edward
06-22-2009, 04:05 PM
These are the complete set of notes taken by Jean Anderson for ASHA:
Meeting: 6.18.09
ZIPPOR Committee did NOT have a quorum, nor did it have its regular chair. Mr. Pugmire, who is the chair of the Maricopa County P&Z, is also chair of the ZIPPOR Committee. I counted only 3 members of the ZIPPOR Committee in attendance.
When Ed, his wife Valerie, and I, plus Ferrell, my husband, arrived at the county one stop building, South of the 202, on 44th Street, Valerie and I went to the meeting room which was set up with about 20 chairs. I asked the gal who escorted us to the room if we could have more chairs. They did put in more chairs, but only enough for 32 people. When I asked her if we could have more, she claimed that they had no more chairs.
After all crowding in (standing room only to about 125+ horsemen and horsewoman) the chair announced that there was NO quorum and proceeded to tell us that he did not have time to spend listening to all of us, and that we would have to choose 3 to 4 people to represent us and talk for an ac***ulative time of 20 minutes, and the same for the opposition. Much grumbling ensued. 4 people, Jeannette Fish, Nena Henry, Mike Cobb and Ed O’Brien were chosen from the “for amendment, and Steve Klein, Noreen Hart, Hugh Keeler, and Bruce Lindquist, also from Laveen were from the “against”.
At this time, Darren Gerard stood up and explained a some about the actual Text Amendment, # TA2008006.
FOR:
Jeannette: started off by saying that the opposition was presenting a “worse case scenario” indicating the ALL of the 1.25 acre lots would now be in the horse boarding business!” which is simply NOT true. The equine committee is working to establish certain “rights” which would be allowed on their properties without having to have a SUP. The number 24 is arbitrary; the activity will be self limiting, on the smaller acreages what one has on that property. The language is ok in the first 4 paragraphs, but we oppose the “limit to daylight hours and to parcels less than 3 acres”. (When I talked to her this morning, she said her count was at least 140+ people.)
Nena: Would like to clarify that this text amendment, 1-4, is NOT unreasonable for equine property owners to be able to do these activities on their own property. Every person who lives on these smaller parcels are NOT going out and advertise their stables for boarding. If they wish to board their Grand Daughter’s horse, or their friend’s horse who happens to live in an apartment, they should have the right to do so. It’s been many months that we have been working on this, and it needs to be passed. Again, I have trouble with the reference to 24 in attendance . We are not advocating Commercial setups. These are private events in which people have been INVITED to participate; not the general public. Also, groups like the 4H; they have a wonderful head start with working with horses.
Mike: Mike said that he has been working on this text amendment for four and one half years, and it needs to be passed. The 1974 law precludes the small property owner from doing some things on his property: such as practicing team roping, reining, having some come in for lessons, 4H groups, Team penning, etc. Common sense would tell you that these small property owners need to have this text amendment passed.
Ed. Part of the problem is “Complaint Driven” ordinances. There are too many urban type people moving into rural areas, expecting city amenities. Horses are “Green”. ASHA’s Equine Economic
Report recognizes that this industry puts 1.6 BILLION Dollars into the state. Horses benefit society, the environment and the economy. Gave some examples but had only 2 minutes to speak.
AGAINST:
Steve Kline: From the Laveen Planning Committee: Our committee is responsible for protecting the equestrian lifestyle in our neighborhoods. Urbanites are already encroaching. I support the equestrian property owners, but not with commercial activities on their properties. We recognize that we have a lot of home owned businesses. As long as the uses on these horse properties are NOT advertised and are not open to the general public, I can support this amendment. I do not wish to see a commercial invasion on our neighborhoods.
Noreen Hart: Mr. Pugmire suggested the limit of 3 acres at the P&Z meeting in May. Also, with doing these types of activities, the dust level will rise. The boarding of horses is commercial. Should NOT be allowed on small acreages. The water usage on these properties will escalate. Loads of manure and flies. If you multiply the one acre properties within a given single square mile, you will see why this amendment should not go through. You’re opening the door to commercial uses on small properties.
Hugh Keeler: partner of Noreen: This amendment will bring on commercial activities. The traffic at events will multiply in rural areas. Manure will pile up. This is irresponsible government.
Bruce Lindquist:
The EPA governs livestock and dust.(3.10 dust code) This will create MORE dust. This is a frivolous amendment. He did not get the notice. The notice was sent to 18 cities and only 9 responded and all nine were against. Changing/adding zoning R-1-43 would NOT be a good idea. TIME ENDED.
