Fri, 17 May 2024 21:34:39 -0700WeeblyMon, 12 Oct 2015 04:52:39 GMThttp://cavecreektownhallblog.com/golf-course/63-reasons-why-permits-are-required The research for this article addresses issues concerning the town’s lack of response to the concerns of residents about the grading and grubbing occurring on Lehman parcel #1.[i]  This research was compiled using the same resources that the mayor, town council members, town manager, and town staff are required to rely on for governing the town.  The resources are the town’s Ordinances, Appendixes and Exhibits, Town Code, Town of Cave Creek Technical Design Guidelines, the General Plan, and the Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement. The cited provisions do not constitute all of the provisions afforded to residents and property owners in Cave Creek concerning this issue.  When reading this article the word “SHALL” means that town compliance is mandatory, and the word “MAY” means that town compliance is permissive. [source: Town Code Title I, Chapter 10, § 10.05 “Definitions.”]   (Note to readers: The word “shall” has been highlighted in bold by the author whenever it appears in a cited provision.)

Many of the cited provisions expressly mandate the town’s compliance with those guidelines which have been developed for protecting residential zoning, private property rights, permits, etc..  In other cited provisions, the requirement for this compliance is guided by the following two provisions:

“C. Where, in any specific case, different sections of this Ordinance or any other Federal, State, County or Town ordinance or code specify different requirements, the more restrictive shall govern.” [source: Ordinance, Chapter 1, § 1.C]  And,

“D. Where there is conflict between a general requirement and a specific requirement, the specific requirement shall apply.” [source: Ordinance, Chapter 1, § 1.D.]

This research compiled 63 reasons why the town requires permit application(s) and approval(s). There are numerous other provisions which are not cited.  The town’s permit process was developed to ensure that the mayor, members of town council, town manager, and town staff make decisions that are not specific to any one person’s benefit: “E. This Ordinance is intended to benefit the public as a whole and not any specific person or class of persons. Any benefits and detriments to specific individuals or properties resulting from the implementation, administration and enforcement of this Ordinance are incidental to the overall benefit to the whole community.” [source: Ordinance Chapter 1, § 1.1(E), page 1.

PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS AS A RIGHT.

REASON #1:  “A. The purpose of this Ordinance is to: “4. Protect private property rights”.  [source: Ordinance, Chapter 1, §1.1(4), pg. 1]

REASON #2:  “A. Purpose: The regulations in this Chapter qualify or supplement the specific zone regulations related to private property appearing elsewhere within this Ordinance.”  [source: Ordinance, Chapter 5, § 5.0(A), pg. 1] 

REASON #3:  The Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement contractually mandates the town to protect the low density residential zoning and private property rights for those properties in Area 96-1 until the Agreement expires in 2022.  [source: Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement. [ii]]  Because the Area 96-1 Agreement prohibits the town from widening Spur Cross Road and prohibits the town from establishing an east-west crossing over the creek, it also protects the residential and private property rights of homeowners living along Spur Cross Road as well as properties north of the town core.  Further, the Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement protects the zoning density and rural character of the properties west of the creek as an east-west creek crossing would establish a new travel corridor in that area for all traffic wishing to by-pass Carefree Highway.

RESIDENTIAL ZONING PROTECTIONS THAT SERVE TO PROHIBIT BUSINESS/COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY.

REASON #4:  The residential zones in Cave Creek are classified as Desert Rural (DR) Zones, Single Residence (R) Zones, and Multiple Residence (MR) Zones. [source: Ordinance Chapter 2, §2.0(A), pg. 1]

REASON #5:  “A. Purpose: The purpose of the Desert Rural (DR) zone is to prevent urban and desert land use conflicts by protecting scenic vistas, protecting natural habitats and natural features such as hillsides and washes, and to ensure that residential development is harmonious and sensitive to the natural environment.” [source: Ordinance, Chapter 2, § 2.1(A), pg. 1]

REASON #6:  “(C). The following uses are restricted to the Desert Rural (DR) residential zones: (1) Detached accessory living quarters, (2) Corrals, (3) Barns, (4) Horse shades, (5) Other private ranch uses incidental to the principal residential use.”  [source: Ordinance Chapter 2, §2.4.A.(1)(C). pg. 9]

REASON #7:  “B. Any use or occupation of a structure, parcel of land, or portion thereof, shall conform to the requirements of this Ordinance.” [source: Ordinance, Chapter 1, §1.4.B., pg. 3] 

REASON #8:  “Development of residential property would be low density in nature and type.”  [source:  The General Plan.]

PERMIT(S), PLAN(S), AND PERMISSION.

The town, Tom Lehman and his contractor have referred to the disturbed area[iii] on Lehman parcel #1 (Assessor Parcel Number 211-01-034) as a golf course, a 2-acre grass field – with or without putting holes, putting/chipping greens, and even a landscaping project.  Regardless of how it is referred to the undisputed fact is that the work involved grading and grubbing and therefore, at a minimum, a site plan, a zoning clearance, and permit application(s) and approval(s) were required prior to any grading or grubbing. 

REASON #9:  “The issuance of a Zoning Clearance and Building Permit within any zone is required prior to the commencement of any grading and/or grubbing of any area within a lot or parcel.”[iv]  [source: Ordinance Chapter 6, § 6.0., pg. 1]

REASON #10:  “No grading, grubbing or permanent improvement work shall be commenced until all engineering plans and required drainage reports have been approved by the Town Engineer or consultant as provided by the Town Council. A Building Permit shall be required and conspicuously posted on the property a minimum of ninety-six hours (96 hrs.) prior to the commencement of any grading or grubbing. No temporary or permanent structure shall be constructed without first obtaining a Building Permit.”  [source:  Town of Cave Creek Technical Design Guidelines – Grading & Drainage § 2.2.1., pg. 11]

REASON #11:  “E. No Building Permit or other permit required by this Ordinance shall be issued unless a Site Plan and Zoning Clearance have been submitted for review and approved by the Town.” [source:  Ordinance Chapter 1, § 1.4(E), pg. 3]

On August 24, 2015, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was submitted to the town relative to the grading and grubbing work occurring on Lehman parcel #1.  The FOIA was forwarded to the Planning Department by the Town Clerk.[v]  The FOIA requested: “copy(s) of all pending or completed permit application(s), copy(s) of any and all site inspections conducted by any town employee, copy(s) or any and all permit/inspection approvals, along with all correspondence, notes, and letters relative to the following four (4) Lehman parcels:”   (the Lehman’s four Assessor Parcel Numbers were listed in the FOIA.)

