PZ-3 Z2018124 BOS REPORT PART 2.PDF
Extracted text (via pymupdf_layout)
93581 characters
Derek Scheerer From: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 7:42 PM To: Derek Scheerer Subject: Zoning Z2018124 Lett of support Forwarded message From: Kelly Powell <kellyutaz@msn.com> Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 6:00 PM Subject: 14507 E Reb Bird To: karennabity@gmail.com <karennabity@gmail.com> My name is Roy Powell and I own 40 acres (5 parcels) just 330' east of this proposed zoning change. I fully support the zoning change #Z2018124 to allow for a home to be built on this property. Roy Powell 14507 E Red Bird Rd Scottsdale, AZ 85255 Derek Scheerer From: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 8:56 PM To: Derek Scheerer Subject: Fwd: Zoning Forwarded message From: Kevin Roberts <chefinkev@yahoo.com> Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 8:15 PM Subject: Zoning To: karennabity@gmail.com <karennabity@gmail.com> To who it may concern: I am in favor of the change in the zoning on this 2.5 acre lot to RU-43 so it can become a buildable lot. Zoning Case#Z2018124 Thank you, Kevin Roberts 720.270.2855 27119 N 143RD ST Scottsdale, AZ85262 Derek Scheerer From: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 8:57 PM To: Derek Scheerer Subject: Fwd: Zoning Forwarded message From: William Merz <dakhoondlvr@yahoo.com> Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 8:12 PM Subject: Zoning To: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com> To who it may concern: I am in favor of the change in the zoning on this 2.5 acre lot to RU-43 so it can become a buildable lot. Zoning Case#Z2018124 Thank you, Bill Merz 303-374-4911 27119 N 143RD ST Scottsdale, AZ85262 Derek Scheerer From: Carolyn <cbwein@cox.net> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 11:49 PM To: Derek Scheerer Subject: Rezoning Mtg- My Objection Hello Derek; I am a neighbor on 142" Place (off of Quail Track) Parcel # 219-39-202G. Unfortunately I cannot attend the meeting being held Thurs 1.17.2019, regarding the zoning change from RU- 190 to RU-43 outlined in Z2018124, on the corner of 144th and Cavedale. But I would like to voice my objection to rezoning which would allow an increase in density. My main concern, other than of course the well water issue, is that the future development of homes will definitely impact the traffic density on 144th greater the density of development, the more cars and traffic there will be. Already, since Silver Spurs and the Smoking Rooster horse breeding and boarding facilities have moved in, I cannot come or go from my house without passing 3-7 cars and/or trucks on 144th. This is at any time in the work day.... 6:30 AM, Noon, 3 PM, 5:30 PM.... So clearly the amount of traffic is throughout the day. It did not used to be this way and it is a noticeable difference. In the 6 years since we have lived here, the use of 144th seems to have quadrupled. And being a dirt road it has really increased the amount of dust in the air. When I get out of my car to get my mail I have to shut my car door, run to the box and get back into my car before other traffic passes because I do not want the dust in my clothes, hair or vehicle. So yes, I am concerned about the development density. The traffic is already mind boggling. And the water usage out here is fragile. Lowering the density to RU-43 will allow the developer to put 1 home per acre in this area greatly raising the density • This sets a precedence for other developers to do the same which will degrade the original plan to protect this area from development to preserve the natural resources and habitat for the local wild life. • The current traffic load on the unpaved 144th St. is already creating a large amount of dust and since the rezoning area is at the end of 144 it will greatly add to this problem. • Water is already a concern, nearly 50% of the wells in the area are dry or under producing. The existing well will not provide enough water for this level of density which will further cause more traffic with water trucks. Drilling more wells in this area will cause more stress to the local aquifer and cause more dry wells in the area. Sincerely- Carolyn and Mark Weinhold 1 Maricopa County Regional Development Services GIS Alericope County \ Regional Development Svvices GIS Division \\n \\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ rl County Boundary Interstates = State Highway US Highway I Major Roads tT Res 'dented Streets 300' Buffer Opposition Parcels 2.303e Supporting Parceb F1 Subject Parcel 300' Butter Interior F-1300' Buffer Selection t Excluded Parcels ' 2 1 4 5 2 0 2 B 740.00 1 j 3.2015 10 fla 26 AM Opposition Case Summary Note: All Area calculations represent the area of the parcel inside the 300 Buffer Eligible parcels - excluding subject parcel: 4 Supporting parcels: 0 Opposition parcels: 4 Supporting parcels sq ft: 0 Opposition parcels sq ft: 438,307.32 Subject parcel sq ft: 108,837.04 All area inside the 300 buffer: 787,265.16 All area inside the 300' buffer - excluding subject parcel, ROW and excluded parcels: 438,307.32 No-response parcels sq ft: 0 Super Majority opposed parcel acres: 100% Super Majority opposed parcel number: 100% No Response Parcels Supporting Parcels Opposition Parcels APN Area SqFt Area Acres APN Area SqFt Area Acres APN Area SqFt Area Acres i I I i 219-39-013L 268,597.5956 6.1662 219-39-204U 39,202.7527 0.9 219-39-204V 50,806.1652 1.1663 219-39-204T 79,700.8113 1.8297 Derek Scheerer (PND) From: David McMurtry <fhdem@aol.com > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 9:23 AM To: Derek Scheerer (PND) Subject: Re: Rezoning Laborde property case #Z2018124 Thanks for all of your help and information Dave Sent from my iPhone On Mar 13, 2019, at 8:54 AM, Derek Scheerer (PND) <Derek.Scheerer@maricopa.gov > wrote: David, The impetus is with the applicant to resolve the opposition so the Board will take up and act on the request. I really have no idea if they (the applicant) will contact you or let the request die on the vine. When it does come back the site will have to be reposted with the new hearing date, the applicant will have to send out their letter notification like before, and staff will send out their postcard notification like before so you and the others in the area (300') of the site will most certainly be notified and this will not slip through unnoticed. I hope this helps alleviate any concerns about the process you may have. Sincerely, Derek Scheerer Planner Planning & Development 602-506-6533 Derek.Scheerer@maricopa.gov From: Dave McMurtry <fhdem@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 4:34 PM To: Derek Scheerer (PND) <Derek.ScheererPMaricopa.Gov > Cc: william mcmurtry <wmcmurtry4@gmail.com >; Grant Hartel <granthertel@aol.com > Subject: Re: Rezoning Laborde property case #Z2018124 Derek, I appreciate all of your help with this issue!! Is there anything we need to be doing on this or we just wait for them to contact us? Thank you very much Dave David McMurtry 815 685-7012 - Cell From: "Derek Scheerer (PND)" <Derek.Scheerer@Maricopa.Gov> Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 at 4:27 PM 3 To: Dave McMurtry <fhdem@aol.com > Subject: RE: Rezoning Laborde property case #Z2018124 David, I left you a voicemail message earlier but just wanted to follow up with an email. The case will be indefinitely continued to a date uncertain at tomorrow's meeting. The Board will not be taking public comment. The Board wants the applicant and the opposition come to a resolution about the opposition before reconsidering the request. You may attend the meeting but please be advised that they will not be taking public comment. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Thank you, Derek Scheerer Planner Planning & Development 602-506-6533 Derek.Scheerer@maricopa.gov From: Dave McMurtry <fhdem@aol.com > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 10:58 AM To: district3@mail.maricopa.gov ; Laura Etter - DIST3X <etterl@mail.maricopa.gov >; Clinton Hickman - DIST4X <chickman@mail.maricopa.gov>; Scott !sham - DIST4X <sisham@mail.maricopa.gov >; hendersonm001@mail.maricopa.gov ; Steve Chucri - DIST2X <chucris@mail.maricopa.gov >; Page Gonzales - DIST2X <gonzalesp001@mail.maricopa.gov>; district5@mail.maricopa.gov ; Cristina Arzaga- Williams - DIST5X <arzagawilliamsc@mail.maricopa.gov >; Jen Pokorski (PND) <Jen.Pokorski@Maricopa.Gov>; Richard Bohan - GRCX <richardbohan@mail.maricopa.gov >; Jack Sellers -DIST1X <sellersi@mail.maricopa.gov >; Derek Scheerer (PND) <Derek.Scheerer@Maricopa.Gov > Cc: william mcmurtry <wmcmurtry4@gmail.com>; Dave McMurtry <fhdem@aol.com >; Grant Hartel <granthertel@aol.com > Subject: Rezoning Laborde property case #Z2018124 Board of supervisors; I am writing to you today asking you to vote "NO" to the rezoning of the Laborde Property Case #Z2018124. We have been working with the people trying to purchase the Laborde property for several months to come to an agreement. We were told last night that would not be possible. Our family has spent over $1,500 in legal fees to put together appropriate documents for the Laborde family to sign in order for us to drop our objection to the rezoning. We realize that we should have been at the Zoning commission in January to voice our objection. We were told that if we had objected it probably would not have passed out of the Zoning Board since 100% of the private land owners within 330 feet of the property would be objecting to the rezoning. Unfortunately, my Step Mother had passed away and we were back in Illinois for the funeral. 4 We have heard from several county staff that they are trying to correct something from the 1970's. When we purchased our property at 219-39-204V, 21939- 204U, and 219-39-204T there was an easement for the Laborde Property to have access using our gate and private drive. We were told that the 2.5 acres could never have a house built because it was in a part of the county that required 5 acres to build a house and that they had been denied a variance in 2006. The Laborde Family obviously did not plan for a house to ever be built on the land; since they sold all 8 of the well shares for the well they dug on the land. When we purchased our property there was not a need for a road agreement for the Laborde family to use our private gate and private road. The well only needed service a couple of times a year. If you are going to allow the rezoning and increase the amount of traffic on our private road we need to have legal assurance that they will help with the maintenance of our private gate and road. Both the Laborde Family and the people wanting to purchase the property are refusing to sign a road agreement. Our understanding is that the Zoning Board was impressed that they received 27 letters of support for the rezoning of the property. With the location of the property no other individuals would be affected by this rezoning. Us and Grant Hartel, who is also opposing this rezoning, are the only properties affected. With our objection to the rezoning we still have 100% of the private property within 330 feet that object to this rezoning. Please vote "NO" to the rezoning of the Laborde Property Case #Z2018124. We would appreciate the opportunity to speak at the open meeting if that would help you make your decision. