Extracted text (via pymupdf)
46526 characters
December 9, 2020 Z2020011 Page 1 of 3 Report to the Board of Supervisors Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Board Hearing Date: December 9, 2020 (Cont. from November 18, 2020) Case #/Title: Z2020011 – Eagletail Airstrip Supervisor District: 5 Applicant/Owner: Gretchen House & Michael Tragarz, 99AZ Eagletail Runway Association Request: Modification of Condition for permanent extension of Special Use Permit (SUP) Z 99-87 for a private airstrip/runway in the Rural-43 zoning district Site Location: Generally located between Broadway Rd. and Southern Ave. approximately ¼ mile west of 539th Ave., in the Harquahala area Site Size: Approximately 7.52 acres County Island Status: N/A Additional Comments: The applicants are requesting a modification of condition ‘d’ of Special Use Permit (SUP) Z 99-87, to renew the SUP and allow continued use of Eagletail Airstrip without expiration / validity period. Staff received 6 opposition letters/emails (and attachments) representing 4 parties and 4 properties part of, or adjacent to, the subject property. Staff also received 19 support letters/emails (and attachments) representing 13 parties and 19 properties part of, or adjacent to, the subject property. Staff received 1 letter of concern from the Harquahala Fire District. Shown below is the existing language of Z 99-87 condition ‘d’ d. This Special Use Permit shall expire 20 years from the date of approval by the Board of Supervisors. The requested modification of condition ‘d’ is shown with new language underlined and bold. Staff notes that the original approved narrative report with Z 99-87 will remain as the original approved document. The changes to stipulation ‘d’ will only reference the requested modification of condition. d. This Special Use Permit shall be in perpetuity or shall expire upon termination of the use. Any improvements December 9, 2020 Z2020011 Page 2 of 3 associated exclusively with the SUP shall be removed within 180 days of such expiration. Commission Recommendation: On October 22, 2020, the Commission voted 8-0 to recommend approval of Z2020011 with waiver to the Runway Protection Zones and Obstacle Free Zones per MCZO Art. 1111.3, subject to conditions ‘a’ – ‘j’: a. Development shall comply with the site plan, entitled "Site Plan of Eagletail Airstrip,”, consisting of 4 sheets, dated November 18, 1999 and stamped received February 24, 2020 except as modified by the following stipulations. b. Development shall comply with the provisions in the narrative report entitled "Eagletail Airstrip, Maricopa County, Arizona Special Use Permit Narrative Report", consisting of 8 pages, dated February 10, 2020 stamped received February 24, 2020 except as modified by the following stipulations. c. The applicant shall submit a written report outlining the status of the development at the end of five years from the date of approval by the Board of Supervisors. The status report shall be reviewed by staff to determine whether the special use is compatible with the surrounding area. d. This Special Use Permit shall be in perpetuity or shall expire upon termination of the use. Any improvements associated exclusively with the SUP shall be removed within 180 days of such expiration. e. All outdoor lighting shall conform to Section 2318 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. f. Major changes to this Special Use Permit must be processed as a revised application with approval by the Board of Supervisors upon recommendation of the Commission. The Department of Planning and Development may administratively approve minor changes. g. No person shall operate, maintain, use or allow the use of any area larger than 5,000 square feet for the parking, storage, servicing or dispatching of motor vehicles without first implementing reasonably available control measures to effectively prevent or minimize fugitive dust. h. After zoning approval, but prior to issuance of any building permits or the issuance of a drainage clearance, the developer or his representatives must contact the Flood Control Permitting Office. i. Non-compliance with the regulations administered by the Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, Maricopa County Department of Transportation or the Maricopa County Flood Control District may be grounds for initiating a revocation of this Special Use Permit as set forth in Section 2806 of the Zoning Ordinance. December 9, 2020 Z2020011 Page 3 of 3 j. The number of flights per month shall be unlimited. Presented by: Sean Watkins, Planner Reviewed by: Darren Gerard, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: 10/22/20 P&Z Packet (141 pages) PZ Appeal Form (2 pages) Comments Received After PZ (2 pages) Note: 10/22/20 Draft P&Z Minutes are not available as of the writing of this report, but can be provided upon request later when available. Z2020011 Page 1 of 8 Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: Z2020011 – Eagletail Airstrip Hearing Date: October 22, 2020 (cont. from July 23, 2020, September 10, 2020, September 24, 2020 & October 8, 2020) Supervisor District: 5 (* Denotes changes from the July 23, 2020 Commission staff report.) Applicant: Gretchen House & Michael Tragarz, 99AZ Eagletail Runway Association Owner: 99AZ Eagletail Runway Association Request: Modification of Condition for permanent extension of Special Use Permit (SUP) Z 99-87 for a private airstrip/runway in the Rural-43 zoning district Site Location: Generally located between Broadway Rd. and Southern Ave. approximately ¼ mile west of 539th Ave., in the Harquahala area Site Size: Approx. 