Meeting: 6.18.09
ZIPPOR Committee did NOT have a quorum, nor did it have its regular chair. Mr. Pugmire, who is the chair of the Maricopa County P&Z, is also chair of the ZIPPOR Committee. I counted only 3 members of the ZIPPOR Committee in attendance.
When Ed, his wife Valerie, and I, plus Ferrell, my husband, arrived at the county one stop building, South of the 202, on 44th Street, Valerie and I went to the meeting room which was set up with about 20 chairs. I asked the gal who escorted us to the room if we could have more chairs. They did put in more chairs, but only enough for 32 people. When I asked her if we could have more, she claimed that they had no more chairs.
After all crowding in (standing room only to about 125+ horsemen and horsewoman) the chair announced that there was NO quorum and proceeded to tell us that he did not have time to spend listening to all of us, and that we would have to choose 3 to 4 people to represent us and talk for an ac***ulative time of 20 minutes, and the same for the opposition. Much grumbling ensued. 4 people, Jeannette Fish, Nena Henry, Mike Cobb and Ed O’Brien were chosen from the “for amendment, and Steve Klein, Noreen Hart, Hugh Keeler, and Bruce Lindquist, also from Laveen were from the “against”.
At this time, Darren Gerard stood up and explained a some about the actual Text Amendment, # TA2008006.
FOR:
Jeannette: started off by saying that the opposition was presenting a “worse case scenario” indicating the ALL of the 1.25 acre lots would now be in the horse boarding business!” which is simply NOT true. The equine committee is working to establish certain “rights” which would be allowed on their properties without having to have a SUP. The number 24 is arbitrary; the activity will be self limiting, on the smaller acreages what one has on that property. The language is ok in the first 4 paragraphs, but we oppose the “limit to daylight hours and to parcels less than 3 acres”. (When I talked to her this morning, she said her count was at least 140+ people.)
Nena: Would like to clarify that this text amendment, 1-4, is NOT unreasonable for equine property owners to be able to do these activities on their own property. Every person who lives on these smaller parcels are NOT going out and advertise their stables for boarding. If they wish to board their Grand Daughter’s horse, or their friend’s horse who happens to live in an apartment, they should have the right to do so. It’s been many months that we have been working on this, and it needs to be passed. Again, I have trouble with the reference to 24 in attendance . We are not advocating Commercial setups. These are private events in which people have been INVITED to participate; not the general public. Also, groups like the 4H; they have a wonderful head start with working with horses.
Mike: Mike said that he has been working on this text amendment for four and one half years, and it needs to be passed. The 1974 law precludes the small property owner from doing some things on his property: such as practicing team roping, reining, having some come in for lessons, 4H groups, Team penning, etc. Common sense would tell you that these small property owners need to have this text amendment passed.
Ed. Part of the problem is “Complaint Driven” ordinances. There are too many urban type people moving into rural areas, expecting city amenities. Horses are “Green”. ASHA’s Equine Economic
Report recognizes that this industry puts 1.6 BILLION Dollars into the state. Horses benefit society, the environment and the economy. Gave some examples but had only 2 minutes to speak.
AGAINST:
Steve Kline: From the Laveen Planning Committee: Our committee is responsible for protecting the equestrian lifestyle in our neighborhoods. Urbanites are already encroaching. I support the equestrian property owners, but not with commercial activities on their properties. We recognize that we have a lot of home owned businesses. As long as the uses on these horse properties are NOT advertised and are not open to the general public, I can support this amendment. I do not wish to see a commercial invasion on our neighborhoods.
Noreen Hart: Mr. Pugmire suggested the limit of 3 acres at the P&Z meeting in May. Also, with doing these types of activities, the dust level will rise. The boarding of horses is commercial. Should NOT be allowed on small acreages. The water usage on these properties will escalate. Loads of manure and flies. If you multiply the one acre properties within a given single square mile, you will see why this amendment should not go through. You’re opening the door to commercial uses on small properties.
Hugh Keeler: partner of Noreen: This amendment will bring on commercial activities. The traffic at events will multiply in rural areas. Manure will pile up. This is irresponsible government.
Bruce Lindquist:
The EPA governs livestock and dust.(3.10 dust code) This will create MORE dust. This is a frivolous amendment. He did not get the notice. The notice was sent to 18 cities and only 9 responded and all nine were against. Changing/adding zoning R-1-43 would NOT be a good idea. TIME ENDED.