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Thanks for your consideration. Dave David McMurtry 815 685-7012 - Cell Derek Scheerer (PND) From: David McBride <david.c.mcbride@gmail.com > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 6:58 PM To: Derek Scheerer Subject: Case # Z2018124 I am writing this email to voice my disapproval of rezoning the R-190 by my home to R-43. I live at 14346 E. Cavedale Drive on the corner of 144th St. & Cavedale. Roughly 330' from the property in question. One of the reasons I chose to live here was because we were across the street from the 5 acre zoning. Over the past 15 years the road maintenance has been done by myself and a couple of other neighbors. If this rezone is approved. Where does it stop? Now I will know all I have to do is buy the 5 acres across the street from me, split it up and profit. I'm sure you are aware of the high density and traffic we are already dealing with and the last I heard there was nothing on the 10 year plan as far as road improvements out here. Thank You, David C. McBride 14346 E. Cavedale Dr., Scottsdale, AZ 85262 11 Derek Scheerer (PND) From: Don Boudreau <djbouds@aol.com > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 6:25 PM To: Derek Scheerer Cc: djbouds@aol.com Subject: Z2018124 Derek, I would like to express my opposition to the proposed zoning change from RI-190 to RU-43. The proximity to the area bordering the county park. The traffic on the unpaved 144th St. already creates a large amount of dust. Water is a concern in the area 50% of the wells are dry or underproduce. Thank you for your consideration Donald Boudreau 14324 E,Cavedale Drive Scottsdale, AZ 85262 602.618.0907 12 Derek Scheerer (PND) From: RDSA-IT Helpdesk <rdsaithelpdesk@mail.maricopa.gov > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:15 AM To: Derek Scheerer Subject: Issue #158868, Next Action assigned w/note: FW: Zoning Case # Z2018124 (Planning and Development) As Next Action *===* A note on Next Action was added to the following Issue in IssueTrak: Issue #: 158868 Subject: FW: Zoning Case # Z2018124 Status: Open Division Type: Development Services Sub Type 1: Customer Service Sub Type 2: Customer Assistance Priority: Project: Division: Organization: Planning and Development Submitted By: External User, PND on 19-Jan-2019 Assigned To: CustomerService, PND on 19-Jan-2019 Next Action: Scheerer, Derek on 22-Jan-2019 602-506-6533 Issue Description: Submitted by direct email to rdsaithelpdesk. From: PD ON CALL PLANNER Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2019 19:08:12 (UTC-07:00) Arizona To: pdcustomerservice Subject: FW: Zoning Case # Z2018124 From: Missy Farrington Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2019 19:07:47 (UTC-07:00) Arizona To: PD ON CALL PLANNER; KarenNabity@gmail.com Subject: Zoning Case # Z2018124 TO: Planning and Development 13 Zoning Case # Z2018124 This email is to confirm that I support the zoning change from RU-190 to RU-43 so a home can be built on this 2.5 acres. Martha M Farrington 29619 N. 138th St Scottsdale, AZ 85255 602-820-3345 Notes: **Note by Sarnowski, Jaclyn, 22-Jan-2019: Case assigned to Derek. 14 Derek Scheerer (PND) From: Missy Farrington <farringtonfam1997@gmail.com > Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2019 7:08 PM To: PD ON CALL PLANNER; KarenNabity@gmail.com Subject: Zoning Case #Z2018124 TO: Planning and Development Zoning Case # Z2018124 This email is to confirm that I support the zoning change from RU-190 to RU-43 so a home can be built on this 2.5 acres. Martha M Farrington 29619N. 138th St Scottsdale, AZ 85255 602-820-3345 15 Derek Scheerer (PND) From: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 6:36 AM To: Derek Scheerer Subject: Fwd: Building lot Forwarded message From: Jamee Balvin <greatazestatesales@gmail.com > Date: Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 10:10 PM Subject: Building lot To: <karennabity@gmail.com> I am for the change in the zoning on this 2.5 acre lot to RU-43 so it can become a buildable lot. Case #Z2018124 Thank you, Dale Balvin 28505 N 154th St Scottsdale, AZ 85262 602-350-5733 Sent from my iPhone Derek Scheerer From: Dave McMurtry <fhdem@aol.com > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 9:01 PM To: District 3; Laura Etter - DIST3X; Clinton Hickman - DIST4X; Scott 'sham - DIST4X; Melody Henderson - DIST1X; Steve Chucri - DIST2X; Page Gonzales - DIST2X; District 5; Cristina Arzaga-Williams - DIST5X; Derek Scheerer Cc: William McMurtry; granthertel@aol.com Subject: Urgent response to Case #Z2018124 Board of Supervisors and Derek Scheerer, I am writing in regard to the LaBorde Property, Case #Z2018124 that is going before the County Supervisors on Wednesday February 13, 2019. When this issue went before the committee we were in Illinois dealing with the death of my fathers wife. In December we met with the party buying the property and were told that they would only build one house. In a more recent discussion they would not commit to not dividing the property. This made us very nervous. When we purchased our property at 219-39-204V, 219-39-204U, and 219-39-204T there was an easement for the LaBorde Property to have access using our gate and private drive. We were told that the 2.5 acres could never have a house built because it was in a part of the county that required 5 acres to build a house and that they had been denied a varience. They would only need to have access to the well on the LaBorde Property a few times a year. Allowing this property to be divided into one acre lots will substantially increase the traffic that will be using our private gate and private drive. We have worked with the potential buyers and had a deed restriction drawn up that we were told they would sign with some changes. The new buyers talked to our lawyer and the changes were made that they requested. Tonight we were told they would not sign the agreement. I see that the issue has been put on the "Consent Agenda". Is there any way to take this off the consent agenda until we can come to an agreement with the potential buyers? Every personal property owner within 300 feet of this property is opposed to this rezoning as proposed. I think if we can have an additional month we can come to an agreement that will work for all involved. Thank you for your consideration. William McMurtry McMurtry Family Properties Manager David McMurtry McMurtry Family Properties Member David McMurtry 815 685-7012 - Cell 1 Rachel Applegate (PND) From: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 11:42 AM To: Rachel Applegate (PND) Subject: Fwd: Zoning Change Z2018124 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Pat Fumagalli is now supporting our zoning change. Karen Nabity Forwarded message From: DINO AWESOME <patfumagallis@gmail.com > Date: Tue, May 14, 2019 at 11:40 AM Subject: Zoning Change Z2018124 To: Karen N <karennabity@gnnail.conn> dear Karen Following our phone conversation and assuming all the facts stated in your below email are accurate, then yes, based on this 2.5 acre lot having a Deed Restriction limiting the current lot to one buildable lot, no dividing into two buildable lots and only one single family home, I support Zoning Change Z2018124. If any of the facts reported below may be discovered being not accurate , I reserve my right to revoke my support Pat Fumagalli 14535 E Pinnacle Vista Dr Scottsdale, AZ 85262 480-540-3686 On May 14, 2019, at 11:08 AM, Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > wrote: Pat, Hello! My name is Karen Nabity, I am a neighbor on 138th Street and I am assisting my children in rezoning a 2.5 acre parcel, #219-39-032A, that is located past the gate at the South end of 144th St. at Cavedale Dr.. The correct zoning for this lot size was not done in 1976 when the current owner purchased the land. We are simply wanting to correct the zoning to make this a buildable lot for my children to build a home for themselves. There has been some incorrect information shared about what is being proposed with this zoning change. Part of the misunderstanding of the Zoning Change is that Maricopa County Planning and Development required we put two of the same sign next to each other on 144th St. near your property. Almost always the signs are on the parcel asking for the zoning change. Due to this, it looked like the zoning change was for a large parcel of land and it would be easy to assume that a developer 1 was involved. My hope is that by sharing the facts with you, you will agree this is the best option for this parcel and the surrounding neighbors. I. The zoning change is from RU-190 to RU-43. The lot size is not changing. Yes, RU-43 means that a lot can be dividable to 1 house per acre, however, we have removed this concern with the Deed Restriction in item 2. below. 2. This lot will NOT be subdivided into two buildable lots - it will remain one 2.5 acre lot. To that end, the current owner has signed a permanent Deed Restriction that states "no further dividing of land that allows for a second buildable lot" and "This Deed Restriction shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the Grantor, heirs and any subsequent owners, their successors, heirs or assigns." This will be recorded prior to the Zoning Change. This means in the future a "developer" may not come in and subdivide this property and build two homes. Copy attached. 3. There will be only ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME built. County Zoning requirements states very clearly for RU-43 that there is only "One single-family dwelling per lot of record." If you have any questions - please feel free to call or email me. Please support this zoning change by responding to this email with: Yes, based on this 2.5 acre lot having a Deed Restriction limiting the current lot to one buildable lot, no dividing into two buildable lots and only one single family home, I support Zoning Change Z2018124. Pat Fumagalli 14535 E Pinnacle Vista Dr Scottsdale, AZ 85262 480-540-3686 Thank you for your support, Karen Nabity 602-299-5222 <Deed Restriction.pdf> 2 Rachel Applegate (PND) From: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 9:49 AM To: Rachel Applegate (PND) Subject: Zoning Change Request Z2018124 Support Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Rachel - Here is Ginger Repec's support for Z2018124. Karen Nabity Forwarded message From: Ginger Repec <grepec@msn.com > Date: Wed, May 1, 2019 at 2:59 PM Subject: Re: Zoning Change Request Z2018124 To: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Hi Karen, Per our previous conversation, you indicated that the 2.5 acre plot at the South end of 144th, behind the gate, would be used by your son-in-law and daughter to build their home. With your additional information I do agree to support the rezoning request Z2018124. Thank You Ginger Repec Sent from my iPad > On May 1, 2019, at 2:48 PM, Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > wrote: > Ginger, > Hi! I am reaching out to you in hopes of receiving your support for the zoning change we are asking for on the 2.5 Acres of land behind the gate at the South end of 144th St.. (We had talked on the phone last month in regards to another development in the area which I will email you about separately.) > As a recap - this is a property that is currently zoned 1 house per 5 acres. But since it is a 2.5 acre parcel needs to be rezoned to make it buildable. If it is approved for the rezoning, my children have already taken the responsible action of having the current owner sign a Deed Restriction that makes it so the lot is never dividable as the Deed Restriction is worded to "run with the land". > If you agree to support us - please respond to this email with: > I support the rezoning request Z2018124. > Ginger Repec > 27819 N 143rd St > Scottsdale, AZ 85262 > Thank you, in advance, for your support! If you have any questions - please just give me a call. 1 > > Karen Nabity > 602-299-5222 2 Rachel Applegate (PND) From: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 4:28 PM To: Rachel Applegate (PND) Subject: Zoning Change Z2018124 Support INGRID BOWERS Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Forwarded message From: Ingrid Bowers <ingridbowers@icloud.com > Date: Wed, May 15, 2019 at 