7.52 acres Density: N/A County Island: No County Plan: Rural Development Area Municipal Plan: N/A Municipal Comments: None received * Opposition: 6 opposition letters/emails (and attachments) representing 4 parties, 2 households and 4 properties part of or adjacent to the subject property * Support: 18 support letters/emails (and attachments) representing 13 parties, 1 household and 19 properties part of or adjacent to the subject property Recommendation: Approve with conditions Z2020011 Page 2 of 8 Project Summary: 1. * The applicants are requesting a modification of condition ‘d’ of SUP Z 99-87, to renew the SUP and allow continued use of Eagletail Airstrip in perpetuity. SUP Z 99-87 was approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 5, 2000. That approval was to expire on April 5, 2020, however, on April 22, 2020 the County Board of Supervisors (BOS) approved a resolution (C-44-20-109-M-00) to extend all deadlines with critical dates from March 1, 2020 to July 1, 2020 for 120 days. Accordingly, the deadline for Z 99-87 was extended to August 22, 2020. On August 19, 2020 the BOS approved another resolution (C-44-21-032-X-00) to extend all deadlines with critical dates from March 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020 for 1 year from the date of the resolution. Accordingly, the current expiration of Z 99-87 is August 19, 2021. On July 22, 2020 the applicants requested, and were granted, a continuance of this case in order to address new legal arguments proposed by opposing legal counsel, and to allow the applicants and their legal counsel additional time to attempt to resolve outstanding concerns. On September 1, 2020 the applicants requested and were granted, a continuance of this case from the September 10, 2020 Commission hearing to the September 24, 2020 Commission hearing to allow additional time to establish dialogue with opposing residents. The case was continued from the September 24, 2020 Commission hearing to the October 8, 2020 Commission hearing because the quorum was lost at the September 24, 2020 Commission hearing before the case could be heard. The case was continued from the October 8, 2020 Commission hearing to today’s Commission hearing to allow additional time to establish dialogue with the as yet opposing residents. 2. Eagletail Airstrip is an approximately 3,280’ x 100’ (7.52 acre) private landing strip on the Eagletail Mountain Ranch. The strip bisects 11 approximately 40-acre parcels having 8 separate ownerships generally located between Broadway Road and Southern Avenue, and approximately 0.25 mile west of 539th Avenue, in the Harquahala area. 3. Violation V201902093 was opened and a Notice of Complaint was mailed to the Flying Ranch Properties LLC on November 15, 2019 in response to a complaint regarding alleged non-compliance of stipulations of approval of SUP Z 99-87, specifically, unpermitted runway lighting. Code Enforcement followed-up on the complaint by visiting the subject property on January 6, 2020. No runway lighting was found and the complaint was determined to be invalid. Accordingly, the violation case was closed with no further action required. 4. Shown below is the existing language of Z 99-87 condition ‘d’ d. This Special Use Permit shall expire 20 years from the date of approval by the Board of Supervisors. The requested modification of condition ‘d’ is shown with new language underlined and bold. Staff notes that the original approved narrative report with Z 99-87 will remain as the original approved document. The changes to stipulation ‘d’ will only reference the requested modification of condition. d. This Special Use Permit shall be in perpetuity or shall expire upon termination of the use. Any improvements associated exclusively with the SUP shall be removed within 180 days of such expiration. Z2020011 Page 3 of 8 2018 Aerial Photo (SUP Area Outlined in Red) * SUP Area Ownership and Support/Opposition Status Z2020011 Page 4 of 8 Zoning Map (SUP Area Outlined in Red) Site Plan Rural-190 Rural-43 Rural-43 Z2020011 Page 5 of 8 Existing On-Site and Adjacent Zoning / Land Use: 5. On-site: Rural-43 / Graded & Compacted Airstrip North: Rural-43 / Vacant and Single-Family Residential South: Rural-43 / Vacant and Single-Family Residential East: Rural-43 / Vacant West: Rural-190 / Vacant (state trust land) Utilities and Services: 6. Water: Private wells (Eagletail Water Company) Wastewater: Septic School District: Arlington Elementary School District #47, Buckeye Union High School District #1 Fire: Harquahala Valley Fire District Police: MCSO Right-of-Way: 7. The following table includes existing and proposed half-width right-of-way and the future classification based upon the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) Major Streets and Routes Plan. Street Name Half-width Existing R/W