edward
07-15-2009, 11:13 PM
July 10, 2009
The purpose of this memorandum is to request review comments on the above Planning and Zoning Commission initiated MCZO Text Amendment. At present, the MCZO requires a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) for a special event, or a Special Use Permit (SUP) for any commercial or public equestrian uses such as boarding, riding lessons, rodeo events, team roping practices, etc. Staff proposes to add a new article to allow limited equestrian uses as accessory to single-family residence in the Rural zoning district as MCZO Art. 501.2.21.e. The revised draft language to this Text Amendment can be found on the County website on or shortly after July 14, 2009. The proposed language of the amendment is as follows:
Staff proposes to add a new article allowing public equestrian uses on a limited basis when accessory to a single-family residence in the Rural zoning districts as MCZO Art. 501.2.21.e: [Note: All language is new language to be added to the ordinance. No language is proposed for deletion. ]
Public equestrian uses accessory to a single-family residence limited to the following:
The boarding of up to five (5) horses and/or other equine not owned by the private property owner and/or resident. Do***entation of ownership shall be maintained when more than five (5) horses and/or other equine are kept on a property.
Non-commercial activities (no admission fee shall be charged) such as riding lessons, team roping practices, and similar activities involving up to a maximum of 24 persons (including staff, participants and spectators).
All structures shall meet minimum setback requirements and the maximum lot coverage requirement. All parcels must meet minimum lot area and width requirements.
Any public equestrian use that cannot meet these conditions will require a Special Use Permit in accordance with Article 1301.1.20 of this ordinance.
This Text Amendment has been tentatively scheduled for the July 23, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission.
These uses are not currently allowed in Rural Zones in Maricopa County. Therefore, these uses would now be allowed in all Rural Zones without a Special or Temporary Use Permit.
There are four opponents to this amendment. One equestrian and her partner an accountant who is running for governor, one architect, and one planning and zoning commissioner from the city of Laveen. These are the opposition’s major reasons why the county should not approve the Text Amendment as originally drafted:
Too intense usage for 1-acre parcels due to many horse properties taking advantage of the new Text Amendment:
Could have Riding Lessons every 2 hours throughout the day.
Need parking regulations for public assembly uses. One space per 200’sq
Need off-street parking & 10 acre minimums.
Trailer parking, congestion and dust caused by vehicles and trailers on the dirt road. 3 or 4 vehicles and trailers 2x per month down the road from my house
Loss of revenue to the county: boarding 5 horses @ $375- $475 per month =$22500. There are 23,000 R-43 parcels in the county and if 5% board that’s 986 boarding horses and $25,000,000 in revenue. 8.75% tax = $2,700,000 in lost revenue.
Several cities and one county disagree with the Text Amendment: Gilbert, Glendale and Yavapai county. The cities may be opposed because of potential annexation issues or grandfather requests.
Commercial is any time money changes hands. This is commercial and the county will open up Pandora’s box
There are tax cheaters. (Implication that their equestrian neighbors were tax cheaters)
The Code of the West is no entitlement for commercial
The potential of more horses using millions more gallons of water and depleting the current water supply. (Gave numbers that were astronomical)
Prop 207 is an issue here. My property values will decrease.
General public will be affected, violations will increase. There is a lack of enforcement, everything is out of control. On nights and weekends Zoning is closed. There is no way to police.
Standard lenders do not lend to mixed-use properties
I’ve lost over $900,000 on my property. I breed Paints
These are some sample rebuttals for your consideration:
Intensity of Usage for One-Acre Parcels
Mr. Lundquist (Laveen architect) uses the word intensity frequently. His expressed concern is that 24 persons on one acre is too many or boarding 5 horses is too much or a Riding Lesson every 2 hours is too much or Equestrian games is simply too intense usage on one acre.
