Oro Valley council declines to reopen debate on Church of the Nazarene height variance

The Oro Valley Town Council voted 4-2 on April 16 to deny a motion to reconsider its April 2 decision approving an increased building height allowance for the Oro Valley Church of the Nazarene (OVCN), leaving the previously approved 36-foot compromise in place.

Councilmember Elizabeth Raab and Councilmember Joyce Nicholson requested the reconsideration after the April 2 vote. Mayor Josephine C. Winfield moved to deny reconsideration; the motion passed on a roll call vote. The council’s ruling means the April 2 action stands and the church will proceed toward development-plan review under the town’s process.

The reconsideration request drew extensive public comment. Several speakers who identified themselves as Oro Valley residents and members of OVCN said the church provides community services and asked the council to stand by the prior unanimous vote. “Enough is enough,” said Sally Gray, who told the council she had been in Oro Valley since 1974 and urged the council not to reopen the matter. Supporters described the church’s outreach programs, free youth activities and hunger-relief work.

Neighbors and other residents urged additional review. Councilmember Raab said she brought the reconsideration forward because she “had not considered all the ramifications of the 36 feet and just wanted to make certain that we got the decision correct completely the first and totally.” Councilmember Jones Ivy said she wanted the church and neighbors to “work with the community and come to some understanding.”

Church counsel John Gillespie told the council the church has already scheduled meetings with neighbors and intends to submit a development-plan application, calling the prior 36-foot outcome a “good compromise.” Town Attorney Jonathan Rothschild and the mayor reminded the council of parliamentary rules that permit a member who voted in favor of an item to move reconsideration within the allowable time window.

With the reconsideration denied, the council did not vote on any changes to zoning or the development plan at the April 16 meeting. The council’s action preserves the April 2 finding; the church and staff said they will proceed with the development-plan process, including planned neighborhood meetings and technical reviews by town staff.

The council’s denial of reconsideration concluded the public portion of the item; any future changes would require new actions through the planning and zoning and council processes.

Votes and action summary: The council voted 4-2 to deny reconsideration of the April 2 decision. The April 2 36-foot compromise thus remains in place; the church plans to submit a development-plan application and meet with neighbors as part of that process.