Half-width Proposed R/W Future Classification 539th Avenue 55’ 55’ Minor Arterial 547th Avenue 0’ 0’ None Adopted Plan: 8. Comprehensive Plan Vision 2030 (adopted January 2016): The plan designates the area as Rural Development Area. Public Participation Summary: 9. * The applicant complied with the Maricopa County Public Participation Process with the required site postings and notification by first class mail to the adjacent property owners within 300’ of the subject site and interested parties. To date staff has received opposition from four parties: Irene & Lyle Spargo and Stephanie & Stephen Kooistra. Irene & Lyle Spargo own one of the parcels that comprise the SUP area (APN: 506-27-055A) and an adjacent parcel (506-27-055B), which includes an apparent residence and an aircraft hangar with access to the airstrip. The Spargos oppose the current SUP renewal and inclusion of their property in it because they oppose the commercial (crop dusting) operations that have apparently been taking place at the airstrip, which they believe were never part of the intent of the SUP. Additionally, the Spargos believe the crop dusting aircraft create more noise and dust than non-commercial aircraft would produce. Finally, the Spargos do not believe that the materials submitted by Ms. House and Mr. Tragarz (on behalf of the 99AZ Eagletail Runway Association) provide authority to proceed with the current request over their objections. Similarly, Stephanie & Stephen Kooistra own one of the parcels that comprise the SUP area (APN: 506-27-059E) and an adjacent parcel (506-27-059D), which includes a residence and apparent access to the Z2020011 Page 6 of 8 airstrip. The Kooistras also do not believe that the materials submitted by Ms. House and Mr. Tragarz (on behalf of the 99AZ Eagletail Runway Association) provide authority to proceed with the current request over their objections. 10. * To date staff has received support from 13 parties who represent the balance of SUP area properties that are not owned by the Spargos or Kooistras, and all of the other properties that are directly adjacent to the SUP area (see “SUP Area Ownership and Support/Opposition Status” on page 3). Outstanding Concerns from Reviewing Agencies: 11. Staff has received no comments of concern from reviewing agencies including Luke Air Force Base, the Arizona State Land Department, the Arizona Department of Transportation, or the Federal Aviation Administration. Staff Analysis: 12. * County records indicate that Eagletail Airstrip has adhered to the stipulations of approval for SUP Z 99-87. Staff found no valid zoning violations on record in association with the SUP area. V201902093 was opened on November 15, 2019 alleging non-compliance with the conditions of approval associated with SUP Z 99-87 (runway lighting); however, staff found the complaint to be invalid (no permanent runway lighting was found) and closed the violation case. V202000895 was opened on May 12, 2020 alleging aircraft operations on a closed runway; however, the original April 5, 2020 expiration date for SUP Z 99-87 was extended to August 5, 2020 by Board of Supervisors Resolution C-44-20-109-M-00 (April 22, 2020). Accordingly, V202000895 was determined to be invalid and was closed. Staff has received information that suggests commercial aviation operations (specifically crop dusting) may be taking place at the airstrip. It appears that SUP Z 99-87 would not provide for that activity under paragraph ‘D’ of the approved narrative report, which states: “Due to the Airstrip's "private" status, immediate air and ground traffic will be limited to the Owners, those who have permission to use it and emergency situations. It will operate under Visual Flight Rules only. No artificial light is provided to illuminate the Airstrip, therefore the Airstrip's hours of operation will be limited exclusively to daylight hours. The Airstrip will be used by approximately eight (8) users consistently (the Owners). On average, approximately ten (10) flights per month will occur on the Airstrip. These flights will be made in small single engine or small twin engine aircraft.” Notwithstanding questions of adequate property owner authorization for this application, staff is supportive of the current request for a perpetual SUP. Reviewing County agencies have no objection to the modification of conditions. Recommendation: 13. For the reasons outlined in this report, staff recommends the Commission motion for Approval, subject to stipulations ‘a’ – ‘j’ of Z 99-87 including modified condition ‘d’: (All other stipulations associated with Z 99-87 shall remain in effect.) Z2020011 Page 7 of 8 a. Development shall comply with the site plan, entitled "Site Plan of Eagletail Airstrip,”, consisting of 4 sheets, dated November 18, 1999 and stamped received February 24, 2020 except as modified by the following stipulations. b. Development shall comply with the provisions in the narrative report entitled "Eagletail Airstrip, Maricopa County, Arizona Special Use Permit Narrative Report", consisting of 8 pages, dated February 10, 2020 stamped received February 24, 2020 except as modified by the following stipulations. c. The applicant shall submit a written report outlining the