Carefree Truth
Issue #677, August 4, 2018
Issue #677, August 4, 2018
An article that was recently published in the Sonoran News (SN) with the headline "Carefree P&Z Commissioner Under Scrutiny", is meant to discredit me, and by association, Carefree Truth. Historically, the SN has been Don Sorchych's infamous bully pulpit. In typical tabloid fashion, the "accused" were not contacted to confirm or deny stories, or given an opportunity to offer reasonable explanations. As Mr. Sorchych's health has deteriorated, he has hired a manager to help run the paper, and a new reporter has replaced the previous one. With these changes, there had been some hope that this behavior was relegated to the past, but that does not appear to be the case. There was no journalistic due diligence performed before running this story. Certainly, I was never contacted. So, I will now present the explanations that were not sought by the SN.
Allegations of impropriety have been cast toward Carefree Planning and Zoning Commissioner Lyn Hitchon. CEV Holdings, LLC, in a letter to Carefree Planning Director Stacey Bridge-Denzak, blamed Hitchon for the withdrawal of its application for a proposed project on Cave Creek Road.
The letter read in part, “In light of the current circumstances and the information we have obtained regarding the negative and false statements that Commissioner Lynn Hitchon’s (sic) has been communicating to the general public and residents about the Enclave at Carefree, we feel that do (sic) process has been altered and has prevented us from obtaining a fair presentation of our proposed project to the Town and the Town council.”
The letter read in part, “In light of the current circumstances and the information we have obtained regarding the negative and false statements that Commissioner Lynn Hitchon’s (sic) has been communicating to the general public and residents about the Enclave at Carefree, we feel that do (sic) process has been altered and has prevented us from obtaining a fair presentation of our proposed project to the Town and the Town council.”
I have been the community liaison between our HOA board and our residents for many years. That duty includes reporting on items that could impact our development. CEV Holdings/Brown Homes submitted an application to amend Carefree's General Plan and Zoning to allow them to build 14 homes on 3.6 acres immediately to the south of the Anglican Church on Cave Creek Road, down the street from our development. These 3.6 acres were designated Low Density Residential in the General Plan and were zoned R1-35, one home per 35,000 square feet. Several of our Sentinel Rock residents attended the P&Z meeting to express opposition to the amendments, as they had received copies of the mailer sent by the applicant.
The Carefree Council Chambers, where P&Z also meets, was packed with residents from both Carefree and Cave Creek. I arrived at the P&Z meeting with an open mind, but was appalled by the lack of willingness on the part of the applicants to even consider a compromise on the number of homes being presented. Virtually every resident in the audience was opposed to the application due to the proposed density. After listening to the applicant's presentation and the comments from the audience, I voted to recommend denial. P&Z is only a recommending body to the Council. We do not have decision making authority.
The following day, I reported on the meeting to our residents in Sentinel Rock, not to the "general public and residents" as claimed by CEV, acting in my capacity as the HOA community liaison, not in my capacity as a P&Z Commissioner. Prior to the P&Z hearing, I had not sent out emails to our residents expressing any opinion about the applications. In order to violate CEV's due process, the complaint they lodged against me, I would have had to have sent out personal opinions/comments BEFORE the P&Z meeting. Anything I expressed after that meeting was irrelevant to their due process.
The Carefree Council Chambers, where P&Z also meets, was packed with residents from both Carefree and Cave Creek. I arrived at the P&Z meeting with an open mind, but was appalled by the lack of willingness on the part of the applicants to even consider a compromise on the number of homes being presented. Virtually every resident in the audience was opposed to the application due to the proposed density. After listening to the applicant's presentation and the comments from the audience, I voted to recommend denial. P&Z is only a recommending body to the Council. We do not have decision making authority.
The following day, I reported on the meeting to our residents in Sentinel Rock, not to the "general public and residents" as claimed by CEV, acting in my capacity as the HOA community liaison, not in my capacity as a P&Z Commissioner. Prior to the P&Z hearing, I had not sent out emails to our residents expressing any opinion about the applications. In order to violate CEV's due process, the complaint they lodged against me, I would have had to have sent out personal opinions/comments BEFORE the P&Z meeting. Anything I expressed after that meeting was irrelevant to their due process.
A representative of the developer provided Sonoran News with an email written by Hitchon describing what took place at a community meeting on April 14. The email is filled with opinions by her about the meeting and called it a “waste of time.” In another part of the email she writes, “I am begging you to hold these guys’ feet to the fire and deny the GP and zoning amendments.” It ends with, “Thanks for taking the time to read my opinion.” Acknowledging that she is not stating facts, just her opinion.
