoom at the last two annual meetings involving the Town facility at 680 W Calle Concordia, which is literally 3 doors down the road from OVCN, and this proposal. Previously I said, “When the time comes for you to consider the proposed rezone less than ¼ mile from here, please remember that the impact of 680, the current OVCN campus, CDO High School, Kriegh Park and the Aquatic Center is greater than the sum of its parts on those of us who live here.”
Today, the sum of those parts sits at a level where the character of the surrounding neighborhood is endangered. All 5 of the facilities I mentioned are contiguous with each other, with the exception of 3 private residences.
This proposal is simply incompatible with the area, no matter how good the intent. That’s why we have zoning. I’m sure most of you live in residential areas. Would you want this project in your backyard? With all due respect, if you say yes, I might like to question you further. It simply doesn’t fit. Neighborhood resistance is nearly monolithic. Fourteen out of fourteen property owners in the area have protested in writing to the Town. There is no demonstrable benefit in this plan for any neighbor, not one, in fact it hurts us all for reasons that include, but are not limited to significant drops in property values, light and noise pollution, traffic and drainage issues, plus the loss of residential views of Pusch Ridge.
CDO High School predated the Town of Oro Valley and has been the boundary between development and R-144 residential property for more than a half century. It should remain that boundary without a compelling reason in the public interest, and that is KEY. OVCN certainly has a private interest, but ladies and gentlemen, that’s not your concern if the surrounding public is being hurt. You were elected to serve the public interest. Five basketball courts and a football field available to outsiders for a fee, controlled by a private organization does not create a compelling public interest. If approved the effect of this new, enormous, additional facility when combined with what I listed above will finally go well, well beyond the sum of the individual parts. It will fundamentally transform the neighborhood, literally at the expense of those who live there for the benefit of those who almost exclusively do not. Where is the compelling PUBLIC interest, when the surrounding public is telling you with a bullhorn that as a group we are not interested?
In closing, I generally wish OVCN well – they are one of my neighbors, and I too am a regular churchgoer, I just don’t attend OVCN. However, they bought the land in question knowing the current rules, and while they have every right to request something different, if they could not abide by those rules they should not have made the purchase. There is no compelling public interest that indicates they should not be required to live by the same rules all the rest of us do. I respectfully ask that should the matter come before the Council to vote, you vote against the proposal.”
Every resident in the area is opposed to the project
Our first of these remarks is from resident Ed Clary. Clary addressed the Oro Valley Town Council in May
- - -
“Hello, my name is Ed Clary, and I, my wife and sons have been residents of Oro Valley for nearly 10 years. This evening I would like to discuss with you the proposed rezoning of the property of the Oro Valley Church of the Nazarene, which, to be clear, I do not in any way support.
The proposal, which I’m sure you all are familiar with, is admirable on its surface, but it’s simply not the right area for such a facility.
I’m going to repeat something I’ve actually said to many of you in person or via Zoom at the last two annual meetings involving the Town facility at 680 W Calle Concordia, which is literally 3 doors down the road from OVCN, and this proposal. Previously I said, “When the time comes for you to consider the proposed rezone less than ¼ mile from here, please remember that the impact of 680, the current OVCN campus, CDO High School, Kriegh Park and the Aquatic Center is greater than the sum of its parts on those of us who live here.”
Today, the sum of those parts sits at a level where the character of the surrounding neighborhood is endangered. All 5 of the facilities I mentioned are contiguous with each other, with the exception of 3 private residences.
This proposal is simply incompatible with the area, no matter how good the intent. That’s why we have zoning. I’m sure most of you live in residential areas. Would you want this project in your backyard? With all due respect, if you say yes, I might like to question you further. It simply doesn’t fit. Neighborhood resistance is nearly monolithic. Fourteen out of fourteen property owners in the area have protested in writing to the Town. There is no demonstrable benefit in this plan for any neighbor, not one, in fact it hurts us all for reasons that include, but are not limited to significant drops in property values, light and noise pollution, traffic and drainage issues, plus the loss of residential views of Pusch Ridge.
CDO High School predated the Town of Oro Valley and has been the boundary between development and R-144 residential property for more than a half century. It should remain that boundary without a compelling reason in the public interest, and that is KEY. OVCN certainly has a private interest, but ladies and gentlemen, that’s not your concern if the surrounding public is being hurt. You were elected to serve the public interest. Five basketball courts and a football field available to outsiders for a fee, controlled by a private organization does not create a compelling public interest. If approved the effect of this new, enormous, additional facility when combined with what I listed above will finally go well, well beyond the sum of the individual parts. It will fundamentally transform the neighborhood, literally at the expense of those who live there for the benefit of those who almost exclusively do not. Where is the compelling PUBLIC interest, when the surrounding public is telling you with a bullhorn that as a group we are not interested?
In closing, I generally wish OVCN well – they are one of my neighbors, and I too am a regular churchgoer, I just don’t attend OVCN. However, they bought the land in question knowing the current rules, and while they have every right to request something different, if they could not abide by those rules they should not have made the purchase. There is no compelling public interest that indicates they should not be required to live by the same rules all the rest of us do. I respectfully ask that should the matter come before the Council to vote, you vote against the proposal.”
- - -
