Approval of General Plan Draft:
On January 28, 2016 the Planning Commission submitted a formal request to the mayor and town council members asking for their approval of the General Plan drafted by Planning Department and Planning Commission members. Because Arizona state law requires that the General Plan be approved by residents, the Planning Commission recommended the mayor and town council members approve Resolution 2016-04 setting an August 30, 2016 date for voter approval of the General Plan by residents.
Approval for Mixed-Use in Residential Zones and Approval for Walled-In Subdivision Developments:
The General Plan approved by the Planning Commission members includes the following provision: “B.2. Allow non-residential land uses that are comparable to and compatible with surrounding development.”
Additionally, the General Plan approved by the Planning Commission now allows walled-in subdivision developments to be built in Cave Creek. The provision that was deleted by the Planning Commission is the provision that has prohibited walled-in subdivision developments in Cave Creek to the present time. The Planning Commission’s deleted provision appears at p. 23 and stated: “Conserving the dispersed single family housing development pattern that is not compatible with mixed-use, walled developments.”
Inadequate Public Input:
Arizona law requires the Planning Commission to conduct public meetings and hearings during its drafting of the General Plan. The claim by numerous residents is that January 28, 2016 was the first occasion for public input in front of Planning Commission members. The Planning Commission has denied that claim. Resolution R2016-04, approved by the Planning Commission and forwarded to the mayor and members of town council on January 28, 2016, recites that public input was afforded to residents through two public meetings as well as a public hearing before the Planning Commission’s approval of the General Plan draft on January 28, 2016. However, there is no evidence of residents being afforded public input at two public meetings as well as a public hearing.
The town’s website establishes that the first occasion for public input in front of Planning Commission members on the General Plan was January 28, 2016 – the date the General Plan draft was approved by the Planning Commission. The town’s website reflects the following General Plan hearing dates and what transpired on those dates:
March 19, 2015 –There are no minutes reflecting a Planning Commission meeting on March 19, 2015.
April 2, 2015 – There was no Planning Commission meeting on this date.
April 16, 2015 – Cancelled. Lack of quorum.
May 20, 2015 – Cancelled. Continued to 9/17.
September 17, 2015 – Cancelled. No reason stated.
September 24, 2015 – Workshop. The website states that: “A public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission at a later date, at which time the Commission may proceed to make recommendations to amend the 2005 General Plan.”
October 1, 2015 - Workshop. The website states that: “A public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission at a later date, at which time the Commission may proceed to make recommendations to amend the 2005 General Plan.”
November 19, 2015 - Workshop. The website states that: “A public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission at a later date, at which time the Commission may proceed to make recommendations to amend the 2005 General Plan.”
December 3, 2015 - Workshop. The website states that: “A public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission at a later date, at which time the Commission may proceed to make recommendations to amend the 2005 General Plan.”
December 17, 2015 - Workshop. The website states that: “A public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission at a later date, at which time the Commission may proceed to make recommendations to amend the 2005 General Plan.”
January 28, 2016 – During the regularly-scheduled Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission approved the proposed General Plan and forwarded the draft to the mayor and town council members.
Planning Agency:
Not to be confused with the town’s Planning Department of which Ian Cordwell is the Planning Director/Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission is the designated planning agency under Arizona statutes and Cave Creek’s Town Code. Ian Cordwell is not a Planning Commission member. These facts were affirmed by the Planning Commission members during the January 28, 2016 Planning Commission meeting.
So why, with full acknowledgment of their statutory duty as the town’s planning agency, did the Planning Commission members approve Resolution 2016-04 which designates the Planning Department as the town’s planning agency?
In the Planning Commission’s rush to approve the General Plan draft and accompanying Resolution the Planning Commission members delegated their statutory requirements to the town’s Planning Department employees; something they have no legal authority to do.
Amendments to the approved General Plan draft:
There were a number of amendments to the General Plan draft submitted by Planning Commission members during the January 28, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. Because of the number of amendments, the new draft incorporating the amendments will have pages deleted and sections of text, sentences, and words deleted, added, and/or removed, and this will result in the renumbering of pages throughout the entire document.