The following is copied and pasted directly from my email report on that meeting:
Michael Brown and Mark Lewis, his hired consultant, came to the 4/13 community meeting at the Holland Center with absolutely no change in the density, which was the real issue. The same 14 house plan was presented that we saw at P&Z. The meeting was called to show their "compromises". Everyone at that meeting went expecting to see a presentation with fewer homes. When the presenters refused to even talk about the number of homes after being asked over and over, there were a lot of unhappy people in that room. Everyone present was there because they were opposed to the number of homes.
There were numerous Carefree residents at the meeting, not just Creekers. The presenters spoke down to all of us as if we were a roomful of dullard 5 year olds. The arrogance was incredible. It was even worse than what they displayed at the P&Z meeting. They proudly bragged that they made requested "concessions" by adding turn lanes and making the driveways 2 feet longer so people could park pick-up trucks in their driveways. The internal parking in a gated community is not anyone's problem but that of the residents. The short driveways were brought up at the P&Z meeting just as a point of interest. It is not the Town's or the neighbors' problem. Another "concession" was that they promised not to build any 2 story houses. Again, this is not pertinent to anything. The building height restriction is 24', be it 1 or 2 stories. I brought up the fact that people who want to downsize are generally not interested in dealing with stairs, so it is in the interest of the developer to build single story houses. When I pointed out several of these things, the presenter chided me for being rude.
Mr. Lewis accused us of trying to keep those who wanted smaller homes from enjoying the "Carefree lifestyle". He was informed that homes on larger lots IS the Carefree lifestyle. Yes, it is important to have some homes on smaller lots for those who want to downsize while remaining in their community, but these belong in places where that density is appropriate. The developer kept mentioning Keystone Homes. Keystone developed Almarte in an area of the downtown zoned for apartments, so that was actually less dense than it could have been. Eastwood backs onto a garden office complex and is across the street from the airport, which is by far the most dense development in Carefree. Both are appropriate locations for those developments of smaller homes on smaller lots.
The developer also tried to sell the audience on this being the second commercial corridor in Carefree. Yes it is, however there is significant existing housing on 1 acre properties between this parcel and the Lowe's center, so this can not in any way be considered a "buffer". If it had abutted the commercial center, then yes, but it does not. I asked Mr. Brown how many homes he could build on that parcel and still be OK. He declined to answer that question. He is obviously not willing to budge, or if he does, it would be a maximum of 1 or 2 houses, which is still outrageous in that location. These guys are intent on going with what they have, everyone be damned.
Tony Gieger attempted to hold their feet to the fire over water issues. They did quite the dance around that one. They had one answer; Tony cited an expert who had another. The developer claimed there were many answers, but his was the right one, which was their attitude about virtually everything. The entire meeting was a waste of time, and was more than a little aggravating. I would have been willing to support a compromise on the number of homes if they had come back with something reasonable. I am no longer on that page.
I hope you will all think long and hard about allowing this to happen in our town in a neighborhood that contains nothing but houses on an acre or more, and does NOT abut a commercial center or anything else high density or with a high intensity use. The church's SUP was sold to the neighborhoods as not being a high intensity use when it was approved, although it showed as one in our P&Z packet and was being used as one excuse for this 14 home development. Directly on the other (north) side of this church is Canyon Ridge, which has the electrical poles (another of their excuses to build 14 homes) in front of it, and has nice homes on at least an acre.
Mr. Lewis became more and more surly as the meeting progressed. He informed us that this is a right-to-build state. I agreed with him that it is, however, the right to build doesn't mean that one can ignore the GP and zoning. It means that a municipality can't downzone a property, which would be considered a taking. I suspect they weren't anticipating anyone in the audience having knowledge of land use and zoning, and figured they could bully their way through. While I am a firm believer in private property rights, it's not the Town's responsibility to make sure any developer makes money. When they bought the parcel, they knew about it's odd shape, the utility poles, and the GP & zoning. They bought it speculatively. Some days you eat the bear and some days the bear eats you. No one guarantees my investments or yours. I am begging you to hold these guys' feet to the fire and deny the GP and zoning amendments. Make them build something appropriate to the area that matches the GP and zoning or let them sell the property.
You know I agree that we should have alternatives in housing. I completely support the Keystone developments. I support commercial at the corner of CF Hwy and CC Rd, with all the commercial development that has occurred around it. This is not a NIMBY thing on my part. I live far enough away that it wouldn't affect me to any large degree. But I believe Brown's spot development project is a bad deal for Carefree.
