Dozens of residents told the Oro Valley Town Council on Jan. 8 that they oppose a proposed expansion by the Oro Valley Church of the Nazarene and the church's request for a height variance, arguing the project is incompatible with neighborhood zoning, poorly disclosed and likely to bring more traffic, noise and other impacts.

Those remarks came during the meeting's public comment period, when no formal council action was taken. Speakers asked the council to review the church's long-term plans and to require more comprehensive disclosure and study before any approvals are considered.

Anthony Ferrara, who identified himself as a resident, told the council that the church’s application “is and continues to be fundamentally incompatible with the neighborhood and the town's general plan,” and said he believed the applicant was “exploiting a procedural loophole” by seeking only a height increase without disclosing broader plans. “Requesting only a height increase, while failing to disclose or address the larger context of the project is a disingenuous tactic,” Ferrara said.

Other neighbors described a pattern of piecemeal requests and urged the council to scrutinize the applicant’s long-term strategy. Trindy LaForge, read into the record by Rosa Daly, criticized the piecemeal approach and asked the council to require the church to provide a strategic plan, business case and a site trade study so officials and residents can assess the proposal’s full impacts. Daly said LaForge and her husband “do not support the proposed expansion of OVCN and the current request for the height variance.”

Several longtime residents framed the issue as protection of community character. Doug Dalby, who said he and his wife have lived on Calle Buena Vista for more than 45 years, argued the project would violate five zoning principles — managing growth, ensuring compatible land use, preventing incompatible adjacencies, promoting health and safety, and preserving property values — and asked council members to reject the variance.

Other speakers raised allegations of intimidation and property damage tied to the controversy. Tim Terrace said neighbors who displayed opposition signs “have been subjected to trespass, destruction of property, vandalism, and theft,” and said the neighborhood had asked the applicant to condemn that behavior but received no reply.

Ed Clary said the church had pursued a strategy of seeking incremental approvals to “shoehorn a megachurch into the oldest residential neighborhood in this town,” and cautioned that approval “would do nothing but undermine the neighborhood.” David Divert said photos presented by the applicant at a neighborhood meeting misrepresented views and argued the church offered poor answers to residents’ questions.

Speakers requested that the council require the applicant to present fuller project documents — including a strategic plan and site comparisons — and to ensure planning review is transparent and complete before any approvals are granted. No vote or formal direction was recorded on the specific church proposal at the Jan. 8 meeting; the matter remains before the planning and zoning process.

The public comments referenced the town’s general plan and prior Planning and Zoning Commission reviews; residents urged council oversight. Several council members acknowledged the concerns and said staff and the commission are the appropriate venues for reviewing any formal application. The council did not act on the matter that evening.

The council meeting packet shows ongoing planning review procedures for development applications and identifies the Your Voice, Our Future general plan as the town’s guiding document for land-use compatibility.

Looking ahead, residents urged the council to press the applicant for fuller project disclosures and for the planning process to provide more opportunities for meaningful public comment.