|
Despite assurances
by Pinal deputy attorney, doubts remain
August 19, 2001 Updated August 24, 2001 Commentary By J.C. Huntington
McLean's assurance came in a letter to the editor of published in the August 15 edition of The Northwest Explorer. McLean's letter was prompted by the August 6 Explorer article, "Willow Springs owner sues county." The article quoted McLean as saying, "I would assume the court will order that there is no referendum and the ordinance granting the rezoning will be valid." In his letter to the editor, McLean says he was misquoted and that he actually told the Explorer, "If the petitions are found to be invalid, I would assume the court will order that there is no referendum." In the same article, McLean indicated that should the county lose, the Pinal County Attorney's office is not likely to appeal, but would leave that action to a citizens group that has intervened in the lawsuit. On July 2, Pinal Citizens for Sustainable Communities (PCSC) collected nearly 6,000 signatures to allow voters to approve the rezoning at the ballot box. The current rezoning is the first phase of the 18,000-acre Willow Springs project. On July 25, the Anam Inc. sued Pinal County in an attempt to keep the issue off the ballot and away from voters. Anam, a Canadian-based company, buys and sells property throughout the United States and owns the Willow Springs land. Despite McLean's assurances, residents remain uncomfortable with the conduct of the Pinal County Attorney's office regarding the Willow Springs rezoning. One major concern stems from the fact that the Pinal County Attorney's office has failed to explain why Anam's rezoning request was approved in the face of multiple apparent violations of the Pinal County Zoning Ordinance. When asked about the violations Supervisors Ruiz and Smith gave contradictory explanations. On June 16, Supervisor Sandie Smith told The Apache Junction News that McLean was researching the issue and would respond as soon as he has an answer. In the same article, Supervisor Lionel D. Ruiz said the Pinal County Attorney's office "had been involved in the development process from the beginning," yet hadn't informed the supervisors of any violations. Why would McLean have to investigate the violations if his office had been involved with the development process from the start? The Pinal County Attorney's office has yet to comment. Oracle resident Mary Ellen Kazda first raised the allegations of violations of Pinal's zoning ordinance during the May 16 rezoning hearing. In her testimony, Kazda told the Supervisors that a comparison of the public information package for the Anam rezoning with the Pinal Zoning Ordinance revealed that the landowner had violated several stipulations of the ordinance. At the hearing, McLean was asked if he had read the public information package on the rezoning but refused to answer saying, "I only answer questions for my clients," while gesturing towards Supervisors Ruiz, Smith and Kerr. One of the more flagrant violations is the fact that Pinal County approved Anam's rezoning without requiring Codes, Covenent's and Restrictions (CCR's) as required by the ordinance. By granting the zoning without requiring CCR's, Pinal County increased Anam's profit potential, here's how . . . The landowner has been promising each house will be equipped with solar panels, be connected to a state of the art wetlands sewage treatment plant, and that other elaborate "green-building" technologies would be utilized. However, Anam doesn't plan to build homes at Willow Springs. Anam plans take care of the rezoning and other legalities, then sell their land to homebuilding companies. On August 7, Alex Argueta, hired by Anam to take care of the rezoning and other legal technicalities, told a group of Oracle residents that talks have begun with several large home building corporations including Pulte, D.R. Horton and Richmond American. Had Anam committed
their promises to CCRs, the home-building companies would have had to live
up to Anam's promises, which would have added cost to the construction
and lowered the value of Anam's land.
There may not be any actual wrongdoing here but there is certainly the appearance of it. Pinal County Attorney Robert Carter Olsen needs to explain to voters why and how Anam's rezoning request was approved despite multiple apparent violations of Pinal's zoning ordinance. Another area of concern stems from the response by the Pinal County Attorney's Office to Anam's initial complaint asking Pinal County to reject the referendum signatures. On July 5, Anam formally requested Pinal County to reject the referendum based on 2 complaints. The first complaint claimed the petitions had been submitted too late; the second complaint claimed insufficient material had been attached to the petitions. In his response of July 12, McLean predicted a lawsuit would happen, then stipulated that Anam's first complaint was valid while ignoring the second one. This is a curious response for a lawyer preparing to defend his client against a potential lawsuit. McLean seems to have reasoned that if Pinal County rejected the petitions, PCSC would sue the County and if Pinal County accepted the petitions, Anam would sue the county. McLean then consulted with Pinal County Attorney Robert Carter Olsen and they decided to advise the Pinal County Elections Office to accept the petitions and be sued by Anam, instead of rejecting the petitions and be sued by a group of Pinal County voters. If Pinal County loses the lawsuit and leaves the appeal to PCSC as McLean indicated, the citizens group could be embroiled in a lawsuit when Anam returns to get rezoning approval for their remaining 14,000 acres. On May 17, Argueta told The Arizona Daily Star that Anam will come back for rezoning the remaining 14,000 acres as soon as Pinal County completes the Pinal Comprehensive Plan. County officials have admitted the schedule is tight and are hastily trying to complete the plan by December.
|
Back
to News & Information
Back
to Introduction
email:mekazda@mindspring.com