Well, if those uses are too intense then think about the “intensity” of the currently allowed uses in all rural zones including one acre parcels: Churches, Public Schools, Fire & Police Stations, Golf Courses, and Libraries. The activities associated with any of these uses would make equestrian uses pale by comparison. The word intensity does not appear in the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance definitions but where used, it refers to lot area, width, area per dwelling unit, lot coverage and distance between buildings. There is no limitation on numbers of people in residential, rural, commercial or industrial zones or anywhere else in the ordinance. In other words, any activity on any parcel in Maricopa has no limit on numbers of people in the Zoning ordinance. Intensity is a non-issue.
Parking Issues
Parking regulations are already covered in Maricopa County Ordinance Section 1102 in great detail. Dust is covered in Maricopa County Rule 310 and 310.1 Lighting is also covered elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance. It should be a non-issue for this Text Amendment.
Commercial businesses do not belong on one-acre parcels and will open Pandora’s box. Boarding is a business and the average boarding operation is making $22,500 per year.
This argument is completely flawed. Current boarding rates on small acreage unable to provide amenities are $85 (owner provides feed) to $300 per month. Assume though that all boarding facilities were charging the larger amount of $300 per month and deducting expenses for feed ($110), bedding ($10) utilities & water ($25) Labor to clean stalls ($100) cost of buildings, equipment and maintenance ($50). That leaves a whopping profit (although the numbers used are too conservative) of $15 X 12 X 5 horses = $900 per year. Yes, there will be a flood of equestrians that will jump into the boarding business.
It should be noted too, that the Arizona Revised Statutes address boarding as follows: ARS 42-5069 regarding Commercial lease classification definitions point C." The commercial lease classification does not include:
# 7. Leasing real property for boarding horses." Therefore “Boarding” is not a Commercial exposure in the state of Arizona.
As for riding lessons and Equestrian games to be considered businesses, they must be conducted with the intent to make a profit. These private property uses are consistent with either home occupations or normal recreational use such as 2 teams of 4 guys playing basketball and other uses even permitted in residential zones.
Cities disagree with TA as does Yavapai County
According to Arizona State law regarding P & Z Ordinance, cities can pretty much do whatever they want. The law only specifies what they cannot do. But for counties, they can only do what the state allows per SB1111. Therefore urban areas are generally more restrictive while counties, less so due to in part their concern to protect the rural lifestyle.
Yavapai County has it backwards. Some cities in Yavapai are less restrictive on equestrians than the county. In 1992 Equestrians failed to “show up” and the county put a 2 horses per acre limit into effect. Maricopa has no such limit. Even the city of Phoenix allows horses on smaller than one-acre lots.
Water Argument.
All Arizonans know or should know that the greatest threat to our water supply is development or population growth. According to the Morrison Institute regarding water “Managing for sustainability becomes increasingly complex as population growth and lifestyle changes place higher demands on resources.” It goes on to say, “ One of Arizona’s political challenges is that many of our leaders miss this fundamental relationship. They want to allow continued growth but don’t want to invest in the tools needed to effectively manage and serve our increasingly complex communities.” And they go on to say, “Part of the reason why the Phoenix area has weathered the western drought with far fewer water restrictions than other cities in the southwest is that agricultural water has been available to move urban uses in our time of shortage.” Equine are not part of the problem they are part of the solution.
Prop 207 – This Text Amendment will cause my property value to decrease.
The Maricopa County Attorney responded to this issue at the May P & Z Commissioners Hearing when he said” Added uses increase the value of property, not decrease it”
The Code of The West
This is a set of expectations for urbanites to transition to rural living that addresses for example, open range, emergency services, dirt roads and dust and much more
Zoning is closed, lack of enforcement, tax cheaters, I’ve lost over $900,000, mixed use properties do not qualify for loans
All of these issues are inappropriate here. Most, if not all are personal problems.
None of the objections make sense but, the P & Z Commissioners believe they are valid enough to consider. And they were from only four people. You should also know that at the last hearing on June 18, equestrians outnumbered opponents 15 to one.
So, where do we go from here? We know from past experience that we must put 250 Equestrians in the seats at the next hearing scheduled for July 23 9:30 AM 205 W Jefferson St Phoenix. And, we must be able to articulate the positive reasons why this text amendment is good for the horse industry, the neighborhood, the county and the environment.