11:17 AM Subject: Re: Zoning Change Z2018124 Support To: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Yes, I support Zoning Change Z2018124 to make this a buildable lot. Ingrid Bowers 15131 e desert vista trail 85262 On May 15, 2019, at 8:30 AM, Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > wrote: Yes, I support Zoning Change Z2018124 to make this a buildable lot. Rachel Applegate (PND) From: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 4:31 PM To: Rachel Applegate (PND) Subject: Fwd: Zoning Change Z2018124 Support SHARON NEWBILL Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Sharon Newbill - 29909 N 152nd St. Forwarded message From: Sharon Newbill <newbillsharon@gmail.com > Date: Wed, May 15, 2019 at 4:14 PM Subject: Re: Zoning Change Z2018124 Support To: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Yes, I support Zoning Change Z2018124 to make this a buildable lot. Sharon's iphone On May 15, 2019, at 3:55 PM, Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > wrote: Yes, I support Zoning Change Z2018124 to make this a buildable lot. Rachel Applegate (PND) From: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 4:34 PM To: Rachel Applegate (PND) Subject: Fwd: Zoning Change Z2018124 CAROL BROWN Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Forwarded message From: <carolgirle@aol.com > Date: Wed, May 15, 2019 at 3:01 PM Subject: Re: Zoning Change Z2018124 To: <karennabity@gmail.com > Hi Karen, Absolutely! I hope this works out! Have a great day! Yes, I support the Zoning Change Z2018124. Carol Brown 13646 E Whitethorn Dr Original Message From: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > To: Carol Brown <carolgirle@aol.com > Sent: Wed, May 15, 2019 8:03 am Subject: Zoning Change Z2018124 Carol, Hello! I am reaching out to you for support in this zoning change. This is a different one than the 260 home development behind you. Here are the important details: I am assisting my children in rezoning a 2.5 acre parcel, #219-39-032A, that is located behind the gate at the South end of 144th St. at Cavedale Dr.. The correct zoning for this lot size was not done in 1976 when the current owner purchased the land. We are simply wanting to correct the zoning to make this a buildable lot. My hope is that by sharing the facts with you, you will agree this is the best option for this parcel. 1. The zoning change is from RU-190 to RU-43. The lot size is not changing. Yes, RU-43 means that a lot can be dividable to 1 house per acre, however, we have removed this concern with the Deed Restriction in item 2. below. 2. This lot will NOT be subdivided. To that end, the current owner has signed a permanent Deed Restriction that states "no further dividing of land that allows for a second buildable lot" and "This Deed Restriction shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the Grantor, heirs and any subsequent owners, their successors, heirs or assigns." 1 3. There will be only ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME built. County Zoning requirements states very clearly for RU-43 that there is only One single-family dwelling per lot of record." Please support this zoning change by responding to this email with: Yes, I support the Zoning Change Z2018124. Carol Brown 13646 E Whitethorn Dr Thank you for your consideration, Karen Nabity 602-299-5222 2 Rachel Applegate (PND) From: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 5:17 PM To: Rachel Applegate (PND) Subject: Fwd: Zoning Change Z2018124 Support MIKE AND SUSAN MCCURDY Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Parcel # 219-40-039R Forwarded message From: Mike And Susan <mccurdy1217@cox.net > Date: Wed, May 15, 2019 at 5:10 PM Subject: Re: Zoning Change Z2018124 Support To: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Yes I approve the zoning change On parcel z2018124. Mike and Susan nnccurdy land owners in rio verde az! Sent from my iPad On May 15, 2019, at 3:57 PM, Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > wrote: Sue, Hello! I am reaching out to you for support in this zoning change. Here are the important details: I am assisting my children in rezoning a 2.5 acre parcel #219-39-032A that is located behind the gate at the South end of 144th St. at Cavedale Dr.. The correct zoning for this lot size was not done in the 70's when the current owner purchased the land. We are simply wanting to correct the zoning to make this a buildable lot. My hope is that by sharing the facts with you, you will agree this is the best option for this parcel and the community. 1. The zoning change is from RU-190 to RU-43. The lot size is not changing. Yes, RU-43 means that a lot can be dividable to 1 house per acre, however, we have removed this concern with the Deed Restriction in item 2. below. 2. This lot will NOT be divided into two buildable lots. To that end, the current owner has signed a permanent Deed Restriction that states "no further dividing of land that allows for a second buildable lot" and "This Deed Restriction shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the Grantor, heirs and any subsequent owners, their successors, heirs or assigns." 3. There will be only ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME built. County Zoning requirements states very clearly for RU-43 that there is only "One single-family dwelling per lot of 1 record." Please support this zoning change by responding to this email with: Yes, I support Zoning Change Z2018124 to make this a buildable lot. Sue McCurdy 14116 E Aloe Vera Dr If you have any questions - just give me a call. Thank you for your consideration, Karen Nabity 602-299-5222 2 Rachel Applegate (PND) From: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 6:48 PM To: Rachel Applegate (PND) Subject: Fwd: Zoning Change Z2018124 JAN FERRIS Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Parcel #219 -39 -064A Forwarded message From: -Jan Ferris <jan@gorvw.net> Date: Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:18 PM Subject: Re: Zoning Change Z2018124 To: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Yes, I support Zoning Change Z2018124 to make this a buildable lot. Jan Ferris 14448 E. Peakview On May 15, 2019 at 2:53 PM Karen N <karennabitv@gmail.com > wrote: Jan, Hello! I am reaching out to you for support in this zoning change. Here are the important details: I am assisting my children in rezoning a 2.5 acre parcel #219-39-032A that is located behind the gate at the South end of 144th St. at Cavedale Dr.. The correct zoning for this lot size was not done in in the 70's when the current owner purchased the land. We are simply wanting to correct the zoning to make this a buildable lot. My hope is that by sharing the facts with you, you will agree this is the best option for this parcel and the community. 1. The zoning change is from RU-190 to RU-43. The lot size is not changing. Yes, RU-43 means that a lot can be dividable to 1 house per acre, however, we have removed this concern with the Deed Restriction in item 2. below. 2. This lot will NOT be divided into two buildable lots. To that end, the current owner has signed a permanent Deed Restriction that states "no further dividing of land that allows for a second buildable lot" and "This Deed Restriction shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the Grantor, heirs and any subsequent owners, their successors, heirs or assigns." This will be recorded before the hearing. 1 3. There will be only ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME built. County Zoning requirements states very clearly for RU-43 that there is only "One single-family dwelling per lot of record." Please support this zoning change by responding to this email with: Yes, I support Zoning Change Z2018124 to make this a buildable lot. Jan Ferris 14448 E Peakview If you have any questions - just give me a call. Thank you for your consideration, Karen Nabity 602-299-5222 2 Rachel Applegate (PND) From: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 8:51 PM To: Rachel Applegate (PND) Subject: Fwd: Zoning Change Z2018124 Support LISA KELLEY Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Parcel #219-39-006N Forwarded message From: Lisa Kelley <zialisa@yahoo.com > Date: Wed, May 15, 2019 at 7:30 PM Subject: Re: Zoning Change Z2018124 Support To: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Yes, I support Zoning Change Z2018124 to make this a buildable lot. Lisa Kelley 14015 E Desert Vista Trail On Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 4:24:16 PM MST, Karen N <karennabityornail.com> wrote: Lisa, Hello! I am reaching out to you for support in this zoning change. Here are the important details: I am assisting my children in rezoning a 2.5 acre parcel #219-39-032A that is located behind the gate at the South end of 144th St. at Cavedale Dr.. The correct zoning for this lot size was not done in the 70's when the current owner purchased the land. We are simply wanting to correct the zoning to make this a buildable lot. My hope is that by sharing the facts with you, you will agree this is the best option for this parcel and the community. 1. The zoning change is from RU-190 to RU-43. The lot size is not changing. Yes, RU-43 means that a lot can be dividable to 1 house per acre, however, we have removed this concern with the Deed Restriction in item 2. below. 2. This lot will NOT be divided into two buildable lots. To that end, the current owner has signed a permanent Deed Restriction that states "no further dividing of land that allows for a second buildable lot" and "This Deed Restriction shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the Grantor, heirs and any subsequent owners, their successors, heirs or assigns." 3. There will be only ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME built. County Zoning requirements states very clearly for RU-43 that there is only "One single-family dwelling per lot of record." 1 Please support this zoning change by responding to this email with: Yes, I support Zoning Change Z2018124 to make this a buildable lot. Lisa Kelley 14015 E Desert Vista Trail If you have any questions - just give me a call. Thank you for your consideration, Karen Nabity 602-299-5222 Rachel Applegate (PND) From: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 6:45 PM To: Rachel Applegate (PND) Subject: Fwd: Zoning Change Z2018124 Support MICHELE PITEK Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Parcel # 219-39-014D 29503 N 139th St Forwarded message From: Michele Pitek <pitekfamily@me.com > Date: Wed, May 15, 2019 at 5:52 PM Subject: Re: Zoning Change Z2018124 Support To: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Yes, I support Zoning Change Z2018124 to make this a buildable lot. On May 15, 2019, at 3:48 PM, Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > wrote: Yes, I support Zoning Change Z2018124 to make this a buildable lot. Rachel Applegate (PND) From: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 4:40 PM To: Rachel Applegate (PND) Subject: Fwd: Zoning Change Z2018124 Support DEBBIE AQUINO Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Forwarded message From: Deb Gm <aquino.deborah@gmail.com > Date: Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:13 PM Subject: Re: Zoning Change Z2018124 Support To: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Yes, I support Zoning Change Z2018124 to make this a buildable lot. Deborah Aquino 28327 N 139th PI Sent from my iPhone On May 15, 2019, at 8:22 AM, Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > wrote: Yes, I support Zoning Change Z2018124 to make this a buildable lot. Deborah Aquino 28327 N 139th PI Rachel Applegate (PND) From: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 4:55 PM To: Rachel Applegate (PND) Subject: Fwd: Zoning Change Z2018124 Support INGRID TAUBER Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged PARCEL # 219-37-568P Forwarded message From: ingrid tauber <ingridot@msn.com > Date: Wed, May 15, 2019 at 4:47 PM Subject: Fwd: Zoning Change Z2018124 Support To: karennabity@gmail.com <karennabity@gmail.com > Yes I support Zoning Z2018124 Ingrid Tauber 15724 E Mark Lane Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Date: May 15, 2019 at 8:27:52 AM MST To: Ingrid And Mitch Tauber <ingridot@msn.com > Subject: Zoning Change Z2018124 Support Ingrid, Hello! I am reaching out to you for support in this zoning change. This is a different one than the 260 home development at 136th and Rio Verde Dr. Here are the important details: I am assisting my children in rezoning a 2.5 acre parcel #219-39-032A that is located behind the gate at the South end of 144th St. at Cavedale Dr.. The correct zoning for this lot size was not done in in the 70's when the current owner purchased the land. We are simply wanting to correct the zoning to make this a buildable lot. My hope is that by sharing the facts with you, you will agree this is the best option for this parcel and the cornmunity. 