status of the development at the end of five years from the date of approval by the Board of Supervisors. The status report shall be reviewed by staff to determine whether the special use is compatible with the surrounding area. d. This Special Use Permit shall be in perpetuity or shall expire upon termination of the use. Any improvements associated exclusively with the SUP shall be removed within 180 days of such expiration. e. All outdoor lighting shall conform to Section 2318 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. f. Major changes to this Special Use Permit must be processed as a revised application with approval by the Board of Supervisors upon recommendation of the Commission. The Department of Planning and Development may administratively approve minor changes. g. No person shall operate, maintain, use or allow the use of any area larger than 5,000 square feet for the parking, storage, servicing or dispatching of motor vehicles without first implementing reasonably available control measures to effectively prevent or minimize fugitive dust. h. After zoning approval, but prior to issuance of any building permits or the issuance of a drainage clearance, the developer or his representatives must contact the Flood Control Permitting Office. i. Non-compliance with the regulations administered by the Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, Maricopa County Department of Transportation or the Maricopa County Flood Control District may be grounds for initiating a revocation of this Special Use Permit as set forth in Section 2806 of the Zoning Ordinance. j. The number of flights per month shall be unlimited. Z2020011 Page 8 of 8 Presented by: Sean Watkins, Planner Reviewed by: Matthew Holm, AICP, Planning Supervisor Attachments: Case map (1 page) * Opposition Comments (75 pages) * Support Comments (18 pages) Narrative Report (8 pages) Site Plan (reduced 8.5 x11, 4 pages) MCENG comments (1 page) MCENV comments (1 page) Luke AFB comments (3 pages) Arizona State Land Department comments (4 pages) Arizona Department of Transportation comments (1 page) * Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Incident Report (16 pages) * Pew & Lake Request for Continuance for 9/10/20 PZ hearing (1 page) * Pew & Lake Request for Continuance for 10/8/20 PZ hearing (1 page) MARICOPA COUNTY / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 5 Gross Acres: 7.52 approx. Generated June 22, 2020 14:54 PM Z2020011 Application Name: Legal Description EAGLETAIL AIRSTRIP Applicant Case Address T01N R09W 030, T1N R09W 30 MICHAEL TRAGARZ Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary: 506-27-062F 602.628.0243 MICHAELTRAGARZ@GMAIL.COM Map scale 1:12,984 Supervisor District No. EAGLETAIL AIRSTRIP FAA 99AZ RENEWAL 7 /L3l2o Stephen and Stephanie Kooistra Eagletail Ranch 5205 S. 547th Ave. Tonopah, AZ 85354 Pancels: 506-27 -059D 506-27 -O59E Maricopa County Planning and Development 501 N. 44th St. Ste. #200 Phoenix, AZ 85008 RE: CASE #Z2O2AO11 Eagletail Airstrip Attention: Sean Watkins, We wish to let it be known, that Mr. Tragarz never had authorization to represent Stephen and Stephanie Kooistra, owners of the Eagletail Ranch which includes part of the AZ99 airstrip. We wish to declare that we have never authorized Mr. Tragarz to act as our agent or to represent Eagletail Ranch . We strongly oppose the renewal of the SUP for the AZ99 airstrip. oate 7/5;2t=, 7/t2/2O20 Irene Spargo 54651W. Sunland Rd. Tonopah, AZ 85354 Maricopa County Planning and Development 501 N. 44th St. Suite#200 Phoenix, AZ 85008 Parcels: so6-27 -O5SA 506-27 -0558 RE: CASE # 22020011 Eagletail Airstrip Attention: Sean Watkins, As a matter of record, Mr. Tragarz never directly to represent my interest in airstrip A299. Since I Deed for Lyle and lrene Spargo, I wish to declare nor would l. notified me nor requested my signature for his authorization am an owner on both the Joint Tenancy and the Warranty that I have never authorized Mr. Tragarz to act as my agent, I also question how many other Joint property owners of record have never granted authorization? I strongly oppose renewal of airstrip 99AZ which originally expired on April 5,2020. The 20 year contract has been completed and did not require an extension or making an expiration date retroactive or any other manipulations. From: lyle spargo To: Sean Watkins (PND) Subject: Special Use Permit Z99-87 Date: Thursday, February 27, 2020 3:54:33 PM Importance: High Sean, I reached out to Ombudsman Garcia in June of 2019 when it became clear to me that Michael Tragarz intended to try and renew the SUP against my wishes. Her response (below) assured me that my signature authorizing the inclusion of my property was required. Mr. Tragarz has an old form 504 which I signed in 2005 when we were considering a runway owners association. This does not give him Power of Attorney to sign the SUP application on my behalf. He intends to use that as proof that he speaks for me. Ombudsman Garcia stated: Kathryn Garcia (PND) <Kathryn.Garcia@Maricopa.Gov> Mon 6/24/2019 9:07 AM You Mr. Spargo, Thank you for reaching out to me in regards to your concerns. The Special Use Permit (SUP) renewal will require property owner authorization. You can write