REASON #12:  The town’s response to the FOIA was that no permits had been issued to Tom Lehman for the grading and grubbing.

On or about August 23, 2015 a formal complaint was filed with the town.  The formal complaint requested that the town instruct Tom Lehman to cease and desist all grading and grubbing until the required permit approvals had been obtained. 

REASON #13:  “D. When any building or parcel of land regulated by this Ordinance is being used contrary to this Ordinance, the Zoning Administrator shall order such use discontinued and the structure, parcel of land, or portion thereof vacated by written notice served on any person causing such use to be continued. Such person shall discontinue the use within the time prescribed by the Zoning Administrator after receipt of such notice. [source: Ordinance Chapter 1, § 1.7(D), pg. 5]

Town Manager Peter Jankowski passed the formal complaint to Ian Cordwell in the Planning Department. To date there still has been no response to the citizen’s formal complaint, and the town never instructed Tom Lehman to stop the grading and grubbing on parcel #1.

The Lehman property consists of four contiguous parcels totaling 72± acres.  To view the Lehman parcels, drive north on Spur Cross Road to Morning Star Road.  Turn left onto Morning Star and drive to the top of the hill at 54th Street.  Look north and you’ll see the property.  It’s one parcel in from the intersection of Morning Star Road and Old Stage Road, on the north side.  According to the Maricopa County Assessor’s map Lehman parcel #1 is residentially zoned DR-70 and consists of 16± acres; parcel #2 is residentially zoned DR-190 and consists of 28± acres; parcel #3 is residentially zoned DR-190 and consists of 24± acres; and parcel #4 is residentially zoned DR-190 and consists of 5± acres. The four parcels are located in Area 96-1.

The grading and grubbing occurring on Lehman parcel #1 was also referred to as landscaping.  Landscaping permit(s) are in addition to the grading and grubbing permit(s) required in Ordinance, Chapter 6.  Separate permits are required for work involving landscaping projects. 

REASON #14:  “1. Separate Permits are required for all salvage work as well as outdoor low voltage lighting and landscape work. The cost of permits will be determined at time of permit issuance.”  [source: Town of Cave Creek Technical Design Guidelines – Landscaping, § 2.10.1, pg. 15]

REASON #15:  “Landscape Plan: A Landscape Plan shall be required.  See Section 13 - Landscape Plans of this Technical Design Guideline for Landscape Plan requirements.” [source:  Town of Cave Creek Technical Design Guidelines – Landscaping, § 3.4.1, pg. 21]

REASON #16:  “1. All Landscape Plans shall be submitted to the TOCC Building Department for review and approval processing. All associated plan review fees shall be paid at the time of plan submittal.  2. No Landscape Plans shall be accepted by the TOCC for review by the Town Arborist and/or Zoning Administrator unless accompanied by copy of the accepted Native Plant Inventory and Salvage Plans. Please refer to Section 8 – Native Plant Preservation and Salvage of this Technical Design Guideline for detailed plan requirements.  3. No permits for any landscape construction shall be issued until the owner or developer has provided all the necessary PUE’s and public ROW’s. The instruments of dedication shall be approved and submitted to the TOCC for recording at the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office.  4. All landscape construction documents used for Building Permit purposes shall be prepared by a TOCC approved landscape professional or State of Arizona Registered Landscape Architect.” [source: Town of Cave Creek Technical Design Guidelines – Landscaping, § 15.1 – Submittal Requirements, pg. 64]

REASON #17:  “Minimum Landscape Plan Submittal Requirements: At a minimum the Landscape Plan shall contain and/or comply with the following requirements:  [source:  Town of Cave Creek Technical Design Guidelines – Landscaping, § 13.1.1.] (Note to reader: the list of these requirements can be found on pg. 60 of cited source.)

REASON #18:  “Preservation and Salvage of Native Plants: The preservation and salvage of native plants as contained within Exhibit 1, of this Technical Design Guideline shall be required as part of any development.”[vi]   [source: Town of Cave Creek Technical Design Guidelines – Landscaping, § 8.1.1, pg. 36]

REASON #19:  “Native Plant Inventory and Salvage Plan: A Native Plant Inventory and Salvage Plan shall be required. See Section 8 – Native Plant Preservation and Salvage of this Technical Design Guideline for Native Plant Inventory and Salvage Plan requirements.” [source: Town of Cave Creek Technical Design Guidelines – Landscaping, § 3.4.2, pg. 21]

REASON #20:  “Native Plant Inventory and Salvage Plan: A Native Plant Inventory and Salvage Plan shall be submitted to the TOCC for review and approval as a part of Landscape Plan submittal package. Since specific requirements differ from one land use to the next, be sure to reference the appropriate Section of this Technical Design Guideline when preparing all required plans.” [source: Town of Cave Creek Technical Design Guidelines – Landscaping, § 8.1.3, pg. 37]

REASON #21:  “Protected Native Plants: All plants on the following list shall be inventoried and documented on the salvage report provided with the Native Plant Salvage Plan and the Landscape Plan. The listed plants may be planted anywhere.”[vii]  [source: Town of Cave Creek Technical Design Guidelines – Landscaping, Exhibit 1, pg. 71.] (Note to readers: the list of plants is not provided in this article.) 

REASON #22:  “The purpose of this Section is to provide guidance as to the requirements for landscaping and re-vegetation of single-residence development within the TOCC. Per the TOCC Zoning Ordinance the following minimum requirements shall apply to all projects located within the TOCC Desert Rural and Single-Residence zones:” [source: Town of Cave Creek Technical Design Guidelines – Landscaping, § 3.1, pg. 20]  (Note to readers: this list can be found on pg. 20 of cited source.)

