On Oct. 1, when the Town Council overrode the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendations, approving the various measures which we are now voting on, I was disappointed with them for that action.
Previously I had recommended to the mayor and some council members that they return the issue to P&Z, and tell the developer to come back in no less than six months with a better plan to develop the area. I support good development of this/these parcel(s). I believe that a review and new plan might have been a great improvement; but, as we all know, it did not happen that way.
I support making that area residential. But, from what I have seen, I don’t like the current plan or the fact that so much is variable or unknown, and the developer has such a long time to implement any plan. I have never known any developer to proceed after initial approval without asking for a number of variances which they knew they could not get when asking for initial approval. The variances might make for a better project; but, then again, they often don’t.
You must be a member to read this story.
Join our family of readers starting at $5 for your first month and support local, unbiased journalism.
Click here to see your options for becoming a subscriber.
Register to comment
Click here create a free account for posting comments.
Note that free accounts do not include access to premium content on this site.
I am anchor
Splitting vote
Posted
Boe James
On Oct. 1, when the Town Council overrode the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendations, approving the various measures which we are now voting on, I was disappointed with them for that action.
Previously I had recommended to the mayor and some council members that they return the issue to P&Z, and tell the developer to come back in no less than six months with a better plan to develop the area. I support good development of this/these parcel(s). I believe that a review and new plan might have been a great improvement; but, as we all know, it did not happen that way.
I support making that area residential. But, from what I have seen, I don’t like the current plan or the fact that so much is variable or unknown, and the developer has such a long time to implement any plan. I have never known any developer to proceed after initial approval without asking for a number of variances which they knew they could not get when asking for initial approval. The variances might make for a better project; but, then again, they often don’t.
Keeping it pristine, as it is now, is not an option. The Town cannot afford to buy it and I don’t think the voters would approve such an action anyway. Many of those protesting the current development would probably protest that change also.
I am going to vote no on Proposition 427 amending the zoning, but yes on 428 amending the General Plan to allow residential development. This will stop the current plan but let the owners and other developers know that Fountain Hills is open for the much-needed residential development and new residents.
I would like to see Proposition 428 pass. Vote no on 427 and yes on 428.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here