 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
Citizens Against Annexation
Posts:12
 | | 10/01/2007 4:54 PM |
 Alert | Ok Neighbors, I received this information this morning. It is one more to add to the list of deceiteful things pulled to force us into annexation.
A council member stated that we would annex one way or the other and he forwarned of a change in county zoning.
We need everyone at this meeting, please tell everyone!!!!
The change is as follows;
Pinal county Limiting Horses and Livestock to 2 large animals per acre under proposed new zoning ordinance
Dear horse/livestock owners/lovers,
Pinal county is proposing to set a limit of 2 horses (large animals) per acre for properties currently having no limit on the number of horses or livestock. Please read below for more details. Then go to the Pinal County website and submit your comments. Also, please plan to attend at least one of the planned public hearings to voice your opinion regarding the proposed limitations. There is strength in numbers. Thanks for your support.
A proposed pinal county zoning ordinance has been drafted that limits the number of large animals to 2 per acre (large animals...such as cattle, horses,sheep or goats). Pinal county proposes to repeal the existing zoning ordinance adopted on June 18th 1962 that established the suburban ranch and the general rural zones that allow for an unlimited number of large animals such as the horse. Instead, residents will now be limited to 2 large animals per acre. That means only 2 large animals on 1 acre, 4 large animals on 2 acres, 6 large animals on 3.3 acres, etc.
If passed as drafted, the new pinal zoning will mark the end of a way of life in Pinal county pertaining to rural/agricultural lifestyle.
Citizens have the opportunity to submit their comments and also to attend two public meetings. Please check below and on the Pinal county website for dates and times. PLEASE ATTEND ONE OR ALL OF THESE MEETINGS. Tell your friends and go together in a group if needed.
These are the sections of the proposed zoning ordinance pertaining to horses and livestock:
Pinal county draft zoning ordinance- article 13 sec. 1302.2, article 14 sec. 1402.2, article 15 sec. 1502.2, article 16 sec. 162.2 also article 1 sec. 109 repeal and sec. 109.1.
Draft ordinance: http://co.pinal.az.us/PlanDev/ZoningOrdinance/Drafts/Drft1-082407.pdf
Scroll to pages 13-1,14-1,15-1,16-1 and read sections 1302.2,1402.2,1502.2,1602.2.
Click here to submit your comments to pinal county: http://co.pinal.az.us/PlanDev/ZoningOrdinance/Index.asp
Click here to view tentative schedule to appear in person
http://co.pinal.az.us/PlanDev/Files/Citizen%20Particiaption%20timeline%sept07.pdf
First Public Meeting
Friday Oct.19th 2007
Second Public Meeting Thursday Oct.25th 2007.
Please attend and please pass the word.....First meeting is not far off.
Thank you
| | | |
| | Desert Dawg
Posts:24
| | 10/01/2007 6:59 PM |
Alert | Posted By Citizens Against Annexation on 10/01/2007 4:54 PM
Ok Neighbors, I received this information this morning. It is one more to add to the list of deceiteful things pulled to force us into annexation.
A council member stated that we would annex one way or the other and he forwarned of a change in county zoning.
And how did the council do this? It's up to the Pinal County representatives to determine any zoning changes in county controlled land. Oh, have a nice drive going to meet your so called local represetation and voice your concerns. Good Luck!
I think you are exaggerating on this one a little bit.
| | | |
|
| | Citizens Against Annexation
Posts:12
| | 10/01/2007 8:25 PM |
Alert | We are not present to start an argument. A statement was made and it is factual, it has been stated to numerous residents on several occasions. We have nothing to prove to you or anyone else.We are not here at this point to create further conflict within your city.We are requesting to be left alone and not be a part if the City and all it entales. We are simply utilizing a public forum to get the word out to a few residents that have not been added to our email list at this time.
If the public or individuals choose to take this and turn it into a who is wrong or right, we will not partake in such. Read the info, the info is factual, all other questions are irrelavant, the guilty parties know who they are, that is all that matters.
We, as are all others ,are entitled to the lifestyle we chose and no one has the right to take that from us, regardless of their reasoning, wealth or other.
As for compromise, that is not a possibility, we are having everything we worked hard for ripped from us, and at an alarming rate. We enjoy bright starlight skies, no traffic, no walls, true open areas, riding areas, small schools (gone) and so much more.
We did not instigate or provoke this scenario, we simply desired a life that is not good enough for the vast majority of society.
Your opinions that contradict that are of no importance to us. We are no different than you. We have rights and we are going to utilize them.
Thank you for your time.