REASON #23:  “Notice of Intent to Clear Land: Submit a copy of the stamped Arizona Department of Agriculture “Notice of Intent to Clear Land” form. To obtain the form contact the Native Plant Section of the Arizona Department of Agriculture @ 602-364-0935, or visit their website @ www.azda.gov/ESD/nativeplants.htm.” [source: Town of Cave Creek Technical Design Guidelines – Landscaping, § 9.1.4., pg 42]

REASON #24:  “Prior to the issuance of any permits for site work, the applicant shall provide Landscape Financial Security Agreements in a form acceptable to the Town, so as to ensure completion of all work necessary to restore the disturbed, or damaged native habitat.” [source: Town of Cave Creek Technical Design Guidelines – Landscaping, § 16.1, pg. 65]

REASON #25:  “All Landscape Financial Security Agreements shall be reviewed and recommended by the Town Arborist, Town Engineer and Town Attorney, prior to submittal to the TOCC Town Council for final approval.” [source: Town of Cave Creek Technical Design Guidelines – Landscaping, § 16.1(6), pg. 65]

REASON #26:  “National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) – Any construction activity resulting in the disturbance of one or more acres of ground will require a permit under the NPDES Program.  The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has obtained a Construction General Permit (AZG2003-001) to cover all construction activities within the State (except on Indian Lands). To obtain authorization for discharges of stormwater associated with construction activity, the operator/owner must comply with all the requirements of the General Permit and submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) in accordance with Part III of the General Permit to ADEQ.  The operator/owner must also develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that satisfies the conditions of the permit. If the project site is located within one-quarter mile (¼ mi.) of unique or impaired water, the SWPPP must be submitted with your NOI.”  [source:  Town of Cave Creek Technical Design Guidelines – Grading and Drainage, § 2.2.3., pg 12]  (Note to readers:  The Lehman property -- all 72± acres -- is less than one-quarter (1/4 mi.) from the creek.  Lehman parcel #1 consists of 16± acres.)

REASON #27:  “The preparation of a Grading & Drainage Plan along with a Drainage Report that complies with the regulations contained within the Town of Cave Creek Technical Design Guideline Number 1 – Grading & Drainage and that specifically addresses public safety and potential property damage is required.” [source: Ordinance Chapter 6, § 6.2(B), pg. 1]

REASON #28:  “The Grading & Drainage Plan and Drainage Report shall be prepared by an Arizona Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of the required Zoning Clearance and Building Permit.” [source: Ordinance Chapter 6, § 6.2(C), pg. 1]

REASON #29:  “An approved Dust Control Permit, issued by the Maricopa County Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), shall be obtained prior to the issuance of the required Zoning Clearance and Building Permit by the Town.”  [source: Ordinance, Chapter 6, § 6.2.(D), pg. 1]

REASON #30:  “COUNTY DUST CONTROL PERMIT.  A permit issued by Maricopa County evidencing that a dust generating operation has a satisfactory dust control plan in place approved by the Maricopa County Air Quality Department.”  [source: Title IX, Chapter 92, § 92.21 “Definitions”]

PROVISIONS PROTECTING SPECIFIC CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY CITIZENS.

Water concerns: 

Regardless of whether it’s called a golf course, a 2-acre grass field with or without putting greens, putting/chipping greens, or landscaping, Tom Lehman stated that using synthetic turf would be too expensive.  However, the maintenance of grass requires water being drawn from the same aquifer used by residents for their home and personal care use, i.e., domestic purposes. 

A review of the Arizona Department of Water Resources website lists a March 12, 2014 filing of a “Request to Change Well Information”.  The filing states the well is located on Assessor Parcel Number 202-19-019Q, is registered to “Asset Xchange Co.” and is now owned by the Thomas E. and Melissa A. Lehman Revocable Trust of 1993. 

When the well was approved for installation by the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) in 1988, it was approved for use as an exempt well for domestic purposes.[viii]  

REASON #31:  “2.  An exempt well means a well having a pump with a maximum capacity of not more than thirty-five (35) gallons per minute and may include the application of water to less than two (2) acres of land to produce plants or parts of plants for sale, human consumption or for use as feed for livestock, range livestock or poultry.”  [source:  “Specific Instructions, Limitations and Conditions” as assigned to ADWR well registration number 55-520844 for APN 202-19-019Q, ADWR website]

REASON #32:  “3.  Domestic purposes means a well which withdraws groundwater for uses related to the supply, service and activities of households and private residences.  Stock-watering means the watering of livestock, range livestock or poultry.” [source:  “Specific Instructions, Limitations and Conditions” as assigned to ADWR well registration number 55-520844 for APN 202-19-019Q, ADWR website]

The 1988 ADWR well use approval is for domestic use only, i.e., for uses related to the supply, service and activities of households and private residences.  Tom & Melissa Lehman do not reside on the property.  The golf course/2-acre grass field on Assessor Parcel Number 211-01-034 will be used by their Lehman Family Foundation when sponsoring their fund raising events; some events with an attendance of 1,000 people, and perhaps additional use of the property would be by various other groups and organizations. 

REASON #33:  The 1988 ADWR permit is for domestic use only and does not authorize water use for a golf course or 2-acre grass field for commercial/business fund raising activity on Assessor Parcel Number 211-01-034 (Lehman parcel #1.) [source: ADWR website]

REASON #34:  “4.  If withdrawals of groundwater for other than domestic or stock-watering are intended, a different Department form entitled Notice of Intention to Drill an exempt well for Non-Domestic purposes must be filed.”  [source:  “Specific Instructions, Limitations and Conditions” as assigned to ADWR well registration number 55-520844, ADWR website]

REASON #35:  QUESTION:  Was the ADWR well registration assigned to Assessor Parcel No. 202-19-019Q amended by the ADWR to allow expanded use and well water service to the 16± additional acres of the Lehman property identified as Assessor Parcel Number 211-01-034 for the Lehman’s business/commercial fund raising purposes?

REASON #36:  “5.  Only one exempt well may be drilled or used to serve the same use at the same location.”  [source:  “Specific Instructions, Limitations and Conditions” as assigned to ADWR well permit number 55-520844, ADWR website]

Prior to the August 29th neighborhood meeting Tom Lehman’s contractor referred to the construction work occurring on Lehman parcel #1 as a golf course.

REASON #37:  “The General Plan expressly prohibits golf courses.” [source: Luke Kautzman (Town Planning Department) email dated 8/25/15] 

REASON #38:  The planting of grass whether for a golf course or a 2-acre grass field -- with or without putting holes -- is prohibited in all DR zones.[ix]  The only grass allowed in DR zones is bear grass (Nolina Micocarpa) and deer grass (Muhlenbergia rigens). [source:  Town of Cave Creek Technical Design Guidelines – Landscaping, Exhibit 4, #10, pg. 76].  The allowed Bear grass and Deer grass are not acceptable grasses for use on golf courses, putting/chipping greens, or grass playing fields. 

Bermuda grass, categorized as a weed, is the most commonly used “grass” for golf courses/putting/chipping greens.  Bermuda grass is a prohibited weed (grass) within the town of Cave Creek.

REASON #39:  “The following weeds shall be removed from all areas within all zones of the TOCC:  Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon)” [source:  Town of Cave Creek Technical Design Guidelines – Landscaping, § 18.4, pg. 68.]  (Complete list on cited page.)