a formal letter explaining your ownership and the desire for the zoning to not be renewed/extended then Planning and Development will save that letter in the SUP case file for future reference. If you’d like to be proactive and organize all of the property owners of the SUP in the area to sign a petition requesting Planning and Development have the Board of Supervisors revoke the Special Use Permit that is also an option. If you have further questions about either of these process or would like to submit a letter you can send it to or contact Rachel Applegate, I have included her contact information below. Rachel Applegate Senior Planner Planning & Development 602-372-0318 Rachel.Applegate@maricopa.gov Please feel free to contact me if you have any challenges. Thank you! Kathryn Garcia RS Ombudsman Maricopa County Planning and Development Department 501 N. 44th St., Phoenix, AZ 85008 Desk | 602-506-0495 I did contact Rachel Applegate and she assured me she would keep track and let me know if an application to amend the SUP was received. I just want to be sure that my protest is noted and that I DO NOT want to include my property in any SUP for Eagletail Airstrip Z99-87. Any guidance you can provide is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Lyle Spargo Parcel# 506-27-055A/B Since we are destined to live out our lives in the prison of our minds, our one duty is to furnish it well. From: lyle spargo To: Sean Watkins (PND); Stephen Brower; Stephanie Kooistra Subject: Re: Z2020011 - Eagletail Airstrip SUP Renewal Date: Thursday, July 16, 2020 11:33:49 AM Attachments: Irene Protest.pdf Kooistra Protest.pdf lyle Protest.pdf Sean, I am highly disappointed in this Report and its recommendation for approval. Apparently the MCZoning Ordinance requirement for property owner approval doesn't carry much weight. The post card notice you sent out stated, "Submit, questions/comments one week prior to the hearing date" That is unclear at best and misleading to most English speakers. If the comments needed to be submitted more than 1 week prior to the meeting, it should have been stated that way. I have been waiting until today to send in my comments!!! See attached objections. Lyle Spargo From: Sean Watkins (PND) <Sean.Watkins@Maricopa.Gov> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 11:00 AM To: lyle spargo <lyle_spargo@hotmail.com> Subject: Z2020011 - Eagletail Airstrip SUP Renewal Hello Mr. Spargo, The SUP update is going before the Planning and Zoning Commission (PnZ) on 7/23. Please see the meeting agenda and staff report, attached. The meeting is virtual, so please register to attend to speak ASAP by following the directions in the attached agenda. Thank you! Sean Watkins Planner Maricopa County Planning & Development Department 501 N. 44th Street, Suite 200, Phoenix, AZ 85008 Desk: 602-506-8150 sean.watkins@maricopa.gov I protest the renewal of Eagletail Airstrip 99AZ for the following reason: ln the original Deed Restrictions presented when I bought my property under the heading: "Desiring to establish the nature of use and enjoyment thereof," it stated: "premises shall be limited to residential uses, farming of agricultural use not contributing well recognized public or private nuisance through odor, sight or sound." "for personal use" "to preserve the openness of Eagletail Ranches, no parcel may be subdivided into less than ten (10) acres." ln the new deed restrictions were proposed and voted on, primarily by non-resident land owners who neither use nor enjoy their property at Eagletail Airstrip. The amended Deed Restrictions allow: Premises limited to residential and commercial uses in compliance with zoning provisions. (RU43) lwould not have bought property on a commercial runway. Note that these are Deed Restrictions and not amendments to the SUP. The SUP for the airstrip was not granted for commercia! operations When we petitioned the county for the SUP in 2000, the Narrative Report described: A private residential airstrip that is peaceful and open for the use of the residents. "the owners purchased their parcels with the anticipation of using the airstrip for personal use." Due to the airstrip's private status, traffic will be limited to owners, those who have permission to use it and emergency situations. ln Section 4 paragraph B of the Narrative Report: "The owner's enjoyment of their property will be enhanced without compromising the use and enjoyment of other property owners." All these assurances to the county and property owners clearly indicated the airstrip would not be used for commercial aviation operations. The new deed restrictions also allowed subdivision of parcels as small as 2.5 acres. When I bought the property, all parcels were 40 acres. I grudgingly agreed to the 10 acre subdivision provision. 