The purpose of this memorandum is to request review comments on the above Planning and Zoning Commission initiated MCZO Text Amendment. At present, the MCZO requires a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) for a special event, or a Special Use Permit (SUP) for any commercial or public equestrian uses such as boarding, riding lessons, rodeo events, team roping practices, etc. Staff proposes to add a new article to allow limited equestrian uses as accessory to single-family residence in the Rural zoning district as MCZO Art. 501.2.21.e. The revised draft language to this Text Amendment can be found on the County website on or shortly after July 14, 2009. The proposed language of the amendment is as follows:
Staff proposes to add a new article allowing public equestrian uses on a limited basis when accessory to a single-family residence in the Rural zoning districts as MCZO Art. 501.2.21.e: [Note: All language is new language to be added to the ordinance. No language is proposed for deletion. ]
Public equestrian uses accessory to a single-family residence limited to the following:
The boarding of up to five (5) horses and/or other equine not owned by the private property owner and/or resident. Do***entation of ownership shall be maintained when more than five (5) horses and/or other equine are kept on a property.
Non-commercial activities (no admission fee shall be charged) such as riding lessons, team roping practices, and similar activities involving up to a maximum of 24 persons (including staff, participants and spectators).
All structures shall meet minimum setback requirements and the maximum lot coverage requirement. All parcels must meet minimum lot area and width requirements.
Any public equestrian use that cannot meet these conditions will require a Special Use Permit in accordance with Article 1301.1.20 of this ordinance.
This Text Amendment has been tentatively scheduled for the July 23, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission.
These uses are not currently allowed in Rural Zones in Maricopa County. Therefore, these uses would now be allowed in all Rural Zones without a Special or Temporary Use Permit.
There are four opponents to this amendment. One equestrian and her partner an accountant who is running for governor, one architect, and one planning and zoning commissioner from the city of Laveen. These are the opposition’s major reasons why the county should not approve the Text Amendment as originally drafted:
Too intense usage for 1-acre parcels due to many horse properties taking advantage of the new Text Amendment:
Could have Riding Lessons every 2 hours throughout the day.
Need parking regulations for public assembly uses. One space per 200’sq
Need off-street parking & 10 acre minimums.
Trailer parking, congestion and dust caused by vehicles and trailers on the dirt road. 3 or 4 vehicles and trailers 2x per month down the road from my house
Loss of revenue to the county: boarding 5 horses @ $375- $475 per month =$22500. There are 23,000 R-43 parcels in the county and if 5% board that’s 986 boarding horses and $25,000,000 in revenue. 8.75% tax = $2,700,000 in lost revenue.
Several cities and one county disagree with the Text Amendment: Gilbert, Glendale and Yavapai county. The cities may be opposed because of potential annexation issues or grandfather requests.
Commercial is any time money changes hands. This is commercial and the county will open up Pandora’s box
There are tax cheaters. (Implication that their equestrian neighbors were tax cheaters)
The Code of the West is no entitlement for commercial
The potential of more horses using millions more gallons of water and depleting the current water supply. (Gave numbers that were astronomical)
Prop 207 is an issue here. My property values will decrease.
General public will be affected, violations will increase. There is a lack of enforcement, everything is out of control. On nights and weekends Zoning is closed. There is no way to police.
Standard lenders do not lend to mixed-use properties
I’ve lost over $900,000 on my property. I breed Paints
These are some sample rebuttals for your consideration:
Intensity of Usage for One-Acre Parcels
Mr. Lundquist (Laveen architect) uses the word intensity frequently. His expressed concern is that 24 persons on one acre is too many or boarding 5 horses is too much or a Riding Lesson every 2 hours is too much or Equestrian games is simply too intense usage on one acre.