As discussed and previously cited, if a project site is located within one-quarter mile (¼ mi.) of a unique or impaired water source, the owner of the property must develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in addition to any other permit requirements.  The entire 72± acres of Lehman’s property is situated less than a quarter (¼) of a mile from the creek. 

REASON #40:  No copy of a SWPPP prepared by Tom Lehman was submitted by the town in response to the August 24, 2015 Freedom of Information Act request.

Fertilizers and the creek.

The use of fertilizers to maintain the golf course/grass field on the Lehman property located less than a quarter (1/4) mile from the creek endangers the riparian habitat of Cave Creek’s Ecosystem along the creek.

REASON #41:  On October 5, 2009 the town passed Resolution R-2009-18 recognizing the creek as being a Statewide Important Bird Area providing significant upland Sonoran Desert and riparian habitats for birds and declared the creek as a Cave Creek Ecosystem. 

REASON #42: “1. That the Town of Cave Creek hereby approves the designation of the Cave Creek floodplain starting from the Spur Cross Ranch Conservation Area continuing south to the Town of Cave Creek Water Ranch, as identified in Exhibit A.” [source: Town of Cave Creek Resolution No. R2009-18, A Resolution of the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Cave Creek, Arizona Designating a Cave Creek Ecosystem Important Bird Area.]

REASON #43:  “[T]he Town believes that the watercourse known as Cave Creek which flows through Annexation Area 96-1 provides a significant natural resource that should be preserved and protected.”[x] [source: Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement, “Recitals” paragraph “I”]

REASON #44:  “The property owner of a lot or parcel which is the subject of any proposed grading, grubbing, excavation, embankment, or fill shall be responsible for the following: L. The protection and maintenance of the flow of existing waterways as provide for within the Town of Cave Creek Technical Design Guideline Number 1 – Grading and Drainage.”  [source: Ordinance Chapter 6, § 6.2.(L), pgs. 1,2.

REASON #45:  “The property owner of a lot or parcel which is the subject of any proposed grading, grubbing, excavation, embankment, or fill shall be responsible for the following: I. The approval of precautionary measures as outlined within the Town of Cave Creek Technical Design Guideline Number 1 – Grading & Drainage so as to protect adjacent watercourses and public or private property from damage by water erosion, flooding or the accumulation of mud or debris originating from the site by the Town Engineer. Precautionary measures shall include provisions for properly designed sediment control facilities so that downstream properties are not affected by upstream erosion. [source: Ordinance Chapter 6, § 6.2.(I), pg. 2]

Fund Raising Activities on the Lehman property via a Special Use Permit:

REASON #46:  “A. Special Uses are those uses which are generally compatible with the land uses permitted by right in a zone, but which require individual review of their location, design and configuration and the imposition of conditions in order to ensure the appropriateness of the use at a particular location within a given zone. [source:  Ordinance Chapter 13, § 13.0(A), pg. 1]

REASON #47:  “B. Only those uses that are listed as Special Uses in a zone, as set forth in this Ordinance, shall be allowed. A Special Use shall not be established until the associated Special Use and Site Plan have been approved in accordance with the provisions as set forth within this Ordinance.” [source: Ordinance Chapter 13, § 13.0(B), pg. 1]

REASON #48:  “A. The Town Council has the authority to impose conditions and safeguards necessary to protect and enhance the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding area. The authorization of a Special Use shall be permitted only after review and recommendation by the Planning Commission and review and approval by the Town Council and only if the applicant demonstrates: …(5.) That the proposed Special Use will be in conformance with the Town of Cave Creek General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and any other statutes, ordinances, codes or policies that may be applicable, and that the Special Use will support rather than interfere with the uses permitted outright in the zone in which it is located.”  [source: Ordinance Chapter 13, § 13.2(A)(5), pgs. 2,3]

REASON #49:  “Any use or occupation of a structure, parcel of land, or portion thereof, shall conform to the requirements of this Ordinance.” [source: Ordinance Chapter 1, § 1.4(B), pg 3]

REASON #50:  “Prior to the approval, amending or denial of a Special Use, a public hearing shall be held by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's recommendations shall be forwarded to the Town Council for affirmation, amendment or reversal.”  [source: Ordinance Chapter 13, § 13.1(D), pg. 2] 

The Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement contains additional requirements for public hearings which are in addition to those required under Ordinance Chapter 13. 

REASON #51:  “In addition to any hearings required by law, the Town will conduct at least two (2) public hearings a minimum of fifteen (15) days apart on any proposed Future Town Actions.  [source: Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement, “Agreement” § 4, paragraph 4.3.3. Notice of Future Town Actions.]

Fund Raising Activities on the Lehman property via a Special Events Permit:

REASON #52:  “(A)  A special event may be held on private property only if the property is located within a commercial zone or has an established primary commercial use.”  [source: Town Code Title XI, Chapter 114, § 114.02.]

REASON #53:  “SPECIAL EVENT. An organized event established for a period of time not to exceed four consecutive days and which is open to the public and takes place on: (1)   Public right-of-way, public property; or (2)   Private commercial property.”  [source: Town Code, Title XI, Chapter 114, § 114.03.]

REASON #54:  The allowable Special Events are: “Arts and Craft Festivals,  Art Shows, Art Tours, Auctions, Carnivals, Concerts, Dances, Firework Displays, Flea Markets/Swap Meets, Horse Shows, Parades, Races, Rallies, Rodeos, Christmas Tree Sales Lots”. [source:  Ordinance, Appendix “A” Glossary Terms and Definitions, pg. 20]

REASON #55: The Special Events allowed on private commercial property are:  “Arts and Crafts shows; Farmers markets; Flea markets;  Auctions; Carnivals; Concerts; Dances; Fireworks displays; Horse shows; Rodeos”  [source:  Town Code Title XI, Chapter 114, § 114.03(2)

ACCESS.

Though Tom and Melissa Lehman do not live on their property they do have vehicular access to their property – the same vehicular access route onto Spur Cross Road that was used by the prior owner for more than twenty (20) years.  This access route is for residential use, but because of the topography, the Lehman’s require another access route to accommodate the attendees to their business/commercial fund raising activities.  The route they have chosen is Honda Bow Road.  In December, 2014 residents on Honda Bow Road were told by a town employee that an extension of Honda Bow Road to give the Lehman’s their requested access route via Honda Bow Road was a “done deal.”  Tom and Melissa Lehman were also present.

The Ordinance requires that a Honda Bow Road extension must be extended for a minimum of twenty (20) feet onto the Lehman property.  [source: Ordinance, Chapter 5, § 5.1(B)(1), pg. 1]  Encroachment onto the Lehman property by the town to construct a public roadway improvement/extension will require a right-of-way.   The Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement prohibits the town from acquiring the required right-of-way.