1. The zoning change is from RU-190 to RU-43. The lot size is not changing. Yes, RU-43 means that a lot can be dividable to 1 house per acre, however, we have removed this concern with the Deed Restriction in item 2. below. 2. This lot will NOT be divided into two buildable lots. To that end, the current owner has signed a permanent Deed Restriction that states "no further dividing of land that allows for a second buildable lot" and "This Deed Restriction shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the Grantor, heirs and any subsequent owners, their successors, heirs or assigns." 1 3. There will be only ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME built. County Zoning requirements states very clearly for RU-43 that there is only "One single-family dwelling per lot of record." Please support this zoning change by responding to this email with: Yes, I support Zoning Change Z2018124 to make this a buildable lot. Ingrid Tauber 15724 E Mark Lane If you have any questions - just give me a call. Thank you for your consideration, Karen Nabity 602-299-5222 2 g. The granting of this change in use of the property has been at the request of the applicant, with the consent of the landowner. The granting of this approval allows the property to enjoy uses in excess of those permitted by the zoning existing on the date of application, subject to conditions. In the event of the failure to comply with any condition, the property shall revert to the zoning that existed on the date of application. It is, therefore, stipulated and agreed that either revocation due to the failure to comply with any conditions, does not reduce any rights that existed on the date of application to use, divide, sell or possess the property and that there would be no diminution in value of the property from the value it held on the date of application due to such revocation of the Zone Change. The Zone Change enhances the value of the property above its value as of the date the Zone Change is granted and reverting to the prior zoning results in the same value of the property as if the Zone Change had never been granted. h. All habitable buildings constructed within this subdivision shall be constructed to attain a noise reduction level as per ARS § 28-8482(B). Zoning - Z2018124 District 2 Applicant: Karen Nabity Location: Approximately 300 south of the southeast corner of 144th St. and Cavedale Dr. in the Rio Verde area Request: Zone Change from Rural-190 to Rural-43 - Laborde Property Mr. Scheerer presented Z2018124 and noted the site is approximately 2.5 acres in Rural- 190 zoning district with five acres minimum, and 4.33 is the minimum for development. Staff has received five e-mailed letters of opposition since the production of the staff report. Staff has received additional opposition and support, and received a total of six letters of opposition and received seven letters of support. Staff is recommending approval of the request with the conditions in the staff report. Ms. Karen Nabity, the applicant said this is a 2.5 acre lot that was purchased in 1977 by Lucy Laborde, and it was zoned incorrectly. She has a total of 24 letters of support with her and five letters in opposition. She talked to the originating party of the letters against and he was under the impression the zoning change was for 10 acres because they had to have two signs posted by a big lot and everyone assumed it was a developer. Her son would like to purchase this lot to build a family home. She asked for this request to be approved, so the lot can become buildable. Mr. Josh Morris said he is not a developer, and he is trying to make 2.5 acre lot buildable. Some of the neighbors were under the wrong impression, but they are ahead of it now. They have a lot of neighbor support along that street. COMMISSION ACTION: Commissioner Hiatt motioned to approve Z2018124 with conditions a'-'c'. Commissioner Arnett second. Approved 9-0. a. Development of the site shall be in general conformance with the Narrative Report entitled "Laborde Property Narrative", consisting of 2 pages, Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Meeting of January 17, 2019 Page 22 of 23 undated, and stamped received November 7,2018, except as modified by the following conditions. b. Noncompliance with any Maricopa County Regulation shall be grounds for initiating a revocation of this Zone Change as set forth in the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. c. The granting of this change in use of the property has been at the request of the applicant, with the consent of the landowner. The granting of this approval allows the property to enjoy uses in excess of those permitted by the zoning existing on the date of application, subject to conditions. In the event of the failure to comply with any condition, the property shall revert to the zoning that existed on the date of application. It is, therefore, stipulated and agreed that either revocation due to the failure to comply with any conditions, does not reduce any rights that existed on the date of application to use, divide, sell or possess the property and that there would be no diminution in value of the property from the value it held on the date of application due to such revocation of the Zone Change. The Zone Change enhances the value of the property above its value as of the date the Zone Change is granted and reverting to the prior zoning results in the same value of the property as if the Zone Change had never been granted. Chairman Lindblom adjourned the meeting at 10:56 a.m. Prepared by Rosalie Pinney Recording Secretary January 17, 2019 Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes Meeting of January 17, 2019 Page 23 of 23 DATE: June 12, 2019 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Darren Gerard, AICP, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Z2018124 - Item PZ-4 Support/Opposition Attached with this memo includes 5 additional e-mails received from area residents in support of the zone change application for the Laborde Property. Staff received 2 e- mails from the adjacent neighbors expressing opposition to the rezoning application. The e-mails were received after the printing of the June 12th BOS packet. On June 10th, the applicant (Karen Nabity) submitted an e-mail response to the County regarding the Dave McMurtry opposition e-mail. To date the support and opposition calculations are as follows: Support – 48 property owners Opposition – 8 property owners (Super Majority Vote triggered) Access Maintenance Agreement The applicant provided the Planning Department e-mails sent on May 17th and June 5th to the adjacent neighbors (William McMurtry, Dave McMurtry and Grant Hertel) regarding the proposed access maintenance agreement and deed restriction. To date, the access maintenance agreement has not been executed. Recorded Deed Restriction The current property owner, Lucie Laborde has recorded a deed restriction on the subject site to specify no further dividing of land for a second buildable Rural-43 zoned lot. The document was recorded on May 17th and includes Maricopa County Recordation number 20190363230. A copy of the deed restriction has been attached with this memo. Attachments: Five e-mails in support (8 pages) Two e-mails in opposition (5 pages) E-mail to adjacent neighbors regarding Maintenance Agreement and Deed Restriction (3 pages) Recorded Deed Restriction (2 pages) Applicant’s reply to McMurtry’s Opposition e-mail (8 pages) Opposition and Support Map (1 page) All Supporting Parcels Map (1 page) 502 N. 44th Street, Suite 200 Phoenix, AZ 85008 (602) 372-0292 (602) 506-3711 fax Internet: www.maricopa.gov/planning Rachel Applegate (PND) From: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 1:09 PM To: Rachel Applegate (PND) Subject: Fwd: Zoning change for parcel # 219-39-032A WOLFGANG STOBBE Forwarded message From: Wolfgang Stobbe <netteta1465@gmail.com > Date: Tue, May 21, 2019, 11:20 AM Subject: Zoning change for parcel # 219-39-032A To: <karennabity@gmail.com > Hallo Karen, Yes, based on the lot having a Deed Restriction limiting the current lot to one buildable lot, no dividing into two buildable lots and only one single family home, I support Zoning Change Z2018124. Edith and Wolfgang Stobbe 27827 N 143rd Street 1 Rachel Applegate (PND) From: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 3:33 PM To: Rachel Applegate (PND) Subject: Fwd: Fw: Zoning Change Z2018124 Support TERI SMITH Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Forwarded message From: Robert & Teri Smith <smith.87@sbcglobal.net > Date: Wed, May 29, 2019 at 8:17 AM Subject: Fw: Zoning Change Z2018124 Support To: Karen Nabity <karennabity@gmail.com > YES, I support Zoning Change Z2018124 to make this a buildable lot. Teri Smith 29704 N 156th St Forwarded Message From: Karen N <karennabitvAgmail.com > To: Ted Smith <smith.87Asbcglobal.net> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019, 4:16:46 PM MST Subject: Zoning Change Z2018124 Support Ted, Hello! I am reaching out to you for support in this zoning change. Here are the important details: I am assisting my children in rezoning a 2.5 acre parcel #219-39-032A that is located behind the gate at the South end of 144th St. at Cavedale Dr.. The correct zoning for this lot size was not done in the 70's when the current owner purchased the land. We are simply wanting to correct the zoning to make this a buildable lot. My hope is that by sharing the facts with you, you will agree this is the best option for this parcel and the community. 1. The zoning change is from RU-190 to RU-43. The lot size is not changing. Yes, RU-43 means that a lot can be dividable to 1 house per acre, however, we have removed this concern with the Deed Restriction in item 2. below. 2. This lot will NOT be divided into two buildable lots. To that end, the current owner has signed a permanent Deed Restriction that states "no further dividing of land that allows for a second buildable lot" and "This Deed Restriction shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the Grantor, heirs and any subsequent owners, their successors, heirs or assigns." 