Well, if those uses are too intense then think about the “intensity” of the currently allowed uses in all rural zones including one acre parcels: Churches, Public Schools, Fire & Police Stations, Golf Courses, and Libraries. The activities associated with any of these uses would make equestrian uses pale by comparison. The word intensity does not appear in the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance definitions but where used, it refers to lot area, width, area per dwelling unit, lot coverage and distance between buildings. There is no limitation on numbers of people in residential, rural, commercial or industrial zones or anywhere else in the ordinance. In other words, any activity on any parcel in Maricopa has no limit on numbers of people in the Zoning ordinance. Intensity is a non-issue.
Parking Issues
Parking regulations are already covered in Maricopa County Ordinance Section 1102 in great detail. Dust is covered in Maricopa County Rule 310 and 310.1 Lighting is also covered elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance. It should be a non-issue for this Text Amendment.
Commercial businesses do not belong on one-acre parcels and will open Pandora’s box. Boarding is a business and the average boarding operation is making $22,500 per year.
This argument is completely flawed. Current boarding rates on small acreage unable to provide amenities are $85 (owner provides feed) to $300 per month. Assume though that all boarding facilities were charging the larger amount of $300 per month and deducting expenses for feed ($110), bedding ($10) utilities & water ($25) Labor to clean stalls ($100) cost of buildings, equipment and maintenance ($50). That leaves a whopping profit (although the numbers used are too conservative) of $15 X 12 X 5 horses = $900 per year. Yes, there will be a flood of equestrians that will jump into the boarding business.
It should be noted too, that the Arizona Revised Statutes address boarding as follows: ARS 42-5069 regarding Commercial lease classification definitions point C." The commercial lease classification does not include:
# 7. Leasing real property for boarding horses." Therefore “Boarding” is not a Commercial exposure in the state of Arizona.
As for riding lessons and Equestrian games to be considered businesses, they must be conducted with the intent to make a profit. These private property uses are consistent with either home occupations or normal recreational use such as 2 teams of 4 guys playing basketball and other uses even permitted in residential zones.
Cities disagree with TA as does Yavapai County
According to Arizona State law regarding P & Z Ordinance, cities can pretty much do whatever they want. The law only specifies what they cannot do. But for counties, they can only do what the state allows per SB1111. Therefore urban areas are generally more restrictive while counties, less so due to in part their concern to protect the rural lifestyle.
Yavapai County has it backwards. Some cities in Yavapai are less restrictive on equestrians than the county. In 1992 Equestrians failed to “show up” and the county put a 2 horses per acre limit into effect. Maricopa has no such limit. Even the city of Phoenix allows horses on smaller than one-acre lots.
Water Argument.
All Arizonans know or should know that the greatest threat to our water supply is development or population growth. According to the Morrison Institute regarding water “Managing for sustainability becomes increasingly complex as population growth and lifestyle changes place higher demands on resources.” It goes on to say, “ One of Arizona’s political challenges is that many of our leaders miss this fundamental relationship. They want to allow continued growth but don’t want to invest in the tools needed to effectively manage and serve our increasingly complex communities.” And they go on to say, “Part of the reason why the Phoenix area has weathered the western drought with far fewer water restrictions than other cities in the southwest is that agricultural water has been available to move urban uses in our time of shortage.” Equine are not part of the problem they are part of the solution.
Prop 207 – This Text Amendment will cause my property value to decrease.
The Maricopa County Attorney responded to this issue at the May P & Z Commissioners Hearing when he said” Added uses increase the value of property, not decrease it”
The Code of The West
This is a set of expectations for urbanites to transition to rural living that addresses for example, open range, emergency services, dirt roads and dust and much more
Zoning is closed, lack of enforcement, tax cheaters, I’ve lost over $900,000, mixed use properties do not qualify for loans
All of these issues are inappropriate here. Most, if not all are personal problems.
None of the objections make sense but, the P & Z Commissioners believe they are valid enough to consider. And they were from only four people. You should also know that at the last hearing on June 18, equestrians outnumbered opponents 15 to one.
So, where do we go from here? We know from past experience that we must put 250 Equestrians in the seats at the next hearing scheduled for July 23 9:30 AM 205 W Jefferson St Phoenix. And, we must be able to articulate the positive reasons why this text amendment is good for the horse industry, the neighborhood, the county and the environment.