In spite of this, the Planning Commission instructed town staff to forward the new draft directly to the mayor and members of town council without further review by the Planning Commission members. This results in a General Plan that the Planning Commission has not reviewed prior to submission to the mayor and members of town council.
The abdication to town staff of the Planning Commission’s legal responsibility with respect to the General Plan is especially egregious due to the fact that all Planning Commission members are fully aware of errors that were made in the first draft prepared by town staff. One example of those errors involves the Circulation maps, as the map details are inconsistent with the text details in the General Plan.
Dissolution of Planning Commission:
The General Plan and Resolution 2016-04 approved by the members of the Planning Commission on January 28, 2016 exhibits a sweeping overhaul of the way future governance is to be conducted in this town.
Under Arizona law and the town’s present form of governance, the Planning Commission is the planning agency vested with oversight in matters related to land use, including planning, zoning, etc.
As discussed above, however, due to the Planning Commission’s approval of the draft General Plan and Resolution 2016-04, the planning agency will be the town’s Planning Department, not the Planning Commission. Thus, the legislative authority the Planning Commission once exercised in land use issues will now be exercised solely by staff in the town’s Planning Department.
There is no legitimate, legal way to equivocate or rationalize the Planning Commission’s delegation of its statutory authority. Town staff is not the planning agency, nor does it have or share any of the powers and responsibilities which Arizona law confers on the Planning Commission. Yet, that is apparently what has occurred and has occurred with knowing compliance by Planning Commission members.
The General Plan is the document that will direct the development of Cave Creek for the next decade. If approved by the mayor and members of town council, the next decade will bring mixed-use in residential neighborhoods and permit walled-in subdivision communities to be built in Cave Creek.
If you don’t share this vision of Cave Creek a “no” vote on the General Plan is one way to prevent this from occurring.
Share your opinions with your Cave Creek neighbors and with the mayor and members of town council. Their email addresses are: [email protected]; SL[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Janelle Smith-Haff
1/31/2016
[email protected]
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.)
On January 28, 2016 the Planning Commission submitted a formal request to the mayor and town council members asking for their approval of the General Plan drafted by Planning Department and Planning Commission members. Because Arizona state law requires that the General Plan be approved by residents, the Planning Commission recommended the mayor and town council members approve Resolution 2016-04 setting an August 30, 2016 date for voter approval of the General Plan by residents.
Approval for Mixed-Use in Residential Zones and Approval for Walled-In Subdivision Developments:
The General Plan approved by the Planning Commission members includes the following provision: “B.2. Allow non-residential land uses that are comparable to and compatible with surrounding development.”
Additionally, the General Plan approved by the Planning Commission now allows walled-in subdivision developments to be built in Cave Creek. The provision that was deleted by the Planning Commission is the provision that has prohibited walled-in subdivision developments in Cave Creek to the present time. The Planning Commission’s deleted provision appears at p. 23 and stated: “Conserving the dispersed single family housing development pattern that is not compatible with mixed-use, walled developments.”
Inadequate Public Input:
Arizona law requires the Planning Commission to conduct public meetings and hearings during its drafting of the General Plan. The claim by numerous residents is that January 28, 2016 was the first occasion for public input in front of Planning Commission members. The Planning Commission has denied that claim. Resolution R2016-04, approved by the Planning Commission and forwarded to the mayor and members of town council on January 28, 2016, recites that public input was afforded to residents through two public meetings as well as a public hearing before the Planning Commission’s approval of the General Plan draft on January 28, 2016. However, there is no evidence of residents being afforded public input at two public meetings as well as a public hearing.
The town’s website establishes that the first occasion for public input in front of Planning Commission members on the General Plan was January 28, 2016 – the date the General Plan draft was approved by the Planning Commission. The town’s website reflects the following General Plan hearing dates and what transpired on those dates:
March 19, 2015 –There are no minutes reflecting a Planning Commission meeting on March 19, 2015.
April 2, 2015 – There was no Planning Commission meeting on this date.