1 3. There will be only ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME built. County Zoning requirements states very clearly for RU-43 that there is only "One single-family dwelling per lot of record." Please support this zoning change by responding to this email with: Yes, I support Zoning Change Z2018124 to make this a buildable lot. Teri Smith 29704 N 156th St If you have any questions - just give me a call. Thank you for your consideration, Karen Nabity 602-299-5222 2 Rachel Applegate (PND) From: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 7:58 PM To: Rachel Applegate (PND) Subject: Fwd: Zoning Request Z2018124 SUPPORT JENNIFER SIMPSON Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged PARCEL #219-36-075B Forwarded message From: Jennifer Simpson <jsimpsonscottsdale@gmail.com > Date: Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 3:46 PM Subject: Re: Zoning Request 22018124 SUPPORT To: Karen N <karennabity@gnnail.com > Yes, I support Zoning Change Z2018124 to make this a buildable lot. Jennifer Simpson 13824 E Olesen Rd Jennifer Simpson P: 602-402-2206 E: jsimpsonscottsdale@gmail.corn Rachel Applegate (PND) From: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 3:12 PM To: Rachel Applegate (PND) Subject: Fwd: Zoning Request Z2018124 Rick Dyer 14145 E Cavedale Dr Forwarded message From: Rick Dyer <abouttimepwc@gnnail.com > Date: Thu, Jun 6, 2019, 2:03 PM Subject: Re: Zoning Request Z2018124 To: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Yes, I approve. On Wed, Jun 5, 2019, 1:46 PM Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > wrote: Rick, Thank you for your support in this zoning change. Here are the important details: I am assisting my children in rezoning a 2.5 acre parcel #219-39-032A that is located behind the gate at the South end of 144th St. at Cavedale Dr.. The correct zoning for this lot size was not done in the 70's when the current owner purchased the land. We are simply wanting to correct the zoning to make this a buildable lot. My hope is that by sharing the facts with you, you will agree this is the best option for this parcel and the community. 1. The zoning change is from RU-190 to RU-43. The lot size is not changing. Yes, RU-43 means that a lot can be dividable to 1 house per acre, however, we have removed this concern with the Deed Restriction in item 2. below. 2. This lot will NOT be divided into two buildable lots. To that end, the current owner has signed a permanent Deed Restriction that states "no further dividing of land that allows for a second buildable lot" and "This Deed Restriction shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the Grantor, heirs and any subsequent owners, their successors, heirs or assigns." This Deed Restriction has been officially recorded. 3. There will be only ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME built. County Zoning requirements states very clearly for RU-43 that there is only "One single-family dwelling per lot of record." Since there can only be one buildable lot on this 2.5 acres there can only be ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME. Please support this zoning change by responding to this email with: Yes, I support Zoning Change Z2018124 to make this a buildable lot. Rick Dyer 14145 E Cavedale Dr. If you have any questions - just give me a call. Thank you for your consideration, Karen Nabity 1 602-299-5222 Rachel Applegate (PND) From: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 3:49 AM To: Rachel Applegate (PND) Subject: Zoning change Z2018124 Support PAM CLAPP Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Pam Clapp 14608 E Desert Vista Trail Forwarded message From: Pam Clapp <pamelaannclapp@gmail.com > Date: Fri, Jun 7, 2019, 10:23 AM Subject: Zoning change To: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Good morning Karen: I support this zoning change Z2018124 to make this a buildable lot. Pam Clapp From: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Date: Wednesday, June 5,2019 at 1:32 PM To: Pam Clapp <pamelaannelapp@gmail.eom> Subject: Zoning Request Z2018124 SUPPORT Hello! I am reaching out to you for support in this zoning change. Here are the important details: I am assisting my children in rezoning a 2.5 acre parcel #219-39-032A that is located behind the gate at the South end of 144th St. at Cavedale Dr.. The correct zoning for this lot size was not done in the 70's when the current owner purchased the land. We are simply wanting to correct the zoning to make this a buildable lot. My hope is that by sharing the facts with you, you will agree this is the best option for this parcel and the community. 1. The zoning change is from RU-190 to RU-43. The lot size is not changing. Yes, RU-43 means that a lot can be dividable to 1 house per acre, however, we have removed this concern with the Deed Restriction in item 2. below. 1 2. This lot will NOT be divided into two buildable lots. To that end, the current owner has signed a permanent Deed Restriction that states "no further dividing of land that allows for a second buildable lot" and "This Deed Restriction shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the Grantor, heirs and any subsequent owners, their successors, heirs or assigns." This Deed Restriction has been officially recorded. 3. There will be only ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME built. County Zoning requirements states very clearly for RU-43 that there is only "One single-family dwelling per lot of record." Since there can only be one buildable lot on this 2.5 acres there can only be ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME. Please support this zoning change by responding to this email with: Yes, I support Zoning Change Z2018124 to make this a buildable lot. Pam Clapp 14608 E Desert Vista Trail If you have any questions - just give me a call. Thank you for your consideration, Karen Nabity 602-299-5222 2 Rachel Applegate (PND) From: Dave McMurtry <fhdem@aol.com > Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 11:17 AM To: district3@mail.maricopa.gov ; Laura Etter (BOS); Clint Hickman (BOS); Scott lsham (BOS); Melody Henderson (BOS); Steve Chucri (BOS); Page Gonzales (BOS); district5 @mail.maricopa.gov; Cristina Arzaga (BOS); Jen Pokorski (PND); Richard Bohan - GRCX; Jack Sellers (BOS); Rachel Applegate (PND) Cc: william mcmurtry; Grant Hartel; Dave McMurtry; Mark S. Sifferman Subject: Rezoning Laborde property case #Z2018124 Board of Supervisors, We continue to oppose the rezoning of the LaBorde Property, Case #Z2018124. McMurtry Family Properties LLC owns the 5 acres adjacent to the west of the property; parcel numbers 219-39-204V, 219-39-204U, and 219-39-204T. In March the Board sent this issue back to the owners to come to a resolution. In March we had paid a lawyer to write up a Deed Restriction and Road Agreement that they refused to sign. They refused to sign even after our lawyer made changes to the documents to meet the concerns they expressed. A month ago the potential buyers of the property sent us an email stating that they had the current owner, Lucie LaBorde, sign a Deed Restriction and had several items for a Road Agreement. Instead of working with us to put together documents that would be acceptable to both parties they unilaterally had Mrs. LaBorde sign a document that is unenforceable. Their proposed Road Agreement limits their obligation to share in the cost of maintenance to an estimate of the current cost to perform specific work. The proponents of the rezoning cannot say to the Board that they tried to work with us but we refused. In reality they just went behind our back and acted unilaterally. Our lawyer is working on documents that will be sent to them that cover the issues they have with the Road Agreement we proposed and an amendment to the Deed Restriction to make it enforecable. We have heard from several county staff that they are trying to correct something from the 1970's. When we purchased our property at 219-39-204V, 219-39-204U, and 219-39-204T there was an easement for the Laborde Property to have access using our gate and private drive. We were told that the 2.5 acres could never have a house built because it was in a part of the county that required 5 acres to build a house and that they had been denied a variance in 2006. The Laborde Family obviously did not plan for a house to ever be built on the land; since they sold all 8 of the well shares for the well they dug on the land. When we purchased our property there was not a need for a road agreement for the Laborde family to use our private gate and private road. The well only needed service a couple of times a year. If you are going to allow the rezoning and increase the amount of traffic on our private 1 road we need to have legal assurance that they will help with the maintenance of our private gate and road. Our understanding is that the Zoning Board was impressed that they received 27 letters of support for the rezoning of the property. With the location of the property no other individuals would be directly affected by this rezoning. We and Grant Hartel, who is also opposing this rezoning, are the only properties affected. If this property is rezoned our quality of life will be diminished by having multiple people on our private road on a daily basis. We enjoy the quiet location we purchased and the tranquility of sitting on the roof enjoying the beauty of our community. This will also decrease the value of our property. We do not want to financially harm the LaBorde Family and we would be willing to work with Lucie to come to a resolution that would not require the zoning to be changed. With our objection to the rezoning we still have 100% of the private property within 330 feet that object to this rezoning. Please vote "NO" to the rezoning of the Laborde Property Case #Z2018124. We would appreciate the opportunity to speak at the open meeting if that would help you make your decision. We are trying to set up a meeting with Jen Pokorski from Zoning and Planning to discuss the issue. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Thanks for your consideration. Dave David McMurtry 815 685-7012 - Cell 2 Rachel Applegate (PND) From: granthertel@aol.com Sent: Friday, June 7,2019 12:36 PM To: district3@mail.maricopa.gov; Laura Etter (BOS); Clint Hickman (BOS); sIsham@mail.maricopa.gov; Melody Henderson (BOS); Steve Chucri (BOS); Page Gonzales (BOS); district5@mail.maricopa.gov ; arzagawilliams@mail.maricopa.gov; Jen Pokorski (PND); Richard Bohan - GRCX; Jack Sellers (BOS); Rachel Applegate (PND); william_McMurtry@yahoo.com; FHDEM@aol.com Subject: Rezoning Laborde property case #Z2018124 Attachments: Scan0007.pdf Board of Supervisors, et al, Please see my attached letter regarding objection to rezoning of the Laborde property (case #Z2018124). Sincerely, Grant Hertel Owner of parcel #219-39-013L 14802 N Skokie Ct Phoenix, AZ 85022 Cell number 602-509-8092 1 June 7, 2019 Re: Case #Z2018124 — Laborde Property Board of Supervisors, First, I apologize for the late submittal of this letter but since receiving the notification of the upcoming BOS meeting via a post card my wife has been in the hospital having surgery. I, along with my wife, am the owner of parcel #219-39-013L, which wraps around the east and north borders of the Laborde property. We are again requesting that you vote "NO" to the rezoning request outlined in the above referenced property case. Please note that a number of previous letters from me both expressing opposition to this rezoning request and providing some historical perspective regarding our and the Laborde property should be on file under this case number. Basically we remain opposed to the rezoning of the Laborde property for the same reasons as before: #1 — First and foremost is that when we bought our property in 1984 it was our understanding that Section 32 was and would remain zoned 5 acres (R-190). This was what we were looking for in terms of achieving a lifestyle having spacious surroundings, not small property, high-density development immediately adjacent to us. #2 — Given all the well paraphernalia and associated land easement for access that already exist on the Laborde property plus the further development plans being proposed (including a large home and most likely one or more outbuildings, corrals and fencing to accommodate the housing of horses which we are told will be on the property), we feel the property will rapidly become quite congested. #3 — Our long term plan is to give our parcel to our oldest son who plans to build a home there after retiring in the not too distant future. Both he and his wife would also very much like to live in and find the surrounding area to be much as it is today and was envisioned by the County to be when initially zoned. #4 — Rezoning of the Laborde property to RU-43 would clearly devalue our property and very likely the adjacent property to the west of the Laborde property, owned by the McMurtrys, especially since the easement access to the Laborde property and the well runs through the McMurtry property. We feel that the entire immediate surrounding neighborhood would be downgraded in terms of both property valuation and life style quality should RU-43 zoning be granted. My wife and I, along with the McMurtrys, certainly understand the predicament Lucie Laborde finds herself in regarding the property she owns. Should this rezoning request be denied, we can envision a number of solutions to resolve her problem and at the same time obviate the need for rezoning. It certainly is not our intent to harm Lucie in any way. Lastly, I do plan on attending the BOS meeting on June 12 th and would like the opportunity to speak at the meeting. _Ci),..5-ek ikA ff e rte 14802 N. Skokie Ct. , Phoenix, AZ 85022 Cell number 602-509-8092 Rachel Applegate (PND) From: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 3:18 PM To: Rachel Applegate (PND) Subject: Fwd: Second Attempt: Zoning Change Z2018124 Attachments: Deed Restriction Recorded Parcel 21939032A.