edward
07-25-2009, 12:46 PM
Meeting 7/23/09 at 205 W. Jefferson
WE NEED TO BE PRESENT AT THE Next BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING (August 19) WHEN THIS Text ammendment IS ON THE AGENDA AGAIN!* *The fight isn’t over yet. It starts at 9AM in the auditorium 205 W Jefferson St Phoenix
To be discussed TA2008006
�� Up to 5 horses boarded
�� Lessons, roping events, etc. up to 24 people
�� Structures to meet existing regulations re: set backs etc.
�� If above conditions cannot be met then Special Use Permit is required
Due to the number of people, each speaker will get 2 minutes – strictly enforced
Speakers IN FAVOR of the amendment
• Jeanette Fish – Executive Director of AZ Farm Bureau: Amendment delineates the by right uses expected for R-
43 zoning; acknowledges the right to own and use private property; no competition to legitimate commercial
purposes; land size will automatically limit the use; has problem with 24 maximum attendees
• Margaret Scott – President of Rio Verde Horseman’s Association: Majority of members are in favor of amendment
• Michael Cobb – representing Wickenburg area: horses impact the economy in Arizona; takes exception to the water act limitation of people to 24; expressed concern about identifying horses as property owner’s or
someone else’s because unless they are registered breed specific, Arizona no longer has a registration of equine - how do you prove ownership?
• Tom Smith – Buckeye: objected to the number of 24 attendees as it is unrealistic with kids and both parents present
• Chip Wilson – President of AZ Horseman’s Association, Apache Junction: expressed concern with limitation of 24 attendees; reference to safe water – many private facilities have public water available
• Nina Henry – Rio Verde, Committee Farm Bureau: Andy Kunasek initiative; no impact of 5 boarded horses; size of property will automatically limit use
• Scott Massey – N. 12 th St.: if this text amendment does not pass it will be a foundation for violation of property rights; animals need inexpensive place to be housed; many people cannot afford a full service boarding facility
• Shareen Goodroad – New River / Desert Hills Community Association: many people board a few horses; people need places to gather for a ride; many facilities assist handicapped kids, etc.; gathering to ride is comparable to having a pool party, birthday party, etc.
• Steven Klein – Chairman of Laveen Homeowner’s Assoc. – feels text amendment is a good compromise; protects family use of property; precludes intense commercial use
• Ed O’Brien – VP AZ State Horseman’s Association: this amendment adds back basic property use rights; horse friendly; good for economic growth; peace of mind to those not in compliance; history, culture, values that are
cherished on R-43 property
• Ann Hutchinson - New River / Desert Hills Community Association & North Valley Conservancy: limitation to 24 attendees is unrealistic as a BBQ would have more
• John Cluff – Cave Creek: present to represent the winter visitors who come to AZ to use their horse property about half the year who are not in town now
Speakers AGAINST amendment
• Bruce Lundquist – Laveen: too intense for one acre; 50-52% of properties in rural areas are 1 acre size; neighbors can put horses on properties surrounding a person in each direction without homeowner knowing
• Noreen Hart – Desert Hills: those in favor of amendment have been lying; those opposing amendment have been threatened; many opposed to the amendment have presented opposition to council; amendment will
reward violators and not hold them accountable for their actions
• Jean Madison – N.16 th St, New River: OK with gatherings; concerned that unlimited boarding on smaller acre lots will present fly and dust problems
• Hugh Kealer – Desert Hills: there was improper notification of meeting about amendment and notices were not properly posted; read several sections of zoning law; He was informed by the committee's attorney that the sections of zoning law to which he was referring applied to rezoning cases, not text amendments and by his presence at a meeting "you cannot say you were not notified"
Committee Discussion
• Limitation of 24 for private gathering / Public Equestrian Events with 100-200 people; special use permit allows 30 specific event dates
• There are already laws in place if there is a situation where conditions are unhealthy or groups are too loud.
• Scheduled public events require use of bathrooms, parking, traffic planning and trash removal
• Staff selected the number of 24 attendees from safe drinking water act – most events would not trigger the enforcement of that act which only applies to PUBLIC events
• Committee needs to consider a number higher than 24 attendees.