REASON # 56:  “No Improvement of Honda Bow Alignment.  During the term of this Agreement, the Town shall not plan, design, acquire right-of-way (by dedication, purchase or condemnation), or improve, whether independently or in concert with any other government, special district or private person or entity, a public roadway providing continuous, uninterrupted vehicular access on the alignment of Honda Bow Road between Spur Cross Road on the east and Cave Creek on the West. …” [source: Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement, “Agreement”, § 2.2.2.]

REASON #57:  “[T]he town believes that the extension and improvement of Honda Bow Road west of Spur Cross Road is inconsistent with the desert/rural character of the Property and Annexation Area 96-1 generally.”  [source: Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement, “Recitals” paragraph “J”.]

REASON #58:  The town’s permit process was developed to ensure that the mayor, members of town council, town manager, and town staff make decisions that are not specific to any one person’s benefit: “E. This Ordinance is intended to benefit the public as a whole and not any specific person or class of persons. Any benefits and detriments to specific individuals or properties resulting from the implementation, administration and enforcement of this Ordinance are incidental to the overall benefit to the whole community.” [source: Ordinance Chapter 1, § 1.1(E), pg. 1]

REASON #59:  “The issuance of a Zoning Clearance and Building Permit within any zone is required prior to the commencement of any grading or grubbing of any area within a lot or parcel.’ [source:  Ordinance, Chapter 6, § 6.0, pg. 1]

REASON #60:  ZONING CLEARANCE is the verification by the Zoning Administrator indicating that a proposed building, structure or use meets all the requirements of this ordinance.”  [source: Ordinance, Appendix “A” Glossary Terms and Definitions.]

REASON #61:  No evidence of a Zoning Clearance was submitted by the town in response to the August 24, 2015 FOIA request.

The issuance of permits, applicable plans and related requirements --- prior to the commencement of work --- is the responsibility of the Zoning Administrator.  The intended use for the Lehman property – fund raising events --- is not allowed on residentially-zoned property. 

REASON #62:  The Zoning Administrator “[M]ay not make any changes in the uses permitted in any zoning classification or zone or make any changes in the terms of the Zoning Ordinance.”  [source:  Ordinance, Chapter 14, § 14.3(D)(1), pg. 7]

The Zoning Administrator took no action to stop the grading and grubbing on Lehman parcel #1 for lack of permits, plans, etc..

REASON #63:  The Zoning Administrator’s job is to: “To assure that any development or use proceed only in accordance with the terms, conditions, or requirements imposed by the Town’s Board(s), Commission or Council.”  [source:  Ordinance, Chapter 14 § 14.3(C)(4)]

This article cites sixty-three (63) reasons which support requirements for permits, plans, etc., prior to commencement of any grading or grubbing.  There have been zero reasons provided by the town addressing this permit issue.  The mayor and town council members remain unresponsive to the concerns of town residents.

At the conclusion of the August 29th neighborhood meeting the residents decided it was necessary to consult legal counsel.   This article is intended to help you decide the next course of action, if any, residents should pursue as we consider the Suggested Options outlined in Part 2 of  “How Many Green$ Does It Take To Make A Golf Course?” 

Notice of the date of the next neighborhood meeting to discuss the Suggested Options will be in your e-mail in-boxes next week.  It’s very important that you stay involved.

Janelle Smith-Haff

janelle@cavecreektownhallblog.com

October 11, 2015

Share your thoughts, questions, or comments below.  Just remember the rules: Be nice … be honest … or be deleted.  (All social media links are not currently active.)  To leave a comment or read the comments of other use "Comment" button.

Endnotes:
[i] “How Many Green$ Does It Take To Make A Golf Course – Part 1.” and “How Many Green$ Does It Take To Make A Golf Course – Suggested Options: Part 2” is posted at www.cavectreektownhallblog.com under the topic “Golf Course”.

[ii] The provisions protecting residential zoning and private property rights contained in the Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement are too numerous to print in this article.  For further information about these provisions visit www.cavecreektownhallblog.com, topic “Area 96-1 Annexation Agmt.” 

[iii] DISTURBED AREA is that area of natural ground, including the area occupied by the lot coverage, that has been or is proposed to be altered through grading, cut and fill, removal of natural vegetation, placement of material, trenching or by any means that causes a change in the undisturbed natural surface of the land or natural vegetation.  [source: Ordinance, Glossary Terms and Definitions, Appendix “A”] 

[iv] GRADING is any excavating or filling to level land or create a slope or combination thereof.  GRUBBING is the clearing of a majority of the vegetative matter within a certain area. [source: Ordinance, Glossary Terms and Definitions, Appendix “A”] 

[v] All Freedom of Information Act requests are received by the Town Clerk who distributes the requests to the appropriate town department(s).

[vi] “DEVELOPMENT 1: The physical extension and/or construction of urban land uses.  Development activities include: subdivision of land; construction or alteration of structures, roads, utilities, and other facilities; grading; and clearing of natural vegetative cover (with the exception of agricultural activities). Routine repair and maintenance activities are exempted.  DEVELOPMENT 2: Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, fencing, excavating or drilling.  [source: Town of Cave Creek Technical Guidelines – Landscaping, § 1.4]

[vii] For a complete listing of protected native plant see Town of Cave Creek Technical Design Guidelines – Landscaping starting at pg. 71.

[viii] There are three (3) ADWR well registration numbers: 55-520844, 55-520845, 55-806286, all have the same Well File Number, A(64)8dcc.  All filings contain the same data.  There are three (3) Change of Well Ownership forms, all listing Assessor Parcel No. 202-19-019Q.  [source: ADWR website]

[ix]This provision contain an allowable exception re grass but this exception applies only to the “private area” of the single residence (SR) zoning districts.  The Lehman parcel is in a DR zoning district.

[x] The Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement was signed in 1997.  Resolution 2009-18 was signed in 2009.



]]>Mon, 21 Sep 2015 23:22:06 GMThttp://cavecreektownhallblog.com/golf-course/-how-many-green-does-it-take-to-make-a-golf-coure-part-2-suggested-options As discussed in Part 1, a neighborhood meeting was held on August 29th to share information concerning the grading and grubbing work on Lehman parcel #1.  The following are highlights of what is now known:

·         The result of a Freedom Of Information Act request filed with the town established that no permit(s) were sought by Tom Lehman and no permit(s) were issued by the town for any grading or grubbing work on Lehman parcel #1.