Core member
CAA
We greatly appreciate help from those who are included in this unfortunate scenario and or feel for the situation. | | | |
|
| | CliffinAZ
Posts:394
| | 10/02/2007 1:02 AM |
Alert | <div class='NTForums_Quote'>Posted By Desert Dawg on 10/01/2007 6:59 PM
<div class='NTForums_Quote'>Posted By Citizens Against Annexation on 10/01/2007 4:54 PM
Ok Neighbors, I received this information this morning. It is one more to add to the list of deceiteful things pulled to force us into annexation.
A council member stated that we would annex one way or the other and he forwarned of a change in county zoning.</div>
And how did the council do this? It's up to the Pinal County representatives to determine any zoning changes in county controlled land. Oh, have a nice drive going to meet your so called local represetation and voice your concerns. Good Luck!
I think you are exaggerating on this one a little bit.
</div>
DesertDawg, did you actually go to the link and read the ordinance? I read through the sections referenced above, and they do indeed seem to be proposing the limit (although I didn't read the entire document so I'm not sure if I'm missing something else about it...). | | | |
|
| | Citizens Against Annexation
Posts:12
| | 10/02/2007 6:56 AM |
Alert | thiskiss and any others who question scenario.
It is not what we purchased/rent for, or wish to be a part of. We have the right and it shouldn't be taken away from us to have numerous large animals. We also have the right to live a rural life away from the city amenities, placing high density and livestock restrictions takes that from us. There is no fairness in taking from us.
It is simple we do not want the city here, we chose a lifestyle and have the right to continue to live it without the enroachment upon us that does higly impact our lives, that is the point and nothing can change that.
All we as residents ask is to be left alone to live out our dreams, raise our children please understand and let it be.
Please all show up and take a stand, if anyone needs a ride I will be there, please let me know. Thank you again.
| | | |
|
| | Azcowgrl
Posts:82
| | 10/02/2007 7:08 AM |
Alert | Grandfathered in has no bearing on the matter it is not fair regardless. We Bought unlimited and it should remain. If I loose a horse I can't replace it being over the limit of 6? even if i'm grandfathered?
I am a prime example. I have 7 people in my home, the change would limit 6 large animals. What do I do for my last child to ride with us? I ride for a living, I need several horses in the event one is injured, it is a good portion of my livelyhood.
We are not here to blast anyone, though it is a HIGHLY sensative issue and at times tempers flare. Understanding or just to be left as we are is all we ask over and over. When we are degraded or attempts at humiliation arise we go on the defensive. It is our lives!!!! You all wish the tire plant away and we wish the zoning remain the same and the city stay out.
We have had too many impacts on our way of life already that we did not desire or deserve, simplicity and our lives is what we wish to retain.
Thanks to those who understand and those who will and are voicing out against this. | | | |
|
|  | CrownNCoke
Posts:810
| | 10/02/2007 7:17 AM |
Alert | | <img src='http://www.85239.com/desktopmodules/ntforums/images/emoticons/sick.gif' height='20' width='20' border='0' title='Sick' align='absmiddle'> | |
The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed.
Carl Jung | |
|
| | CrownNCoke
Posts:810
| | 10/02/2007 7:17 AM |
Alert | | That is a crazy law i have horses up in Payson and 2 per acre is not much in fact that is retarded anyhow I hope you guys dont let them do this to you. | |
The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed.
Carl Jung | |
|
| | maricopacabana
Posts:330
| | 10/02/2007 8:12 AM |
Alert | | While this is something the rural residents should be concerned about, placing the blame on the City Council is silly. This is being pushed by your elected County officials and County employees. You would be better off focusing your rage on them. You would be surprised that most of us support your right to live your lifestyle. Unfortunately your lifestyle will be slowly altered as other rural residents sell their land for development. Really wheteher you want us here or not is irrelevant, change will happen. Unfortunately this change will probably have an impact on your lifestyle if you chose to stay. | | | |
|
| | Horses R Cool
Posts:144
| | 10/02/2007 8:41 AM |
Alert | As a 4-H leader and a mom of 3 kids who have more than one project, operator of a boarding stable, breeder of horses and sheep; this is a huge deal to me. I am lucky in the fact that I have two 3.3 acre lots, but still I have 25 sheep.