• It was noted that there were at least 100 pink cards signed in favor of the text amendment
• Will the language about boarding spark people to take in horses for profit (comment met by laughter from horse owners who know there is no profit in boarding 5 horses)
• No signs are allowed advertising home businesses – therefore no signs will be allowed advertising boarding of horses; also no ads in newspaper etc.
• Add to wording “non-commercial” boarding of up to 5 horses
• How is this different from boarding 5 dogs or caring for 5 children for a fee? This amendment is trying to preserve the equestrian lifestyle and is different from boarding dogs
• There is no primary property use designation in AZ laws for dogs or cats, but there is for equine.
• As Special Use Permit is required for a dog kennel
• Any other similar activity with different animals would require a Special Use Permit
• Charging a fee to watch an event would make it a commercial activity – add to wording “no fees or compensations of any sort may be solicited or accepted”- discussion ensued re: wording not being acceptable because everyone chips into a prize pot at a roping
• Different approach would be to say “no commercial concessions” which does NOT refer to a kids group selling lemonade to raise money for their club, but to a commercial concession stand of the type at a fair
• Who cares if you are giving riding lesson to friends on your property? If you can charge for piano lessons at your house, why can’t you charge for horseback riding lessons?
• Committee chose to rely on public sense of when something should be reported as “commercial” if they have a problem with it; activities to which this text amendment refers should be called non-commercial public
activities.
• One member felt this amendment had more negative possibilities than positive
• Noted that all cities who had provided opinions, except Cave Creek, had objected to text amendment.
• Commission discussed the possibility of making text amendment temporary to be again reviewed in 24 months, but decided that was not a good option. Better to recommend amendment and then come back at another time to make changes if it did not work out well.
Motion & Second to approval: Majority
Motion & Second for modification:
A) to change limitation from 24 to 50 attendees;
B) change wording “non-commercial activities” to “non-commercial public activities”;
C) remove specific designations such as riding lessons, roping events, etc.
ABSTAIN:Aster
NO vote: Menuos, Chairman Pugmire
YES vote: Barney, Bauers, Burrows, Jones, Smith
WE NEED TO BE PRESENT AT THE Next BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING (August 19) WHEN THIS Text ammendment IS ON THE AGENDA AGAIN!* *The fight isn’t over yet. It starts at 9AM in the auditorium 205 W Jefferson St Phoenix
To be discussed TA2008006
�� Up to 5 horses boarded
�� Lessons, roping events, etc. up to 24 people
�� Structures to meet existing regulations re: set backs etc.
�� If above conditions cannot be met then Special Use Permit is required
Due to the number of people, each speaker will get 2 minutes – strictly enforced
Speakers IN FAVOR of the amendment
• Jeanette Fish – Executive Director of AZ Farm Bureau: Amendment delineates the by right uses expected for R-
43 zoning; acknowledges the right to own and use private property; no competition to legitimate commercial
purposes; land size will automatically limit the use; has problem with 24 maximum attendees
• Margaret Scott – President of Rio Verde Horseman’s Association: Majority of members are in favor of amendment
• Michael Cobb – representing Wickenburg area: horses impact the economy in Arizona; takes exception to the water act limitation of people to 24; expressed concern about identifying horses as property owner’s or
someone else’s because unless they are registered breed specific, Arizona no longer has a registration of equine - how do you prove ownership?
• Tom Smith – Buckeye: objected to the number of 24 attendees as it is unrealistic with kids and both parents present
• Chip Wilson – President of AZ Horseman’s Association, Apache Junction: expressed concern with limitation of 24 attendees; reference to safe water – many private facilities have public water available
• Nina Henry – Rio Verde, Committee Farm Bureau: Andy Kunasek initiative; no impact of 5 boarded horses; size of property will automatically limit use
• Scott Massey – N. 12 th St.: if this text amendment does not pass it will be a foundation for violation of property rights; animals need inexpensive place to be housed; many people cannot afford a full service boarding facility
• Shareen Goodroad – New River / Desert Hills Community Association: many people board a few horses; people need places to gather for a ride; many facilities assist handicapped kids, etc.; gathering to ride is comparable to having a pool party, birthday party, etc.
