It's been a long road, and the county still does not have it right.
The Yavapai County Planning and Zoning Commission has been working to rewrite the Community Plan Policy and Process, to the tune of two months and five versions.
On Wednesday, the commissioners voted to send a positive recommendation for the policy draft to the Board of Supervisors. The board will review it Aug. 3 in Prescott. Essentially the policy governs how the county and its communities go about initiating, developing, approving and implementing community plans.
These plans, which ultimately become part of the General Plan, would encompass how a community or corridor wants its area to look, develop, etc.
The Williamson Valley Community Organization objected this week to the proposal.
"The intent of the (General Plan and Growing Smarter Acts) statutes is to give citizens a voice in the planning process and determining the future of their communities. WVCO believes, despite a few changes, the proposed procedures (in the draft) are contrary to that intent and we oppose the new direction the county has chosen to take," said Linda Weatbrook, representing the Williamson Valley Community Organization.
We agree this is going in the wrong direction, because the latest version would add a two-tier committee structure that starts with a Community Advisory Committee (CAC). While it would comprise community members, it merely adds another committee - also known as another layer of bureaucracy.
Also, WVCO President Ken Mino wrote in the letter, "I feel strict interpretation or adherence to some of these steps would eliminate meaningful citizen participation in the process" rather than add to it.
Officials explained the idea is to ensure that a Community Advisory Committee is representative of an entire community and not one special interest group. That's a noble intent, not always possible to ensure.
It's time to follow the objectives of the existing guidelines rather than invent new ones.
Posted: Monday, July 27, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
Christipher - I can hear the jackboots in the background.
Posted: Monday, July 27, 2009
Article comment by:
Christipher
Tom, these plans typically are anti-growth and run by a small minority who dominate the process. It avoids the controversies at the Board level as these land use decisions are worked out at the neighborhood level (it should be the Planning Commision's job), or at least in theory. However, zoning is not a neighborhood referendum, but an exercise of police powers over the use of private property . The reality of the process is that these become neighborhood referendum, and whole new layer of bureaucracy and expense to use/develop private property. The whole thing is biased against the late comers, who now face the environmental burdens and excessive regulation created by the current developments. The Board's decision is to be based on the general health, welfare and safety and whether the project is in furtherance of the General Plan. That plan can contain area or community plans. The Board is actually prohibited from enforcing home owner association rules (private covenants), but that is what will be expected and what has slowly bled over into the public planning and zoning process. A county has the obligation to zone for all land-uses, even unwanted ones, and has an obligation to the future. The presumption should be in favor of that private property holder (a conservative idea!), not a presumption in favor of the adjacent home owner's association (but we know where the votes are).
Posted: Monday, July 27, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
Creagan McConnell - There are no guarantees that the "NEW" rules won't be changed again after they have been followed. It's like Lucy moving the football EVERY time Charlie Brown goes to kick it! They're making fools of us.
Posted: Monday, July 27, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
To: Tom Steele. We are awake. It's hard to sleep when you're being beaten down AND patronized, simultaneously. Around here, a man is judged by the size of his acreage (and building plans!). This is just more ridiculous "hoops and hurdles" by BOS dictates.
Posted: Monday, July 27, 2009
Article comment by:
Creagan McConnell
As President of the Paulden Area Community Organization (PACO) I have expressed my strong feelings that these new policies may encumber Yavapai County’s Unincorporated Communities with unattainable goals to meet public participation requirements. When many of our communities set forth to initiate a plan, groups were organized and all residents were invited to participate and voice their opinions on the future of their community. Now after years of wrangling over the wording of community plans the county has come up with a new way of submitting said plans – start over. The county would like to see more diversity in the groups make up, but stops just short of saying larger land holders should have more of a say than other residents. We and the county have spent hours and man-hours working on past versions of plans and now we just want to see a community plan for our area put into place. It seems the only way to reach our goal of having a community plan in place by spring 2010 is to move forward with these new rules or go kicking and screaming back to 2003 with nothing to show for it. As stated previously I have opposed many of the changes the county has presented but ask if they are going to institute these new rules, that they clearly and specifically outline the criteria for becoming a member of the new committees and what specifically they are looking for in community diversity. Six years ago the Paulden Community brought together all residents who wanted to participate; we can not be accountable for those who chose not to voice their opinion. The percentage of people willing and able to work on a community plan should not be set at a higher standard than the percentage of residents who worked on or participated in the Yavapai County General Plan. The community of Paulden as well as other communities has taken on the burden of submitting plans in the past at the request of the Board of Supervisors. We will once again be asked to do the leg work and provide the public with forums to voice their input as to planning the future of their community. We are more than willing to put in the time and effort because Paulden rightfully deserves and needs their community plan to be put in place. My concern is that this time around; the time and energy not be wasted by “new and better” rules being put in place after the fact, once again.
Posted: Monday, July 27, 2009
Article comment by:
Tom Steele
Another "plan" to assure the development community has the votes to push through the plans it chooses. Don't you know we just elect the supervisors West of Mingus. They actually work for growth and development and tax us for the roads and infrastructure. Wake up people!