I have been reading this 300+ page document and it concerns me greatly. There are also changes in the makes for home run day cares, as well as, home run businesses in general. EVERY resident in "rural" Pinal County is in danger of changes that can impact their way of life, business or even property values! | | | |
|
| | Citizens Against Annexation
Posts:12
| | 10/03/2007 7:30 AM |
Alert | | Apparently only certain things can be discussed on this site as the thread with the same post was deleted from the general chat. | | | |
|
| | alanf
Posts:1381
| | 10/03/2007 8:02 AM |
Alert | | Just read the TOU CAA. Nobody is out to get you, or trying to suppress your message!! They just don't want duplicate threads. | | | |
|
| | Citizens Against Annexation
Posts:12
| | 10/03/2007 10:09 AM |
Alert | | No there for debates, never said anyone was out to get us, nor supress a message. Thanks for your input!!!! I read your message in genaral also. thanks for restating it only with more of an attitude! Still | | | |
|
| | Citizens Against Annexation
Posts:12
| | 10/03/2007 10:10 AM |
Alert | | Not here for debates, never said anyone was out to get us, nor supress a message. Thanks for your input!!!! I read your message in genaral also. thanks for restating it only with more of an attitude! | | | |
|
| | ChimneyDuck
Posts:156
| | 10/03/2007 12:41 PM |
Alert | Wow. Just took a breif look at the document. My wife and I better attend the meeting. Where does it meet? Florence?
So the county wants to become one big HOA now? My wife and I moved out here to escape them. Where can one escape such arbitrary restrictions?
| | | |
|
| | Citizens Against Annexation
Posts:12
| | 10/03/2007 12:59 PM |
Alert | | Yes, the meetings take place in Florence. Unless we take a stand now and in great numbers there will be no place to go to escape or make a life you truly desire. Hope to see you there. | | | |
|
| | azsouthendzone
Posts:528
| | 10/03/2007 2:14 PM |
Alert | | You can't escape the changes coming. |
| | |
|
| | DesertDweller
Posts:2539
| | 10/03/2007 6:11 PM |
Alert | Also, call David Snider. His number and e-mail are listed here. He has answered every e-mail that I have ever sent him. I am not sure exactly why, but these folks (county admin) really want to do this. It's going to take some strong opposition to get them to reconsider.
You know, I posted a half dozen posts to the one in the general thread. I thought I was hallucinating again (you know how us rural Hidden Valley types like to lick toads)  I think it was deleted because it's against the TOU to have the same topic running in two different places. | |
Stupid should hurt!
Desert Dweller - Senior Member - Posts: 2982 - Joined: Feb 2006 | |
|
| | chessman
Posts:218
| | 10/03/2007 6:18 PM |
Alert | I read the draft resolution and called all three county supervisors. Lionel and Sandie didn't know anything about it. David Snider had already been getting an earful and knew all about it. He claims that the staff told him that no zoning was changing as a result of the ordinance change. He stated that if you are zoned general rural today and have fifty animals, you will stay general rural after the resolution is passed and can still have your fifty animals - just like before. I asked about selling the land and what the new owners could do. He said that unless the new owners applied for rezoning, they could adopt the same land use and zoning as you had, and could have as many animals as they wanted. His perception from what he has been told is that current land use will not be affected and that the only time the new zoning and animal counts would come about is if the owner applies for rezoning.
Now, since I don't trust them any farther than I can toss 'em, I looked for verbiage that supports what I heard. Section 110 very vaguely defines the zoning change. I don't have it in front of me so I won't try to quote it. I would suggest calling the supervisors and bending their ears. If Mr. Snider is correct, the changes aren't as horrific as they could be.
Still, I asked a few questions which they couldn't answer. All laws should be passed with the intent to address an existing problem:
What problem exists?
Who proposed the change, and why?
Who is affected by the current law that would benefit from the change?
Who benefits from the current law and would be hurt by the change?
Which of these groups elected you to office?
Mr. Snider suggested that the public needs to take the mic at the public meeting. I pointed out that he ran on a platform promising that he would go to the meetings and represent us, so we wouldn't have to. He choked when I pointed that out. I also added that I needed to make my point to convince three supervisors that this change was wrong. I should be able to do that just as effectively over the phone as I could at the meeting. He agreed. I think he needs to be involved with the process long before it goes for a vote. Or, maybe he has..............
| |
This message was composed entirely of 100% recycled electrons; minimum 35% post-consumer content. | |
|
| | DesertDweller
Posts:2539
| | 10/03/2007 6:53 PM |
Alert | Good point, Chessman. It's a pain in the but taking time away from the office to drive to Florence for a meeting. Representation should take care of that for most issues.
This proposal is the work of a committee that we didn't elect. It looks as though someone was trying to imagine what might happen and then legislate something to prevent it, e.g., the adult business section. Come on. There are not adult businesses here now and this hasn't been a problem. I am not convinced that having pages of laws describing the human genitalia in graphic detail is an effective use of our resources. My guess is that this is an ordinance adapted from some other jurisdiction.
| |
Stupid should hurt!
Desert Dweller - Senior Member - Posts: 2982 - Joined: Feb 2006 | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|