Thanks for taking the time to read my opinion.
Lyn
Wes Grunden's SN article ends with:
Michael Brown and Mark Lewis, his hired consultant, came to the 4/13 community meeting at the Holland Center with absolutely no change in the density, which was the real issue. The same 14 house plan was presented that we saw at P&Z. The meeting was called to show their "compromises". Everyone at that meeting went expecting to see a presentation with fewer homes. When the presenters refused to even talk about the number of homes after being asked over and over, there were a lot of unhappy people in that room. Everyone present was there because they were opposed to the number of homes.
There were numerous Carefree residents at the meeting, not just Creekers. The presenters spoke down to all of us as if we were a roomful of dullard 5 year olds. The arrogance was incredible. It was even worse than what they displayed at the P&Z meeting. They proudly bragged that they made requested "concessions" by adding turn lanes and making the driveways 2 feet longer so people could park pick-up trucks in their driveways. The internal parking in a gated community is not anyone's problem but that of the residents. The short driveways were brought up at the P&Z meeting just as a point of interest. It is not the Town's or the neighbors' problem. Another "concession" was that they promised not to build any 2 story houses. Again, this is not pertinent to anything. The building height restriction is 24', be it 1 or 2 stories. I brought up the fact that people who want to downsize are generally not interested in dealing with stairs, so it is in the interest of the developer to build single story houses. When I pointed out several of these things, the presenter chided me for being rude.
Mr. Lewis accused us of trying to keep those who wanted smaller homes from enjoying the "Carefree lifestyle". He was informed that homes on larger lots IS the Carefree lifestyle. Yes, it is important to have some homes on smaller lots for those who want to downsize while remaining in their community, but these belong in places where that density is appropriate. The developer kept mentioning Keystone Homes. Keystone developed Almarte in an area of the downtown zoned for apartments, so that was actually less dense than it could have been. Eastwood backs onto a garden office complex and is across the street from the airport, which is by far the most dense development in Carefree. Both are appropriate locations for those developments of smaller homes on smaller lots.
The developer also tried to sell the audience on this being the second commercial corridor in Carefree. Yes it is, however there is significant existing housing on 1 acre properties between this parcel and the Lowe's center, so this can not in any way be considered a "buffer". If it had abutted the commercial center, then yes, but it does not. I asked Mr. Brown how many homes he could build on that parcel and still be OK. He declined to answer that question. He is obviously not willing to budge, or if he does, it would be a maximum of 1 or 2 houses, which is still outrageous in that location. These guys are intent on going with what they have, everyone be damned.
Tony Gieger attempted to hold their feet to the fire over water issues. They did quite the dance around that one. They had one answer; Tony cited an expert who had another. The developer claimed there were many answers, but his was the right one, which was their attitude about virtually everything. The entire meeting was a waste of time, and was more than a little aggravating. I would have been willing to support a compromise on the number of homes if they had come back with something reasonable. I am no longer on that page.
I hope you will all think long and hard about allowing this to happen in our town in a neighborhood that contains nothing but houses on an acre or more, and does NOT abut a commercial center or anything else high density or with a high intensity use. The church's SUP was sold to the neighborhoods as not being a high intensity use when it was approved, although it showed as one in our P&Z packet and was being used as one excuse for this 14 home development. Directly on the other (north) side of this church is Canyon Ridge, which has the electrical poles (another of their excuses to build 14 homes) in front of it, and has nice homes on at least an acre.
Mr. Lewis became more and more surly as the meeting progressed. He informed us that this is a right-to-build state. I agreed with him that it is, however, the right to build doesn't mean that one can ignore the GP and zoning. It means that a municipality can't downzone a property, which would be considered a taking. I suspect they weren't anticipating anyone in the audience having knowledge of land use and zoning, and figured they could bully their way through. While I am a firm believer in private property rights, it's not the Town's responsibility to make sure any developer makes money. When they bought the parcel, they knew about it's odd shape, the utility poles, and the GP & zoning. They bought it speculatively. Some days you eat the bear and some days the bear eats you. No one guarantees my investments or yours. I am begging you to hold these guys' feet to the fire and deny the GP and zoning amendments. Make them build something appropriate to the area that matches the GP and zoning or let them sell the property.
You know I agree that we should have alternatives in housing. I completely support the Keystone developments. I support commercial at the corner of CF Hwy and CC Rd, with all the commercial development that has occurred around it. This is not a NIMBY thing on my part. I live far enough away that it wouldn't affect me to any large degree. But I believe Brown's spot development project is a bad deal for Carefree.
Thanks for taking the time to read my opinion.