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 2:10 PM Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > wrote: Bill, David and Grant, We are reaching out one last time in hopes to come to an agreement that will satisfy all parties. We believe there have been some misunderstandings and want to clear the air so we are all on the same page. We hope by sharing our understanding, concerns and a proposed solution that we can move forward. First: We understand that you are concerned that more than one Single Family Home could be built on the property. We stated clearly on our Public Notice signs and our plans that we are only building One Single Family Home. We want you to understand why we did not sign your Property Restriction. The wording limited how the property could be used. It stated "the residential use of the following described real property may not exceed one single-family dwelling and accessory building unit/guest house" which could be interpreted that we could not build a spa, put in a small shed, etc... It further stated "The property may be used for any non-residential use allowed by R-43 zoning, including but not limited to equestrian uses." We feel we have been very clear that we will be living at the property as our primary residence and the property will definitely be used for residential use. We felt this statement would limit the use to non- residential use. For us - we were concerned we were being asked to sign something that would keep us from living on the property as intended. As your concern is that only One Single Family Home be built - we have found a solution. We have worked with the current owner, Lucie LaBorde, of the property and she has taken the very large step of not only signing a Deed Restriction but having it recorded. A copy is attached. The Deed Restriction limits the property to "no further dividing of land that allows for a second buildable RU-43 lot solely within" its boundaries. It further states that it will "run with the land and shall be binding upon the Grantor, heirs and any subsequent owners, their successors. heirs or assigns." In layman's terms: Limits property to one buildable lot. Additionally, Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance states under Use Regulations for RU-43: "One single-family dwelling per lot of record." Since the property will not be dividable into two lots and only One single-family dwelling can be built on a lot, this will ensure that now and forever only One Single Family Home will be built on the lot. PLUS, in the years to come, no one, including a developer, can come in and divide this property so more than one home can be built. Second: The subject property has a long standing legal ingress/egress agreement across McMurtry's property. Mr. McMurtry feels strongly that we pay towards the maintenance of his driveway that we must cross to get to our land. The current blacktop from the gated entrance to Mr. McMurtry's home was installed prior to February 2006. It has been 13 years and is now needing some attention. We took the time to get a bid for the repair of the blacktop and a finished coat from the gated entrance to the entrance to subject property. That came to $8,800 plus tax. In conversations together, Josh and Bill, agreed.since David (Bill's son) will be building his home on the lot next to subject property at the same time we will be building ours that the repair on the shared driveway be done after both homes are complete. Based on this: 15 year maintenance cost of the driveway: $8,800 plus tax. $8,800 divided by 3 shares would be: $2,934 plus tax. Spreading that cost over 15 years equals: $196 plus tax per year We are offering a generous driveway maintenance agreement. Contingent upon your support of our Zoning Change, we would like to offer to agree to a maintenance agreement for that part of the driveway that is within the Ingress/Egress agreement. The terms and conditions we are offering are: 1. The agreement for contributions toward maintenance would go into effect once 219-39-032A is finished being built and approved for occupancy. 2. Maintenance will be undertaken and made whenever necessary to maintain the driveway in good operating condition at all times and to insure the provision of safe access by emergency vehicles. 3. The Maintenance will be shared equally by all developed parcels using the entrance. 4. In any given year the contribution toward that years maintenance from Parcel 219-39-032A is limited to $3,500. Additionally, in any 10 year period, the total amount is not to exceed $5,000. (NOTE: This is equal to $500 per year. This is more than double the current cost of maintaining the driveway. We feel this is a very generous amount and gives room toward unexpected costs and gate maintenance within the Ingress Egress Agreement.) 5. All parcel owners utilizing the gated entrance agree not to interfere with Parcel 219-39-032A using the ingress/egress easement to access their parcel. Parcel 219-39-032A will be given a code to the gate to access their property as has been done with the current users of the easement and not have to call the McMurtry's home and wait to be buzzed in or denied access if no one is there to buzz them in. Additionally, Parcel 219-39-032A and William McMurtry Agree that a separate gate access device may be installed. The cost of the actual device being paid by Parcel 219-39-032A. 6. If Parcel 219-39-032A gives up the Ingress/Egress Easement for any reason, this road maintenance agreement will no longer be in affect. We hope you see that we are putting our best foot forward with both the very strict Deed Restriction and the generous dollar amount towards maintenance. If you agree to these terms and agree to support our request for the change in zoning we would be happy to have a formal maintenance agreement drawn up for signatures. If you do not agree - please communicate that reason with us so we can continue this conversation. Josh and Brittany Morris Forwarded message From: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Date: Fri, May 17, 2019 at 4:45 PM Subject: Zoning Change Z2018124 To: Brittany Morris <bmorris3610@gmail.com >, Josh Morris <morris5674@gmail.com >, william nncnnurtry <wmcmurtry4@gmail.com >, <GrantHertel@aol.com >, Dave McMurtry <fhdem@aol.com >, Page Gonzales <gonzalesp001@mail.maricopa.gov>, <JenniferPokorski@mail.maricopa.gov >, Karen Nabity <KarenNabity@gmail.com > Bill, David and Grant, We are reaching out again in hopes to come to an agreement that will satisfy all parties. We believe there have been some misunderstandings and want to clear the air so we are all on the same page. We hope by sharing our understanding, concerns and a proposed solution that we can move forward. First: We understand that you are concerned that more than one Single Family Home could be built on the property. We stated clearly on our Public Notice signs and our plans that we are only building One Single Family Home. We want you to understand why we did not sign your Property Restriction. The wording limited how the property could be used. It stated "the residential use of the following described real property may not exceed one single-family dwelling and accessory building unit/guest house" which could be interpreted that we could not build a spa, put in a small shed, etc... It further stated "The property may be used for any non-residential use allowed by R-43 zoning, including but not limited to equestrian uses." We feel we have been very clear that we will be living at the property as our primary residence and the property will definitely be used for residential use. We felt this statement would limit the use to non- residential use. For us - we were concerned we were being asked to sign something that would keep us from living on the property as intended. As your concern is that only One Single Family Home be built - we have found a solution. 2 We have worked with the current owner, Lucie LaBorde, of the property and she has taken the very large step of not only signing a Deed Restriction but having it recorded. A copy is attached. The Deed Restriction limits the property to "no further dividing of land that allows for a second buildable RU-43 lot solely within" its boundaries. It further states that it will "run with the land and shall be binding upon the Grantor, heirs and any subsequent owners, their successors. heirs or assigns." In layman's terms: Limits property to one buildable lot. Additionally, Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance states under Use Regulations for RU-43: "One single-family dwelling per lot of record." Since the property will not be dividable into two lots and only One single-family dwelling can be built on a lot, this will ensure that now and forever only One Single Family Home will be built on the lot. PLUS, in the years to come, no one, including a developer, can come in and divide this property so more than one home can be built. Second: The subject property has a long standing legal ingress/egress agreement across McMurtry's property. Mr. McMurtry feels strongly that we pay towards the maintenance of his driveway that we must cross to get to our land. The current blacktop from the gated entrance to Mr. McMurtry's home was installed prior to February 2006. It has been 13 years and is now needing some attention. We took the time to get a bid for the repair of the blacktop and a finished coat from the gated entrance to the entrance to subject property. That came to $8,800 plus tax. In conversations together, Josh and Bill, agreed since David (Bill's son) will be building his home on the lot next to subject property at the same time we will be building ours that the repair on the shared driveway be done after both homes are complete. Based on this: 15 year maintenance cost of the driveway: $8,800 plus tax. $8,800 divided by 3 shares would be: $2,934 plus tax. Spreading that cost over 15 years equals: $196 plus tax per year We are offering a generous driveway maintenance agreement. Contingent upon your support of our Zoning Change, we would like to offer to agree to a maintenance agreement for that part of the driveway that is within the Ingress/Egress agreement. The terms and conditions we are offering are: 1. The agreement for contributions toward maintenance would go into effect once 219-39-032A is finished being built and approved for occupancy. 