2.5 acres does not promote a feeling of openness when you are out in the wilderness area. The residential pilot community did not materialize in the 20 years since the origina! SUP was granted. ln the past year, the majority of aircraft operations from the runway have been high powered crop dusters that create a nuisance of chemical contamination, dust, and noise. The runway is a liability to those of us who live near the runway and detracts from our use and enjoyment of our property. lt degrades our quality of life. DO NOT RENEW THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT. Lyle Spargo Parcel 506-27-O55A Parcel 506-27-0558 Phone (602) 42L-4833 lyle_spargo@hotmail.com From: lyle spargo To: Sean Watkins (PND) Subject: Re: Z2020011 - Eagletail Airstrip SUP Renewal Date: Thursday, July 16, 2020 2:16:46 PM One more comment you can add. To: Sean Watkins and all concerned with the renewal application for 99AZ Eagletail Ranch Airstrip When I bought my property some 26 years ago I negotiated with Bill O’Brien directly. We discussed his vision for an Eagletail Residential Fly-in community of pilot owners. The Original design was 40 acre parcels. That was the density I wanted. The attraction was the openness and low density living that would limit the congestion and conflict of suburban Airparks. I conceded to the existing Deed Restrictions that allowed subdivision to 10 acre parcels hoping that the other owners would refrain from chopping their property up into tiny 10 acre parcels and ruining the openness that drew me to Eagletail. In late 1999, early 2000 some of the land owners decided they wanted to force Mr. O’Brien to get a Special Use Permit for Eagletail Airstrip. I cannot be sure what the motives were for this move. The other owners seemed to think there was a mandate and since Bill had spent the money on legal services to get it done, I agreed with the SUP and actively participated in the process to get it done. Initially some of the owners would meet to plan how to surface the runway and improve the taxiways. There was even discussion to form a separate LLC of the runway property. Each property owner would parcel off the 83 foot easement and deed it to an LLC. This runway parcel would in turn be given to the county in return for assuming runway maintenance. Our hope in this fantasy was that the county would pave and light the runway, thereby bringing power to our property. I think this is where the original suggestion of 2.5 acre subdivisions was proposed. 2001 brought dramatic changes to the way people looked at airplanes. The discussions on the Airstrip trailed off and stopped. One of the Part time residents (Bert Hook) moved to another airpark and John Fredricks moved back East a short time later. The only remaining resident Dennis Culp was the non-pilot rancher at that time operating Eagletail Ranch. In 2002 I put a house on my property and moved my home of record to Eagletail. Since 2002 no property owner, save for Mr. Kooistra and me, has made any improvements to their land. They have surveyed their land, subdivided their land, but have done nothing to make their raw land more valuable. In 2009 there was a push to amend the deed restrictions to allow subdivision of parcels to 2.5 acres. Additionally, there was the addition of commercial uses for farming of agricultural use not constituting a well recognizable public or private nuisance through odor, sight or sound. I was clearly against this change and was the only property owner to vote against the change. Since Charlie (Stephen Kooistra) moved to Eagletail Ranch more than 15 years ago, he and I have done all the maintenance on the airstrip, save for a time in 2012 when the summer rains did extensive damage to the East end of the runway. That time we asked each owner to contribute ~$9.40 per acre to hire the equipment and operator needed to repair the damage and put in proper drainage ditches. If the other property owners use the runway as Mr. Tragarz claims they do, they do so at our expense, never offering to contribute for our time, equipment and fuel. In 2018 we all received a notice from Michael Tragarz saying that we needed to renew the SUP. Since my copy of the SUP clearly expired in 2020 I questioned the need to apply 2 years early. This is when Mr. Tragarz started his campaign against me. Most of his emails to the property owners tried to assert his superior understanding of the real estate law and what creates value. I explained in response to these rants that: In 2020 when the SUP is actually due for renewal, my property will not be part of the SUP. Listed below is my reasoning. FAA data shows: between 2002 and 2018 General aviation for personal use has declined by 25% General Aviation airports are being abandoned with great frequency. The general population is becoming more urban/suburban than rural. The population of Harquahala Valley is declining. The farmers are pumping the aquifer down and drying up domestic wells. Less than ½ of 1% of all potential property buyers are pilots. For non-pilots, a runway nearby is a negative and reduces marketability. In January of 2019 my decision to not participate in the SUP was validated. One afternoon I discovered a Commercial Crop Duster idling on the end of the runway, awaiting a truck to refill his chemical tanks. When I told the pilot Eagletail Airstrip is a Private Residential Airstrip and commercial operations are not allowed, he said his boss, who had purchased a parcel from Michael Tragarz, had told him that commercial operations were allowed. A debate with Mr. Tragarz ensued and I again reaffirmed to all Property owners that my property will not be part of