Lyn
Wes Grunden's SN article ends with:
Also a request has been filed with the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office to investigate possible election interference through her blog “Carefree Truth” In the June 18th edition she writes in regards to a large number of Carefree businesses displaying Mike Farrar campaign signs, “The businesses that are allowing these signs to be posted on the windows of their stores at this time are also in violation of this Statute.” The statute she referred to is for signs on public right of way and does not apply to private property. She also added personal opinion that businesses should not put up the election signs saying she thought they were bad for business.
After learning I was incorrect, I posted this correction at the top of Carefree Truth Letters from Readers.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:15 AM, Lyn Hitchon <lhitchon@aol.com> wrote:
Correction:
After checking directly with the Elections Department, there are only 2 parts of the Statute (which is admittedly not very clearly written) about which they really care: No large political signs on the street Right's of Way, and no door-to-door political solicitations until 60 days prior to the primary election. I was incorrect about posters on the store windows, or at least it's not anything very important to the Elections Department and not something they enforce. I apologize.
Herbert and I had just not wanted to see any of our businesses risking fines from the Elections Department, as there are people who are offended enough by the sheer number of political signs for Mike Farrar that they feel are cluttering the town center that a few had looked up the Statute and talked about going to the Elections Department to complain. Herbert had been asked to take pictures, which is why we know this. Those pictures were not for the purpose of punishing the businesses; they were simply to demonstrate when and how many of Mike Farrar's posters were on display around Carefree.
Someone contacted me who felt I was "threatening the businesses". We were not. Herbert and I were concerned for all of you. We want the Carefree businesses to succeed. This is why we give you free advertising, some of which uses photos taken by Herbert. We really try for you, and if you sell what we buy, we buy it from you. We do appreciate and support our merchants.
Some businesses have asked us if they should put up candidate signs when asked. We have strongly advised against getting involved with any part of anything political at ANY level EVER. It's bad for business. Some people are going to be upset no matter whose signs you post, at what political level. There are still people who refuse to speak to friends and relatives over differences in preferences in the 2016 Presidential election. Politics and religion have long been considered the 2 topics to avoid. There's a reason for that piece of wisdom.
Lyn & Herbert
If I make a mistake I correct it ASAP, as I did in that case.
Lyn Hitchon
Prepared by Carefree Truth
Visit our website at www.carefreetruth2.com If you know anyone who would like to be added to the Carefree Truth email list, please have them contact me. Feel free to share Carefree Truth with others on your list.
Visit www.carefreeazbusinesses.com to see more info about businesses in Carefree. Please support our merchants.
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:15 AM, Lyn Hitchon <lhitchon@aol.com> wrote:
Correction:
After checking directly with the Elections Department, there are only 2 parts of the Statute (which is admittedly not very clearly written) about which they really care: No large political signs on the street Right's of Way, and no door-to-door political solicitations until 60 days prior to the primary election. I was incorrect about posters on the store windows, or at least it's not anything very important to the Elections Department and not something they enforce. I apologize.
Herbert and I had just not wanted to see any of our businesses risking fines from the Elections Department, as there are people who are offended enough by the sheer number of political signs for Mike Farrar that they feel are cluttering the town center that a few had looked up the Statute and talked about going to the Elections Department to complain. Herbert had been asked to take pictures, which is why we know this. Those pictures were not for the purpose of punishing the businesses; they were simply to demonstrate when and how many of Mike Farrar's posters were on display around Carefree.
Someone contacted me who felt I was "threatening the businesses". We were not. Herbert and I were concerned for all of you. We want the Carefree businesses to succeed. This is why we give you free advertising, some of which uses photos taken by Herbert. We really try for you, and if you sell what we buy, we buy it from you. We do appreciate and support our merchants.
Some businesses have asked us if they should put up candidate signs when asked. We have strongly advised against getting involved with any part of anything political at ANY level EVER. It's bad for business. Some people are going to be upset no matter whose signs you post, at what political level. There are still people who refuse to speak to friends and relatives over differences in preferences in the 2016 Presidential election. Politics and religion have long been considered the 2 topics to avoid. There's a reason for that piece of wisdom.
Lyn & Herbert
If I make a mistake I correct it ASAP, as I did in that case.
Lyn Hitchon
Prepared by Carefree Truth
Visit our website at www.carefreetruth2.com If you know anyone who would like to be added to the Carefree Truth email list, please have them contact me. Feel free to share Carefree Truth with others on your list.
Visit www.carefreeazbusinesses.com to see more info about businesses in Carefree. Please support our merchants.