April 16, 2015 – Cancelled. Lack of quorum.
May 20, 2015 – Cancelled. Continued to 9/17.
September 17, 2015 – Cancelled. No reason stated.
September 24, 2015 – Workshop. The website states that: “A public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission at a later date, at which time the Commission may proceed to make recommendations to amend the 2005 General Plan.”
October 1, 2015 - Workshop. The website states that: “A public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission at a later date, at which time the Commission may proceed to make recommendations to amend the 2005 General Plan.”
November 19, 2015 - Workshop. The website states that: “A public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission at a later date, at which time the Commission may proceed to make recommendations to amend the 2005 General Plan.”
December 3, 2015 - Workshop. The website states that: “A public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission at a later date, at which time the Commission may proceed to make recommendations to amend the 2005 General Plan.”
December 17, 2015 - Workshop. The website states that: “A public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission at a later date, at which time the Commission may proceed to make recommendations to amend the 2005 General Plan.”
January 28, 2016 – During the regularly-scheduled Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission approved the proposed General Plan and forwarded the draft to the mayor and town council members.
Planning Agency:
Not to be confused with the town’s Planning Department of which Ian Cordwell is the Planning Director/Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission is the designated planning agency under Arizona statutes and Cave Creek’s Town Code. Ian Cordwell is not a Planning Commission member. These facts were affirmed by the Planning Commission members during the January 28, 2016 Planning Commission meeting.
So why, with full acknowledgment of their statutory duty as the town’s planning agency, did the Planning Commission members approve Resolution 2016-04 which designates the Planning Department as the town’s planning agency?
In the Planning Commission’s rush to approve the General Plan draft and accompanying Resolution the Planning Commission members delegated their statutory requirements to the town’s Planning Department employees; something they have no legal authority to do.
Amendments to the approved General Plan draft:
There were a number of amendments to the General Plan draft submitted by Planning Commission members during the January 28, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. Because of the number of amendments, the new draft incorporating the amendments will have pages deleted and sections of text, sentences, and words deleted, added, and/or removed, and this will result in the renumbering of pages throughout the entire document.
In spite of this, the Planning Commission instructed town staff to forward the new draft directly to the mayor and members of town council without further review by the Planning Commission members. This results in a General Plan that the Planning Commission has not reviewed prior to submission to the mayor and members of town council.
The abdication to town staff of the Planning Commission’s legal responsibility with respect to the General Plan is especially egregious due to the fact that all Planning Commission members are fully aware of errors that were made in the first draft prepared by town staff. One example of those errors involves the Circulation maps, as the map details are inconsistent with the text details in the General Plan.
Dissolution of Planning Commission:
The General Plan and Resolution 2016-04 approved by the members of the Planning Commission on January 28, 2016 exhibits a sweeping overhaul of the way future governance is to be conducted in this town.
Under Arizona law and the town’s present form of governance, the Planning Commission is the planning agency vested with oversight in matters related to land use, including planning, zoning, etc.
As discussed above, however, due to the Planning Commission’s approval of the draft General Plan and Resolution 2016-04, the planning agency will be the town’s Planning Department, not the Planning Commission. Thus, the legislative authority the Planning Commission once exercised in land use issues will now be exercised solely by staff in the town’s Planning Department.
There is no legitimate, legal way to equivocate or rationalize the Planning Commission’s delegation of its statutory authority. Town staff is not the planning agency, nor does it have or share any of the powers and responsibilities which Arizona law confers on the Planning Commission. Yet, that is apparently what has occurred and has occurred with knowing compliance by Planning Commission members.
The General Plan is the document that will direct the development of Cave Creek for the next decade. If approved by the mayor and members of town council, the next decade will bring mixed-use in residential neighborhoods and permit walled-in subdivision communities to be built in Cave Creek.
If you don’t share this vision of Cave Creek a “no” vote on the General Plan is one way to prevent this from occurring.
Share your opinions with your Cave Creek neighbors and with the mayor and members of town council. Their email addresses are: [email protected]; SL[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Janelle Smith-Haff
1/31/2016
[email protected]
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.)