2. Maintenance will be undertaken and made whenever necessary to maintain the driveway in good operating condition at all times and to insure the provision of safe access by emergency vehicles. 3. The Maintenance will be shared equally by all developed parcels using the entrance. 4. In any given year the contribution toward that years maintenance from Parcel 219-39-032A is limited to $3,500. Additionally, in any 10 year period, the total amount is not to exceed $5,000. (NOTE: This is equal to $500 per year. This is more than double the current cost of maintaining the driveway. We feel this is a very generous amount and gives room toward unexpected costs and gate maintenance within the Ingress Egress Agreement.) 5. All parcel owners utilizing the gated entrance agree not to interfere with Parcel 219-39-032A using the ingress/egress easement to access their parcel. Parcel 219-39-032A will be given a code to the gate to access their property as has been done with the current users of the easement and not have to call the McMurtry's home and wait to be buzzed in or denied access if no one is there to buzz them in. Additionally, Parcel 219-39-032A and William McMurtry Agree that a separate gate access device may be installed. The cost of the actual device being paid by Parcel 219-39-032A. 6. If Parcel 219-39-032A gives up the Ingress/Egress Easement for any reason, this road maintenance agreement will no longer be in affect. We hope you see that we are putting our best foot forward with both the very strict Deed Restriction and the generous dollar amount towards maintenance. If you agree to these terms and agree to support our request for the change in zoning we would be happy to have a formal maintenance agreement drawn up for signatures. If you do not agree - please communicate that reason with us so we can continue this conversation. Josh and Brittany Morris 3 OFFICIAL RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDER ADRIAN FONTES 20190363230 05/17/2019 11:53 KIOSK RECORDING 0526712-2-1-1 amine DEED RESTRICT/ON DO NOT REMOVE This is part of the official document Recording requested by and to be returned to: Lucie LaBorde 27000 N 134th St Scottsdale, AZ 85262 Space Above Line for Recorder's Use Deed Restriction The Lucie E LaBorde Living Trust, DTD August 27, 2001 agrees to no further dividing of land that allows for a second buildable RU-43 lot solely within: The Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 5 North, Range 6 East, Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona. This deed restriction shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the Grantor, heirs and any subsequent owners, their successors, heirs or assigns. GRANTOR/OWNER: The Lucie E LaBorde Living Trust, Dated the 27 th day of August, 2001 k, GA-e-- A --/F-------- Lubie E LaBorde, Trustee State of Arizona ) ) ss. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF GRANTOR County of Maricopa ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this i i )44 1 - day of A _ , 2019, by Lucie E LaBorde, who acknowledged herself to be the person named herein and that she executed the within Deed Restriction for the purposes contained therein. In Witness Whereof, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. My commission will expire: Aliba54-21, 01 Notary Public NOTARY GAIL PUBLIC SMITH - ARIZONA Marisopa County Commission #550786 My Commission Expires August 30,2022 Rachel Applegate (PND) From: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 10:42 AM To: Jen Pokorski (PND); Page Gonzales (BOS); Rachel Applegate (PND) Subject: #Z2018124 Morris Response to McMurtrys opposition email dated June 7th To Rachel, Jen, and Page, This is in response to McMurtry's recent opposition letter stating "The proponents of the rezoning cannot say to the Board that they tried to work with us but we refused. In reality they just went behind our back and acted unilaterally." We would like to show that in fact we reached out to them 3 times via email with the current Deed Restriction and a proposed Maintenance Agreement May 9th, 2019, May 17th, 2019 and June 5, 2019 to which McMurtry and Hertel never responded. Below is the email dated May 9th, 2019. It clearly details our proposed Deed Restriction and Maintenance Agreement. Lucie LaBorde signed the Deed Restriction before sending so that McMurtry and Hertel could see that Lucie was open to this and if they agreed we could have it filed. The email ends with "We hope you see that we are putting our best foot forward with both the very strict Deed Restriction and the generous dollar amount towards maintenance, If you agree to these terms and agree to support our request for the change in zoning we would be happy to have a formal maintenance agreement drawn up for signatures. If you do not agree - please communicate that reason with us so we can continue this conversation." Since there was no response to our May 9th email, we reached out to Jen Pokorski and Page Gonzales for advice. We were told that they would not take into consideration a Deed Restriction that was not filed and that it would help if the Deed Restriction was filed. The Deed Restriction was filed with Maricopa County. It is not reversible. A similar email was sent again to Grant Hertel, Bill and David McMurtry with a copy of the recorded Deed Restriction on both May 17th and June 5th. Both Jen Pokorski and Page Gonzales were included on these last two emails. Copies were sent to Rachel Applegate. As of this email on June 10th no response has been received from McMurtry, Hertel or their Attorney. We hope the County Board of Supervisors sees that we are putting our best foot forward with this very strict Deed Restriction and our many efforts to reach out to Hertel and McMurtry. Thank you for taking the time to review this information. Sincerely, Josh and Brittany Morris Forwarded message From: Karen N <karennabitygrnail.com> Date: Thu, May 9, 2019, 10:01 AM 1 Subject: Fwd: Morris/McMurtry FamilyHertel To: Josh Morris <morris5674@qmail.com>, Brittany Morris <bmorris3610,qmail.com> Bill, David and Grant, We are reaching out again in hopes to come to an agreement that will satisfy all parties. We believe there have been some misunderstandings and want to clear the air so we are all on the same page. We hope by sharing our thoughts and concerns and a proposed solution that we can move forwards. First: We understand that you are concerned that more than one Single Family Home could be built on the property. We stated clearly on our Public Notice sign and our plans that we are only building One Single Family Home. We want you to understand why we did not sign your Property Restriction. The wording limited how the property could be used. It stated "the residential use of the following described real property may not exceed one single-family dwelling and accessory building unit/guest house" which could be interpreted that we could not build a spa, put in a small shed, etc... It further stated "The property may be used for any non- residential use allowed by R-43 zoning, including but not limited to equestrian uses." We feel we have been very clear that Brittany, Josh and their children will be living at the property as their primary residence and the property will definitely be used for residential use. We felt this statement would limit the use to non-residential use. For us - we were concerned we were being asked to sign something that would keep us from living on the property as intended. As we understand it your concern is that only One Single Family Home be built - we have found a solution. We have worked with the current owner of the property and she has agreed to take the very large step of signing a Deed Restriction (Attached) that limits the property to "no further dividing of land that allows for a second buildable RU-43 lot solely within" its boundaries. It further states that it will "run with the land and shall be binding upon the Grantor, heirs and any subsequent owners, their successors. heirs or assigns." In layman's terms: Limits property to one lot. Additionally, Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance states under Use Regulations for RU-43: "One single-family dwelling per lot of record." Since the property will not be dividable into two lots and only One single-family dwelling can be built on a lot, this will ensure that now and forever only One Single Family Home will be built. PLUS, in the years to come, no one can come in and divide this property so more than one home can be built. Second: The subject property has a legal ingress/egress agreement across McMurtry's property. Mr. McMurtry feels strongly that we pay towards the maintenance of his driveway that we must cross to get to our land. The current blacktop from the gated entrance to Mr. McMurtry's home was installed prior to February 2006. It has been 13 years and is now needing some attention. We took the time to get a bid for the repair of the blacktop and a finished coat from the gated entrance to the entrance to subject property. That came to $8,800 plus tax. In conversations together, Josh and Bill, agreed since David will be building his home on the lot next to subject property at the same time Josh and Brittany will be building theirs that the repair on the driveway be done after both homes are complete. Based on this - in 15 years the maintenance cost of the driveway is $8,800 plus tax. We would like to offer to agree to a maintenance agreement for that part of the road that is within the Ingress/Egress agreement. The terms and conditions we would like to see are: 1. The agreement for contributions toward maintenance would go into effect once both Josh and David's homes are finished being built and approved for occupancy. 2. Road maintenance will be undertaken and made whenever necessary to maintain the road in good operating condition at all times and to insure the provision of safe access by emergency vehicles. 2. The Maintenance will be shared equally by all developed parcels using the entrance. 3. In any given year the contribution toward that years maintenance from Parcel 219-39-032A is limited to $3,500. Additionally, in any 10 year period, the total amount is not to exceed $5,000. (NOTE: This is a much higher dollar figure than 1/3 ($2,933) of the actual cost ($8,800) currently to repair the driveway every 15 years. We feel this is a very generous amount and gives room toward unexpected costs or repair of the gate.) 4. All parcel owners utilizing the gated entrance agree not to interfere with Parcel 219-39-032A using the ingress/egress easement to access their parcel. Parcel 219-39-032A will be given a code to the gate to access their property as has been 2 done with the current users of the easement and not have to call the McMurtry's home and wait to be buzzed in or denied access if no one is there to buzz them in. Additionally, Parcel 219-39-032A can work with McMurtry to install a separate gate access device. The cost of the device being paid by Parcel 219-39-032A. 5. If Parcel 219-39-032A gives up the Ingress/Egress Easement for any reason, this road maintenance agreement will no longer be in affect. We hope you see that we are putting our best foot forward with both the very strict Deed Restriction and the generous dollar amount towards maintenance, If you agree to these terms and agree to support our request for the change in zoning we would be happy to have a formal maintenance agreement drawn up for signatures. If you do not agree - please communicate that reason with us so we can continue this conversation. Josh and Brittany Morris Forwarded message From: Mark S. Sifferman <mark@siffermanlaw.com > Date: Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:30 PM Subject: RE: Morris/McMurtry FannilyHertel To: Karen N <karennabityomail.com > I understand the concern. I have made revisions that I believe match what Bill and Josh have discussed. The revision is attached. If this is acceptable, then all Josh and Brittany need to sign now is page 1. The page with the signatures to be notarized is for later. Mark S. Sifferman The Sifferman Law Firm, p.1.1.c. 