Subject
Southern San Pedro Valley Area Plan Planning Effort

BISBEE - The proposed Southern San Pedro Valley Area Plan, minus its provision for a design review committee, gained a favorable recommendation Wednesday from the county Planning and Zoning Commission.

The commission's 7-0 vote came after nearly two hours of comments from Palominas residents, most of whom said they did not oppose the plan, but did oppose the design review committee. Commissioners Barry Lay and Nancy McAvoy did not attend the meeting.

Instead of the design review committee, the commission approved an alternative provision that all interested organizations and individuals be notified of pending development in Palominas.

The Board of Supervisors will make a final decision during a meeting at 2 p.m. Oct. 16.

The vote also came after the resignation of the Southern San Pedro Valley Area Plan Committee Chairman Joe Scelso. He expressed anger and frustration with plan and design review committee opponents who claimed they did not know about the proposal until a week ago.

He pointed out the Plan Committee has been working on the document and map for more than three years. The committee's work included community surveys, monthly public meetings, mailings and a public input session displaying the proposed map and document.

Scelso said the 11th hour opposition to the plan and the design review committee made him "want to throw up:' He also pointed out that the provision for design review was only for an 18 month trial basis.

The Planning and Zoning Commission tabled action on the plan in July in order to give the Plan Committee a chance to fine tune the document and build consensus in the community. Attendees of a public meeting in August worked with committee members to outline the composition and duties of the design review committee.

However, several Palominas residents contended Wednesday they had no knowledge of the plan and were never contacted about the Plan Committee's activities and meetings, including the August meeting. Palominas resident Stuart Dutcher and a few others also asked that a vote on the proposal be delayed a second time.

According to Scelso rumor and falsehoods about the plan inundated the Palominas community during the last week. He said if people had attended any of the numerous public meetings they would have understood the process and the plan.

"What I have heard about this committee in the last few weeks is astonishing," Scelso said. "People, wake up!"

He also said he had no intention of doing any future work on the plan. "You have my official resignation from this committee," he said.

Another Plan Committee member, Walter Kolbe, said he found it "ludicrous" that people claim they only heard about the plan seven days ago.

MaryFrances Clinton, another Plan Committee member, said the outcry at Wednesday's meeting was a "Rip Van Winkle" reaction.

Palominas resident Douglas Snyder said he and his wife moved to Palominas about a year ago. "Within a month we knew about the committee," he said, adding that he and his wife regularly attended meetings and often were the only members of the public present.

Richard Mayne, a Palominas resident and businessman, said he opposes the design review committee. He also said he is too busy to read his mail and newspaper articles about the plan.

Wes Flowers, a Palominas rancher, said "I'm 100 percent for this plan. They did a fantastic job, as far as I'm concerned. ... You can't please everyone."

After the 'meeting, he emphasized that he was not totally opposed to the design review committee, but had some misgivings.

PALOMINAS — The community response to the proposed Southern San Pedro Valley Area Plan was mostly favorable during a meeting at Valley View School Saturday. The doors to the school’s multi-purpose room opened at 9 a.m. Saturday. By 10 a.m. nearly 60 people had signed in to watch a “powerpoint” presentation, look over maps, talk to members of the Southern San Pedro Valley Planning Committee and fill out questionnaires. Several members of the county’s planning staff also were present to answer question.

Bill Odle, who has called Palominas home for about six months, said he viewed the plan as “overall positive. Keep it (Palominas) rural. Slow up this cancerous spread.” FROM PAGE A1 Another area resident, Rich McArthur, also like the plan. “I think it’s a good start. Some things need to be tweaked here and there. But at least somebody is doing something,” he said.

Katie Salwei said the plan reflects more of a “suburban” character than a rural character for Palominas. “I don’t consider four acres rural character,” she said, referring to the minimum lot size. “It’s very suburban. There should be more of a buffer zone of bigger properties around the (San Pedro) river.”

She added that the committee did a lot of work in creating the plan. “They did an excellent job,” she said. Ellen Logue said, “I think people are in favor of the overall idea. I think the committee has done a good job.” The committee, made up of community volunteers appointed by the county Board of Supervisors, has been working on the plan for nearly three years. County Planning and Zoning Director Jim Vlahovich explained the committee will make a few changes based on public input, then send the document to the Board of Supervisors for final approval. The plan will not change current zoning or existing permitted uses.

Committee member Linda Lussier said overall, people are positive about the plan. She said most people want Palominas to remain rural.

Judy Slyter, president of the Three Canyons Master Homeowners Association, said homeowners want to keep the area rural. They also want to keep Three Canyons Boulevard a private road.

Those attending the open house also had an opportunity to “vote” on several plan statements. The statements were written on large posters placed on the walls on three sides of the room. People agreeing with the statements placed a green sticker on the poster. Those opposed placed a red sticker.

Statements pertaining to retaining the area’s rural character, calling for no industrial uses and limiting the number of driveways to businesses received an overwhelming number of green stickers.

Two statements drew closer votes. One, about allowing businesses in rural areas if a ranch or Southwest building design is used, received 18 green stickers and 12 red stickers. Another statement, this time about guiding new businesses to Miracle Valley or the business area near the intersection of Highway 92 and Palominas Road, also drew a split vote. Twenty people placed green stickers, while 13 placed red stickers, signifying disagreement. Those who want to submit written comments have until March 16. For more information, call 432-9450.