·         The town has still not responded to the formal complaint filed by a citizen on August 23.[i] 

·         The grading and grubbing on Lehman parcel #1 continues. 

·         At the 8/29 meeting Tom Lehman stated that he intends to hold/sponsor fund raising events on the property, and perhaps additional use of the property would be by various other groups and organizations. 

·         Fund raising events are prohibited on all residentially-zoned parcels in Cave Creek.[ii]

·         When Tom Lehman was asked whether there intended to be one, two, or as many as three-hundred or more events on the property each year he would not commit.

·         Tom Lehman stated that his Lehman Family Foundation would be sponsoring the fund raising events on the property, some events with an attendance of 1,000 people.   

·         There will be a 2-acre grass field on Lehman parcel #1.[iii]  Tom Lehman stated that synthetic turf was too expensive.

·         The 2-acre grass field will be watered using water from the same aquifer used by other residents.

·         Tom & Melissa Lehman have obtained a Spur Cross Road address for Lehman parcel #3. There is no house located on parcel #3. None of the Lehman’s four parcels front onto Spur Cross Road.  

·         The Lehman’s do not live on the property, and Tom Lehman has stated they have no intention of living on the property for at least another 5 to 7 years.

·         Since December, 2014, Tom and Melissa Lehman have been working with the town to gain an extension of Honda Bow Road onto their property.  Any extension or improvement of Honda Bow Road violates the Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement.

·         The Honda Bow Road extension being sought by the Lehman’s is not needed for any reason other than for their fund raising events and for future expansion of density on the Lehman property.  The extension of Honda Bow Road is necessary only to accommodate the increased traffic of busses and other vehicles which will be created by attendees to the fund raising events.  All traffic will initially travel on Spur Cross Road.

·         Spur Cross Road, Morning Star Road, Fleming Springs Road and School House Road are designated to become four-lane roads under the 2015 General Plan drafted by the town’s Planning Department staff. 

·         Under the town’s Ordinances and Town Code, “Special Event” permit(s) must be approved by the mayor and town council. 

·         Under the town’s Ordinances and Town Code, “Special Use” permit(s) must be approved by the mayor and town council. 

The next course of action by the town and Tom and Melissa Lehman will determine the direction for any litigation and the speed at which residents must respond with litigation. 

Prior to holding/sponsoring any fund raising events on their property, an application for a Special Event permit must be filed with the town by the Lehman’s.[iv]   Under the town’s Ordinances and Town Code the mayor and town council members are legally required to consider/approve every Special Event application that is filed.  The consideration/approval of the Special Event application must occur during a Town Council meeting [v]  Any deference of this legal obligation of the mayor and town council members to any member(s) of town staff will add one more cause of action for residents to claim in any litigation.  Any approval of the Lehman’s Special Event application will add one more cause of action for residents to claim in any litigation.

At the conclusion of the 8/29 neighborhood meeting residents decided it was necessary to consult legal counsel.  Part 2 of this series sets forth some suggested options to discuss with legal counsel.  Please take time to read these suggested options and even develop some of your own.  When residents return from their summer hiatus there will be another neighborhood meeting (late October or early November - date to be announced) to collectively discuss all suggested options.  The preferred option(s) decided upon by residents at this meeting will then be discussed with legal counsel.  After the meeting with legal counsel another neighborhood meeting will be held to share the advice received and to collectively decide how to proceed.[vi] 

Suggested Option #1:  Do nothing. 

Suggested Option #2:  Require the restoration to original condition or re-vegetation of Lehman parcel #1.[vii] Under the town’s ordinances, the town has the authority to require a property owner to restore or revegetate any unapproved or unacceptable property disturbance.  To accomplish this suggested option a quorum of new members must be elected to the town council in 2016.

Suggested Option #3:  Decide on a course of action but delay taking any action until a new town council is seated in 2016. 

Suggested Option #4:  Retain legal counsel and initiate litigation without waiting for the mayoral and council elections in 2016. 

Suggested Option #5:  Retain legal counsel but delay filing litigation until the issue involving any Special Event application is decided by the mayor and town council members. The caveat with this option rests with the known history that town staff – not the mayor and town council members – have been approving Special Event applications and issuing permits in violation of the Town Code.  When consideration/approval of Special Event permit(s) is handled by town staff there is no public notice or hearing, leaving residents with no way of knowing that a Special Event permit for the Lehman’s fund raising activity was issued until the day of the Special Event. 

Suggested Option #6:  Include in any litigation a claim that the mayor and town council members are not entitled to personal immunity.  The town has in place all the necessary ordinances, town code provisions, as well as the Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement which require permits and protects residential zoning.  The violations of these provisions are the result of behaviors by the mayor and town council members.  Additionally, under the Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement the town is contractually bound to defend the provisions of the Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement against any and all persons violating the Agreement, which in this instance is the mayor and town council members.

Suggested Option #7:  Extend the expiration date of the Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement.[viii]  This will require the election of a quorum on the 2016 council approving an extension.  The caveat with this option is that even with an extension, diligent efforts by all residents will always be necessary to ensure that the preservation and protections under the Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement are not breached or violated by future mayors and town council members.  The Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement prohibits the widening of Spur Cross Road.

Suggested Option #8:  Vote.  The largest voting block in Cave Creek lives north of the town core off of Spur Cross Road, School House Road and Fleming Springs Road -- that includes all the side roads and connecting roads and this is the area most at risk for commercial development.  The majority of residents living within this voting block area did not vote during the recall election.  If this voting history were to repeat itself, and the 2016 mayoral and council election did not result in a quorum (4 or more) of new council members, the suggested options requiring a quorum of new council members in 2016 may well have the effect of Suggested Option #1: doing nothing.

Suggested Option #9:  Initiate a recall campaign.

Except for Suggested Option #1, these or other suggested options may be pursued alone or in concert with other suggested options. 

Janelle Smith-Haff

9/21/2015

Share your thoughts, questions, or comments below.  Just remember the rules: Be nice … be honest … or be deleted.  All social media links are not currently active.  To leave a comment please use the "Comment" button.

[i] The formal complaint also contained a request for the town to issue a cease and desist of the grading and grubbing work.

[ii] Applicable ordinances and town code sections were cited as authority and appear in Part 1 of this series. 

[iii] No grass is allowed in Cave Creek except for bear (Nolina Micocarpa) and deer grass (Muhlenbergia rigens)”per TOCC Technical Design Guidelines – Landscaping: Prohibited Plants, #10, at p. 76.   Bear grass and deer grass are not suitable grasses for a golf course.