any renewal of the SUP. Although I firmly believe that commercial aviation is not allowed by the SUP or the Deed Restrictions I decided not to take the matter to the County Board of Supervisors and Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Rather, I felt I could put up with the noise, dust, and chemical hazard for a year and the problem would resolve itself in the expiration of the SUP. My wait is coming to an end. I bought the property over 5 years before it had a SUP and it is still the same property. I have lived here nearly 18 years. I use and enjoy my property. It is not the right of others that neither use nor enjoy their property to dictate what rights I should relinquish. Lyle Spargo Parcels 506-27-055A and 506-27-055B For your reference In the Narrative Report under: II. Description of Proposal Paragraph 3 starts with: Each of the owners of the eight (8) forty (40) acre sections (the “Owners”) own private airplanes. The Owners purchased their parcels with the anticipation of using the airstrip for personal use. IV. Benefits to Community B. Use and Enjoyment of Property The Owners enjoyment of their property will be enhanced without compromising the use and enjoyment of other property owners. The new deed restrictions state: 1) The Premises shall be limited to: a.) Residential and commercial uses and normal accessory activities which may include pets normally considered house pets. Non-residential uses shall be in compliance with zoning provisions now or subsequently established. Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance SECTION 503. RURAL-43 (Rural Zoning District - One Acre Per Dwelling Unit) ARTICLE 503.1. PURPOSE: The principal purpose of this zoning district is to conserve and protect farms and other open land uses, foster orderly growth in rural and agricultural areas, prevent urban and agricultural land use conflicts, and encourage sustainable development, but when governmental facilities and services, public utilities and street access are available, or can reasonably be made available, applications for change of this zoning district to any single-family residential zoning district will be given favorable consideration. Principal uses permitted in this zoning district include both farm and non-farm residential uses, farms and recreational and institutional uses.*2 ARTICLE 503.2. USE REGULATIONS: The use regulations are the same as those in the Rural-190 Zoning District. SECTION 501. RURAL-190 (Rural Zoning District - 190,000 Square Feet Per Dwelling Unit) ARTICLE 501.2. USE REGULATIONS: A building or premises shall be used only for the following purposes: 1. One single-family dwelling per lot of record.*5 2. Churches and houses of worship, including accessory columbarium provided that the building area of the columbarium shall not exceed 10% of the total building area of the church building(s).*8, *39 3. Gardens, community gardens and farms, as defined in Chapter 2.*37 4. Group homes for not more than ten persons, subject to the following performance criteria:*11, *16 5. Schools, elementary and high.*19, *27, *39 6. Public and private forests and wildlife reservations. 7. Service to the public of water, gas, electricity, telephone and cable television. The foregoing shall be deemed to include without limitation, distribution, collector and feeder lines, pumping or booster stations along pipelines, and substations along electric transmission lines. (This does not include public utility treatment and generating plants.)*5, *18, *39 8. Golf courses including clubhouses located thereon, but not including miniature courses or practice driving tees operated for commercial purposes. 9. Libraries, museums, parks, playgrounds and community buildings, provided such uses are conducted on a nonprofit basis.*1 10. Home occupations, subject to the following:*10, *39, *41 e. The business shall not generate any noise (if the noise would be considered to have an adverse impact on the surrounding residential neighborhood per the Maricopa County Noise Ordinance), vibration, smoke, dust, odors, heat, glare, or electrical interference with radio or television transmission in the area that would exceed that normally produced by a dwelling unit in a zoning district used solely for residential purposes. f. No mechanical equipment or power tools shall be used, except that used for normal household purposes if the noise would be considered to have an adverse impact on the surrounding residential neighborhood per the Maricopa County Noise Ordinance. From: Sean Watkins (PND) <Sean.Watkins@Maricopa.Gov> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 11:52 AM To: lyle spargo <lyle_spargo@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: Z2020011 - Eagletail Airstrip SUP Renewal Mr. Spargo, All of your comments (today’s and previous), the comments you forwarded today and comments submitted by others to date are in the project record for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Thank you, Sean Watkins Planner Maricopa County Planning & Development Department 501 N. 44th Street, Suite 200, Phoenix, AZ 85008 Desk: 602-506-8150 sean.watkins@maricopa.gov From: lyle spargo <lyle_spargo@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 