Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oro Valley residents urge council to deny continuance for OVCN expansion
Summary
Multiple Oro Valley residents told the Town Council during public comment they oppose further expansion of a large nonprofit/organization’s facility, saying rezoning and a height request were previously rejected and asking the council to deny an eight‑month continuance request.
Multiple Oro Valley residents used the council’s public‑comment period on March 19 to urge the Town Council to deny an eight‑month continuance request from a local organization seeking a major expansion of its facility in a residential neighborhood.
Speakers including Anthony Ferrara, Trisha Tozier, David Divert and Trendy LaForge said the organization’s proposed expansion—a 40‑foot‑high building and associated parking—was rejected twice by the Planning and Zoning Commission as incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Speakers described concerns about traffic, loss of mountain views, removal of native trees and impacts to wildlife and said previous neighborhood offers to buy the property were rejected. Several commenters asked the council to uphold the P&Z decision and deny further delay requests so the matter can be resolved.
Why it matters: The comments reflect sustained neighborhood opposition to expanding the organization’s footprint at its current site and request that the council not allow additional continuances that residents say prolong uncertainty. The remarks may inform council direction if the organization’s application returns to the council or P&Z for action.
What speakers said and asked: Anthony Ferrara, who identified himself as an Oro Valley resident, called the process “five years” long and urged denial of the latest continuance request so the issue can be resolved. Trisha Tozier said the organization had bulldozed homes and stripped a 10‑acre historic ranch property of native vegetation. David Divert said residents are not opposed to the organization’s mission but opposed further physical expansion at the current site and noted membership growth the group reported. Trendy LaForge asked council to uphold the Planning and Zoning Commission’s unanimous rejection of a height request and to reject the eight‑month continuance.
Council response and next steps: No formal council action was taken during the call‑to‑audience period. Under Arizona Open Meeting Law, council members did not debate the subject during public comment but may direct staff to review the matter or place it on a future agenda. The council did not indicate a specific follow‑up at the meeting.
Context and background: Speakers repeatedly referred to prior Planning and Zoning Commission decisions that they said found the expansion incompatible with the neighborhood. Residents cited OVPath Forward survey language about preserving neighborhood character and environmental protection; the council later referenced OVPath Forward in other discussions but did not take action on this public‑comment item.
What is not in the record: No formal continuance request paperwork or council motion on the organization’s application was taken during the meeting; the commenters described events and commission votes from earlier hearings but did not present a new staff report or a council action item at this meeting.
Ending: Residents asked the council to act on their objections in a way that protects neighborhood character and public safety; the council did not take immediate action during public comment but may consider placement of the item on a future agenda.