[iv] A discussion of the other legal requirements and prohibitions involving residential/commercial zoning and fund raising appear in Part 1 of this series. 

[v] There exists evidence that, in violation of the town’s Ordinances and Town Code, members of town staff have been routinely approving Special Event applications and issuing permits without consideration/approval of the application by the mayor and town council members.

[vi]No emergency injunction was sought to stop the grading and grubbing on Lehman parcel #1 based on the claim by Tom Lehman’s contractor that the work would be completed in 2-3 weeks (from 8/29).  It was estimated that it would take almost that long to retain counsel, bring counsel up to speed on the issue, prepare the legal documents, serve the legal documents, receive the town’s response to the legal documents, have a court hearing, and secure a judicial ruling --- and at any point the injunction effort could have been circumvented by the town “suddenly” issuing permits. 

[vii]A Zoning Clearance and Building Permit is required prior to any grading or grubbing. (Ch. 6, Sec. 6.0).  A Town-issued Building Permit is required prior to any landscape improvements.  (Ch. 8, Sec. 8.4(A)).   The town has issued no Building Permit or Zoning Clearance on Lehman parcel #1.  To the maximum extent allowed by law fines shall be assessed for any salvage, grubbing or grading performed without first obtaining the required Building Permit. (Ch. 8, Sec. 8.4(B)).  A Financial Assurance Agreement between applicant and town must be approved prior to the issuance of any Building Permit for any grading or grubbing within the town.  (Ch. 8, Sec. 8.3(A)).  The Financial Assurance Agreement shall provide that if the Building Permit expires or the grading/grubbing is not constructed in conformance with the Town approved Native Plant Inventory Plan and Landscape Plan, the funding provided within the Financial Assurance Agreement may be used by the Town for the restoration to original condition, or re-vegetation of any unapproved or unacceptable disturbance. 

[viii] It is likely that the Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement will be included in any litigation.



]]>Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:55:23 GMThttp://cavecreektownhallblog.com/golf-course/-how-many-green-does-it-take-to-make-a-golf-coure-part-1 Desert Disruption Discovered.
Construction and earth moving equipment are sights and sounds of development.  When residents in Area 96-1 began to hear these sounds we followed them to its source: the 72± acre parcel purchased in early 2014 by professional PGA golfer Tom Lehman and his wife, Melissa.[i]   The Lehman’s do not live on the property and Tom Lehman has stated they have no intention of living on the property for at least another 5 to 7 years.

Seeing no town permit signs for the removal of trees and cacti nor for the grading of the desert floor, up to three-feet deep in some areas and  which was resulting in 15-feet or higher mounds of dirt,  a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was submitted to the town requesting “copy(s) of all pending or completed permit application(s), copy(s) of any and all site inspections conducted by any town employee, copy(s) of any and all permit/inspection approvals, along with all correspondence, notes, and letters relative to” the four parcels owned by the Lehman’s.[ii] 

The town’s response to the FOIA was that no permits had been issued on any of the four (4) Lehman parcels. 

Town Manager Peter Jankowski was immediately notified.  The mayor and town council members were also immediately notified.  Our elected officials are doing nothing.  As of this writing the town has not even responded to the formal complaint filed on August 26th.

Cave Creek Residents Gather.
On August 29, 2015 a neighborhood meeting was held.  There were 28 people in attendance representing Area 96-1, Red Dog Ranch, Cahava Ranch, Spur Cross Road, as well as residents from the area of the once-proposed Enchanted Canyon Resort.  Tom Lehman and his contractor were also in attendance.  About a dozen other residents wished to attend but were either already out of town or would be out of town on 8/29.  All those in attendance were grateful that Tom Lehman attended the meeting as it allowed residents to hear directly from him how he plans to utilize the 72± acre parcel. 

Prior to the meeting Tom Lehman’s contractor referred to the construction occurring on Lehman parcel #1 as a golf course.  At the meeting Tom Lehman referred to the construction as “landscaping,” but as he further described it, his “landscaping” will consist of a 2-acre grass field with putting holes.  Use of grass for the “field” will require water drawn from the same aquifer used by residents living in the area.  (Tom Lehman stated that synthetic turf was too expensive.) 

The response by the town’s Planning Department to the lack of permits was that putting/chipping greens are allowed without a permit and that “piles of dirt” (referencing the 15-feet or higher mounds of dirt) are not a violation.

In response to questions at the 8/29 meeting, Tom Lehman stated that his Lehman Family Foundation would be sponsoring fund raising events on the property, some events with an attendance of 1,000 people, and perhaps additional use of the property would be by various other groups and organizations.  When asked whether there intended to be one, two, or as many as three-hundred or more events on the property each year Tom Lehman would not commit.

During the meeting, Tom Lehman stressed that giving back to the community was important to he and his wife because they feel so blessed. The residents of Cave Creek purchased Spur Cross Conservation Area to preserve the desert.  Use of the golf facility already available in Cave Creek, Rancho Manana Golf Club, for the fund raising events will give back to the Cave Creek community by way of revenue to the town without disrupting the lives and lifestyle invested by residents in the residential neighborhoods that exist north of the town core.  If not Rancho Manana Golf Club there is a publicly-owned, conveniently-located, large, fenced, grass soccer field on Cave Creek Road just south of Tatum Boulevard that could be used for fund raising events.

Should one residential property owner’s desires be allowed to disrupt the peace and quiet of the many long term residents?  Large fund raising events require special accommodations such as portable toilets, refrigeration trucks, catering facilities, white tents, outdoor lighting and outdoor audio equipment.  In addition, Tom Lehman stated that some of the attendees may be transported to the events via charter busses.  All of the traffic necessary for the events and all of the traffic caused by attendees will travel on Spur Cross Road.

Property’s Plans Prohibited.
The sponsorship of fund raising events by the Lehman Family Foundation places the fund raising activity in the business/commercial category and as such is a prohibited activity on any residentially-zoned parcel.  Under chapter 2 of the town’s ordinances, “fund raising” is not a permitted “Special Use” in a residential zone.  Additionally, “special uses” must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the town council.  Further, under the Town Code “fund raising” is not listed as a qualified Special Event.[iii]  Even if fund raising was approved by the town council as a Special Event, holding the event on residentially-zoned property does not qualify under the Town Code because: “A special event may be held on private property only if the property is located within a commercial zone or has an established primary commercial use. “[iv]  The four Lehman parcels are not within a commercial zone and there is no “established primary commercial use” on any portion of the 72± acre parcel. 