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 1150 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-0977 Telephone: (602) 405-2443 Email: mark@siffermanlaw.com Please send any personal, non-professional emails to marksifferman@gmail.com From: Karen N <karennabityasimail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2019 8:09 AM To: Mark S. Sifferman <marka,siffermanlaw.com > Subject: Re: Morris/McMurtry FamilyHertel Mark, 3 Josh and Brittany will not be signing the Property Restriction. It is very restrictive. When they go to apply for a building permit for a house, with fence, maybe a corral, covered area, gas fire pit, spa, septic, well or hauled water, etc.. only the house would be allowed. Please call me to see if we can come up with something both parties can agree on. Karen Nabity 602.299.5222 On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 5:46 PM Mark S. Siffernnan <mark@siffermanlaw.com > wrote: Attached is the agreement that I believe captures what Josh, Bill McMurtry and Grant Hertel have spoken about. Bill and the Hertels have signed the document already as you will see. Bill and Grant state that they will not object at the Board of Supervisors' meeting as long as Josh and Brittany have signed the attached and provided a redacted purchase agreement (as to the latter, Bill tells me that Josh said he would provide a copy of the purchase agreement with the price blocked out). Mark S. Sifferman The Sifferman Law Firm, p.1.1.c. 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 1150 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-0977 Telephone: (602) 405-2443 Email: mark@siffermanlaw.com The information contained in this e-mail message is considered confidential and may be legally privileged. If the recipient of this message is not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation. Please send any personal, non-professional emails to marksiffermanAgmail.com 4 Forwarded message From: Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@maricopa.gov > Date: Mon, Jun 10, 2019, 10:14 AM Subject: FW: Rezoning Laborde property case #Z2018124 To: Karen N <karennabity@gmail.com > Morning Karen, The following e-mail was received in opposition. A copy of the e-mail will be provided as a handout at the hearing. Thank you, Rachel Applegate Senior Planner Planning & Development 602-372-0318 Rachel.Applegate@maricopa.gov From: Dave McMurtry <fhdem@aol.com > Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 11:17 AM To: district3@mail.maricopa.gov ; Laura Etter (BOS) <Laura.Etter@Maricopa.Gov >; Clint Hickman (BOS) <Clint.Hickman@Maricopa.Gov>; Scott [shun (BOS) <Scott.Isham@Maricopa.Gov >; Melody Henderson (BOS) <Melody.Henderson@Maricopa.Gov >; Steve Chucri (BOS) <Steve.Chucri@Maricopa.Gov>; Page Gonzales (BOS) <Page.Gonzales@maricopa.gov >; district5@mail.maricopa.gov ; Cristina Arzaga (BOS) <Cristina.Arzaga@Maricopa.Gov >; Jen Pokorski (PND) <Jen.Pokorski@Maricopa.Gov >; Richard Bohan - GRCX <richardbohan@mail.maricopa.gov >; Jack Sellers (BOS) Klack.Sellers@Maricopa.Gov>, Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov > Cc: williann mcmurtry <wmcmurtry4@gmail.com >; Grant Hartel <granthertel@aol.com >; Dave McMurtry <fhdem@aol.conn>; Mark S. Sifferman <mark@siffermanlaw.com > Subject: Rezoning Laborde property case #Z2018124 Board of Supervisors, 5 We continue to oppose the rezoning of the LaBorde Property, Case #Z2018124. McMurtry Family Properties LLC owns the 5 acres adjacent to the west of the property; parcel numbers 219-39-204V, 219-39-204U, and 219-39-204T. In March the Board sent this issue back to the owners to come to a resolution. In March we had paid a lawyer to write up a Deed Restriction and Road Agreement that they refused to sign. They refused to sign even after our lawyer made changes to the documents to meet the concerns they expressed. A month ago the potential buyers of the property sent us an email stating that they had the current owner, Lucie LaBorde, sign a Deed Restriction and had several items for a Road Agreement. Instead of working with us to put together documents that would be acceptable to both parties they unilaterally had Mrs. LaBorde sign a document that is unenforceable. Their proposed Road Agreement limits their obligation to share in the cost of maintenance to an estimate of the current cost to perform specific work. The proponents of the rezoning cannot say to the Board that they tried to work with us but we refused. In reality they just went behind our back and acted unilaterally. Our lawyer is working on documents that will be sent to them that cover the issues they have with the Road Agreement we proposed and an amendment to the Deed Restriction to make it enforecable. We have heard from several county staff that they are trying to correct something from the 1970's. When we purchased our property at 219-39-204V, 219-39-204U, and 219-39-204T there was an easement for the Laborde Property to have access using our gate and private drive. We were told that the 2.5 acres could never have a house built because it was in a part of the county that required 5 acres to build a house and that they had been denied a variance in 2006. The Laborde Family obviously did not plan for a house to ever be built on the land; since they sold all 8 of the well shares for the well they dug on the land. When we purchased our property there was not a need for a road agreement for the Laborde family to use our private gate and private road. The well only needed service a couple of times a year. If you are going to allow the rezoning and increase the amount of traffic on our private road we need to have legal assurance that they will help with the maintenance of our private gate and road. Our understanding is that the Zoning Board was impressed that they received 27 letters of support for the rezoning of the property. With the location of the property no other 6 individuals would be directly affected by this rezoning. We and Grant Hartel, who is also opposing this rezoning, are the only properties affected. If this property is rezoned our quality of life will be diminished by having multiple people on our private road on a daily basis. We enjoy the quiet location we purchased and the tranquility of sitting on the roof enjoying the beauty of our community. This will also decrease the value of our property. We do not want to financially harm the LaBorde Family and we would be willing to work with Lucie to come to a resolution that would not require the zoning to be changed. With our objection to the rezoning we still have 100% of the private property within 330 feet that object to this rezoning. Please vote "NO" to the rezoning of the Laborde Property Case #Z2018124. We would appreciate the opportunity to speak at the open meeting if that would help you make your decision. We are trying to set up a meeting with Jen Pokorski from Zoning and Planning to discuss the issue. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Thanks for your consideration. Dave 7 David McMurtry 815 685-7012 - Cell 8 Z2018124 Opposition and Support ST 144TH ST N E DIXILETA EE T 136TH C DR MM N JJ ST E V KK 152ND R N X M B GG QQ DD HH LL E RIO VERDE DR NN FF Z O AA CC L BB ST D F 1 a 10 2 G K P PP 6 7 8 3 H I 8TH N 45 9 J 12 N Support Parcels ID Owner Name ID Owner Name A MORRIS PATRICK/DAWN W SOMETHING SPECIAL TRUST B BRIGUGLIO MICHAEL T/JEANINE A X ARTHUR AND CHERRIS WALTON REVO DISCLAIMER: designed agrees to for indemnify, general This map defend reference is a and graphical purposes hold harmless representation only. Viewer/User Maricopa Opposition Parcels C FARRINGTON DOUGLAS E/MARTHA M Y BURGTORF JAMES R/GENEVA A County, from and its against officers, any departments, and all suits, employees actions, legal and or agents D THORKELSON KEITH/MONTGOMERY JE Z REPEC GINGER administrative damages of this map, of or any proceedings, the kind data or contained nature claims, arising herein, demands out in of its the or actual use ID Owner Name E HUNT ANNE C/ROBERT A AA SMOKING ROOSTERS PERFORMANCE H or altered form. 1 WEINHOLD MARK G/CAROLYN F MORRIS JOSHUA/BRITTANY BB SMOKING ROOSTERS PERFORMANCE H Maricopa County OET, GIS 6/11/2019 Division, 2 CABALKA TRUST G ROY POWELL TRUST CC SMOKING ROOSTERS PERFORMANCE L 3 MCBRIDE DAVID C/MELISSA L H ROY POWELL TRUST DD BOWERS REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 4 MCMURTRY FAMILY PROPERTI I ROY POWELL TRUST EE NEWBILL-BURPO SHARON Parcel Interstate Highway 5 MCMURTRY FAMILY PROPERTI J ROY POWELL TRUST FF NORMAN AND CAROL BROWBN MERGE State\US\Other Highway 6 WALDREN GEORGE IV K ROY POWELL TRUST GG AQUINO RICHARD A/DEBORAH A Interchange\Ramp 7 BOUDREAU DONALD D/JENNIF L ROBERTS KEVIN O/MERZ WILLIAM D HH TAUBER MITCHELL L/INGRID Arterial Local 8 MCMURTRY FAMILY PROPERTI M BALVIN DALE D/JAMEE A II MCCURDY MICHAEL L/MARY SUSAN TR Subject Parcel 9 HERTEL GRANT/SUSAN N ECKHOLM RYAN C JJ PITEK MICHAEL/MICHELE Supporting Not Opposed Parcels Parcel 10 REPEC ERIC J/OGDEN REPEC M O HOLZER RYAN A/JAMALIE MAE KK CALLAN MICHAEL A Opposition Parcels P NEUMANN KEVIN/NABITY KAREN LL KELLEY EDWARD J JR/LISA A No Opposition Parcels Q HURD TROON CENTER NO 2 LLC MM SMITH ROBERT M/TERI S R COLLINS THOMAS JR/LISA ANN NN STOBBE TRUST Ü ID OwnerName S PEARCE RAYMOND F JR/SUSAN E OO SIMPSON MICHAEL/JENNIFER a REPEC ERIC J/OGDEN REPEC MARIE T OLEN CARL M/MARYANN PP DYER RICHARD D 0.45 0.225 0 0.45 Miles U BISZANTZ EDWARD F/HENRY-BISANTZ QQ CLAPP PAMELA LAVOIE/TIMOTHY V BROWN PATRICK M/LEATRICE J 301S 4th Ave, Suite 200, Phoenix, Arizona 85003, (602) 506-7116 www.maricopa.gov/technology Document Path: \\giswork.maricopa.gov\GISWork\JohnsonS\OppositionCases\Z2018124\Z2018124_Vicinity.mxd Z2018124 All Supporting Parcels OO W II S U Y A SCOTTSDALE SCOTTSDALE EE T C MM JJ E KK V R GG QQ DD X M B HH LL Q FF Z NN ID APN ID APN O A 219-41-172B L 219-39-210 AA BB AA 219-39-384 LL 219-39-006N F L CC G B 219-37-568V M 219-37-474 D P N PP H I K BB 219-39-385 MM 219-37-634 J C 219-39-232 N 219-39-035C CC 219-39-355C NN 219-39-076P D 219-39-085B O 219-39-170V DD 219-39-270 OO 219-36-075B E 219-39-113F P 219-39-086B EE 219-41-024H PP 219-39-121F F 219-39-086A Q 216-81-380 FF 219-39-224A QQ 219-39-123A G 219-39-349C R 219-39-074F GG 219-39-186L S 219-40-269B H 219-39-349H T 219-41-004J HH 219-37-568P U 219-40-049E I 219-39-349G V 219-39-065N DISCLAIMER: departments, use of this map, employees This or the map data is and a contained graphical agents from herein, representation and in against its actual designed any or and altered all for suits, general form. actions, reference legal purposes or administrative only. Viewer/User proceedings, agrees claims, to indemnify, demands defend or damages and hold of any harmless kind or Maricopa nature arising County, out its of the officers, II 219-40-039R W 219-40-286 Maricopa County OET, GIS Division, 6/11/2019 J 219-39-033 X 219-39-255 Ü JJ 219-39-014D Y 219-40-049F Subject Parcel K 219-39-034 Z 219-39-076Q Supporting Parcels 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles KK 219-39-064A 301S 4th Ave, Suite 200, Phoenix, Arizona 85003, (602) 506-7116 www.maricopa.gov/technology Document Path: \\giswork.maricopa.gov\GISWork\JohnsonS\OppositionCases\Z2018124\Z2018124_AllSupport.mxd