• Steven Klein – Chairman of Laveen Homeowner’s Assoc. – feels text amendment is a good compromise; protects family use of property; precludes intense commercial use
• Ed O’Brien – VP AZ State Horseman’s Association: this amendment adds back basic property use rights; horse friendly; good for economic growth; peace of mind to those not in compliance; history, culture, values that are
cherished on R-43 property
• Ann Hutchinson - New River / Desert Hills Community Association & North Valley Conservancy: limitation to 24 attendees is unrealistic as a BBQ would have more
• John Cluff – Cave Creek: present to represent the winter visitors who come to AZ to use their horse property about half the year who are not in town now
Speakers AGAINST amendment
• Bruce Lundquist – Laveen: too intense for one acre; 50-52% of properties in rural areas are 1 acre size; neighbors can put horses on properties surrounding a person in each direction without homeowner knowing
• Noreen Hart – Desert Hills: those in favor of amendment have been lying; those opposing amendment have been threatened; many opposed to the amendment have presented opposition to council; amendment will
reward violators and not hold them accountable for their actions
• Jean Madison – N.16 th St, New River: OK with gatherings; concerned that unlimited boarding on smaller acre lots will present fly and dust problems
• Hugh Kealer – Desert Hills: there was improper notification of meeting about amendment and notices were not properly posted; read several sections of zoning law; He was informed by the committee's attorney that the sections of zoning law to which he was referring applied to rezoning cases, not text amendments and by his presence at a meeting "you cannot say you were not notified"
Committee Discussion
• Limitation of 24 for private gathering / Public Equestrian Events with 100-200 people; special use permit allows 30 specific event dates
• There are already laws in place if there is a situation where conditions are unhealthy or groups are too loud.
• Scheduled public events require use of bathrooms, parking, traffic planning and trash removal
• Staff selected the number of 24 attendees from safe drinking water act – most events would not trigger the enforcement of that act which only applies to PUBLIC events
• Committee needs to consider a number higher than 24 attendees.
• It was noted that there were at least 100 pink cards signed in favor of the text amendment
• Will the language about boarding spark people to take in horses for profit (comment met by laughter from horse owners who know there is no profit in boarding 5 horses)
• No signs are allowed advertising home businesses – therefore no signs will be allowed advertising boarding of horses; also no ads in newspaper etc.
• Add to wording “non-commercial” boarding of up to 5 horses
• How is this different from boarding 5 dogs or caring for 5 children for a fee? This amendment is trying to preserve the equestrian lifestyle and is different from boarding dogs
• There is no primary property use designation in AZ laws for dogs or cats, but there is for equine.
• As Special Use Permit is required for a dog kennel
• Any other similar activity with different animals would require a Special Use Permit
• Charging a fee to watch an event would make it a commercial activity – add to wording “no fees or compensations of any sort may be solicited or accepted”- discussion ensued re: wording not being acceptable because everyone chips into a prize pot at a roping
• Different approach would be to say “no commercial concessions” which does NOT refer to a kids group selling lemonade to raise money for their club, but to a commercial concession stand of the type at a fair
• Who cares if you are giving riding lesson to friends on your property? If you can charge for piano lessons at your house, why can’t you charge for horseback riding lessons?
• Committee chose to rely on public sense of when something should be reported as “commercial” if they have a problem with it; activities to which this text amendment refers should be called non-commercial public
activities.
• One member felt this amendment had more negative possibilities than positive
• Noted that all cities who had provided opinions, except Cave Creek, had objected to text amendment.
• Commission discussed the possibility of making text amendment temporary to be again reviewed in 24 months, but decided that was not a good option. Better to recommend amendment and then come back at another time to make changes if it did not work out well.
Motion & Second to approval: Majority
Motion & Second for modification:
A) to change limitation from 24 to 50 attendees;
B) change wording “non-commercial activities” to “non-commercial public activities”;
C) remove specific designations such as riding lessons, roping events, etc.
ABSTAIN:Aster
NO vote: Menuos, Chairman Pugmire
YES vote: Barney, Bauers, Burrows, Jones, Smith