Permits are required.  Under Ch. 6 of the town’s ordinances, a permit is required prior to the commencement of any grading and/or grubbing[v] of any area within a lot or parcel. [vi]  In addition to grading or grubbing permits, chapter 6 describes multiple requirements for other required permits concerning drainage, dust, etc., that must be obtained prior to the commencement of any grading or grubbing.  One of the required permits involves drainage from washes.  Knowing full well that any improvement to Morning Star Road is a violation of the Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement, nevertheless, the town has recently asked about installing a culvert on a section of Morning Star Road.  The section where the town wants to install the culvert is where the drainage flows from the wash on Lehman parcel #1 onto Morning Star Road. 

Why did the town not require permits prior to commencement of any grading or grubbing by the Lehman’s?

While it is clearly evident that permits and a re-zoning of the Lehman property to commercial  zoning is required, the question residents are asking is why the mayor and town council members are  doing nothing to protect our residential zoning, the serenity of our desert with its plants and animals, our creek, our water, and ensure that our skies stay dark so that the billions of stars in the night sky can be seen by every resident?

Hidden Agenda Suspected.
The commercialization of the area north of the town core is slated to occur under the 2015 General Plan as drafted by Ian Cordwell of the town’s Planning Department.  Spur Cross Road, Fleming Springs Road, School House Road, and Morning Star Road are all designated to become four-lane roads.  At a campaign forum during the recall election, the newly-elected council members promised residents on the west side that there would be an east-west crossing over the creek before the expiration of the Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement.  After becoming aware of this potential breach of the Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement by the mayor and this council, on April 20, 2015 the disclosure of this campaign promise was published at www.cavecreektownhallblog.com.[vii]

The Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement is the only thing preventing the commercialization of the area north of the town core, but especially Area 96-1. [viii]  During the 2014 Christmas holidays, a representative from the town along with Tom and Melissa Lehman met with two residents living on Honda Bow Road.  At the meeting the two residents were told that an extension of Honda Bow Road to the Lehman property was a “done deal” even though it violates the Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement.  The initial letter informing the two residents about the Honda Bow Road extension was served on the homeowners by the Town Marshall.  At the meeting with the two homeowners the Lehman’s stated that the extension onto Honda Bow Road was needed for a house.  At the 8/29 meeting Tom Lehman stated that they would not be living on the property for at least another 5 to 7 years.  There already exists residential ingress and egress from the Lehman property and it is not over Honda Bow Road. 

The Lehman property has been assigned a 54th Street address for more than 20 years yet the Lehman’s have obtained a Spur Cross Road address for Lehman parcel #3 – and there is no house on this parcel.  The residents living on Honda Bow Road do not have a Spur Cross Road address. 

The Honda Bow Road extension being sought by the Lehman’s is not needed for any reason other than for their fund raising events and for future expansion of density on the property.  If the mayor and town council grant the Lehman’s access to Spur Cross Road by way of Honda Bow Road not only would that be a breach of the Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement it would be a cause for litigation. 

Take Action Now.
It was the decision by those in attendance at the 8/29 meeting to consult with counsel.  In Part 2 of this article (to be published on September 21st) some suggested options to address this commercial activity, profit or non-profit, in residential neighborhoods will be presented.  Upon the return of our presently out-of-town residents a meeting will be scheduled in late October or early November to decide which option(s) to discuss with counsel.  Taking immediate legal action to stop the construction on Lehman parcel #1 will not restore the desert nor will it resolve the issue of whether the town’s complicit inaction is a backdoor attempt by the mayor and town council members to create an “established primary commercial use” under the “Special Events” section of our Town Code in order to justify a future re-zoning of the Lehman property to commercial.

In the interim, the best investment we can all make is that of time – time to learn the facts and time to consider not only a course of litigation but whether or not there are alternatives to litigation or alternatives to include with litigation.  By using our time in this manner, the cost of our efforts will not be counted only in dollars and donations. 

Preserving our residential zoning and protecting the serenity of our desert, its plants, its animals, our creek, our water, and ensuring that our skies stay dark is our property right.  If we don’t stand together on this issue the consequences will be irreversible and all residents will be affected, not just those in Area 96-1.

Janelle Smith-Haff
www.cavecreektownhallblog.com janelle@cavecreektownhallblog.com
9/10/2015

Endnotes:
[i]The Lehman property consists of four contiguous parcels totaling 72± acres located in Area 96-1. According to the Maricopa County Assessor’s map Lehman parcel #1 is residentially zoned DR-70 and consists of 16± acres; parcel #2 is residentially zoned DR-190 and consists of 28± acres; parcel #3 is residentially zoned DR-190 and consists of 24± acres; and parcel #4 is residentially zoned DR-190 and consists of 5± acres.

[ii] To view the Lehman parcels, drive north on Spur Cross Road to Morning Star Road.  Turn left onto Morning Star and drive to the top of the hill at 54th Street.  Look north and you’ll see the property.  It is one parcel in from the intersection of Morning Star Road and Old Stage Road, on the north side.

[iii] Town Code, Title XI, Sec. 114.03 Definitions. 

[iv] Town Code, Title XI, Sec. 114.02(A) General Requirements.

[v] “Grading” as defined by town ordinance: “Grading is any excavating or filling to level land or create a slope or combination thereof.”  “Grubbing” as defined by town ordinance: “Grubbing is the clearing of a majority of the vegetative matter within a certain area.”

[vi] Zoning Ordinance Ch. 6 – Grading.  Sec. 6.0 General.  “The issuance of a Zoning Clearance and Building permit within any zone is required prior to the commencement of any grading and/or grubbing of any area within a lot or parcel.”  The entirety of Ch. 6 details the requirement for a Dust Control Permit, which is issued by Maricopa County (ADEQ).  Sec. 6.2 requires that a Grading & Drainage Plan and Drainage Report also be completed, filed and approved by the town.  If these permits existed they were required to be released under the requested FOIA.

[vii] The information about the potential breach was published in the article titled “A Bridge Too Far” which is under the blog’s topic “Cahava Springs Dev”.  The disclosure of this council’s campaign promise was also stated into the record at the town council meeting. 

[viii] For information on the Area 96-1 Annexation Agreement and how it prevents rezoning and an east-west crossing over the creek go to www.cavecreektownhallblog.com, click on  the topic “Area 96-1 Annexation Agmt” and scroll down to the article titled “Annexation Agreement” which was posted on 07/11/2014.

Do you have any comments?  Let's s hear them.  Share your thoughts, questions, or comments below.  Just remember the rules:  Be nice … be honest … or be deleted.

(All social media links are not currently active.  To leave a comment or to read the comments of others please use "Comments" button.)




]]>