11:32 AM To: Sean Watkins (PND) <Sean.Watkins@Maricopa.Gov>; Stephen Brower <sbrower@brentwoodlg.com>; Stephanie Kooistra <s.kooistra@aol.com> Subject: Re: Z2020011 - Eagletail Airstrip SUP Renewal Sean, I am highly disappointed in this Report and its recommendation for approval. Apparently the MCZoning Ordinance requirement for property owner approval doesn't carry much weight. The post card notice you sent out stated, "Submit, questions/comments one week prior to the hearing date" That is unclear at best and misleading to most English speakers. If the comments needed to be submitted more than 1 week prior to the meeting, it should have been stated that way. I have been waiting until today to send in my comments!!! See attached objections. Lyle Spargo From: Sean Watkins (PND) <Sean.Watkins@Maricopa.Gov> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2020 11:00 AM To: lyle spargo <lyle_spargo@hotmail.com> Subject: Z2020011 - Eagletail Airstrip SUP Renewal Hello Mr. Spargo, The SUP update is going before the Planning and Zoning Commission (PnZ) on 7/23. Please see the meeting agenda and staff report, attached. The meeting is virtual, so please register to attend to speak ASAP by following the directions in the attached agenda. Thank you! Sean Watkins Planner Maricopa County Planning & Development Department 501 N. 44th Street, Suite 200, Phoenix, AZ 85008 Desk: 602-506-8150 sean.watkins@maricopa.gov From: Rachel Applegate (PND) To: Darren V. Gérard (PND); Matthew Holm (PND); Sean Watkins (PND) Subject: FW: Your assurances Re: Z99-87 SUP renewal 6/24/2019 Date: Thursday, July 30, 2020 2:43:11 PM Attachments: DISCREPANCIES OF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.docx Special Use Permit complete.pdf FINAL Staff Report Reduced.pdf From: lyle spargo <lyle_spargo@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2020 1:59 PM To: Kathryn Garcia (PND) <Kathryn.Garcia@Maricopa.Gov>; Rachel Applegate (PND) <Rachel.Applegate@Maricopa.Gov> Subject: Your assurances Re: Z99-87 SUP renewal 6/24/2019 Rachel Applegate Senior Planner Planning & Development 602-372-0318 Rachel.Applegate@maricopa.gov Kathryn Garcia RS Ombudsman Desk | 602-506-0495 Kathryn.Garcia@Maricopa.Gov Rachel, Kathryn, I am writing you today because I am still haunted by the fear that SUP Z99-87 for Eagletail Airstrip will somehow be renewed without my approval. I was shocked last month when there was a sign posted at both ends of the aviation easement for a meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, for case # 2020011 to renew the SUP. It seems the non-resident property owners formed an LLC they believe has the right to speak for ALL property owners of the area affected by the SUP. They do not have the authorization to speak for me and my wife, nor are they authorized to speak for Stephen and Stephanie Kooistra owners of parcels 506-27-059D and 506-27-059E who are also strongly opposed to the SUP renewal. Of equal concern is the realization that the supporting documentation for this application was not vetted or fact checked in any way. The application itself was signed by an LLC that does not exist. Even so: The Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission from Sean Watkins, recommended, “Approve with conditions”! His report to the Commission stated that “the original approved narrative report with Z99-87 will remain as the original approved document”. The original narrative report was not attached, instead a modified narrative report authored by Michael Tragarz dated February 10, 2020 was provided as reference. In that original report to the Planning and Zoning Commission dated March 2, 2000, there is considerable mention of Eagletail Ranch and its relationship to the proposed airstrip. Eagletail Ranch is no longer associated with the airstrip in any way. In the Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission for case #2020011 Site Size: Approx. 7.52 acres. This value was pulled from the original narrative report. It was not true then and is not true now. 7.52 acres only describes the 3280’ X 100’ runway itself. In the original Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission dated March 2, 2000 on page 2 of 7 Description of Proposal paragraph 3, the description includes the 33’ vehicular access easements on either side of the runway. It also describes a “Prohibition Zone” that is 1000’ long by 500’ wide either side of the projected centerline of the runway on both ends of the runway. This “Prohibited Zone” is mentioned again in paragraph 6 which references 2308.3. This ordinance is no longer available and was superseded in 2002 with 1111.3 that closely approximates the FAA runway design parameters set forth in AC150-5300-13A chapter 3. An accurate assessment of the proposed site size is: (3280’ X 100’) + ((3280’ X 33’) X 2)) + ((1000’ X 500’) X 4)) =2,544,480 sq. ft. 2,544,480/43,500= 58.49 acres. Even if the proposal is to follow the parameters of 1111.3, the affected area would be 37.55 acres. The graphic depictions within the report almost uniformly designate the 166’ X 5280’ collective easements. Those easements alone total 20.14 acres. It is inconceivable to me that the site size is just the runway and not all the property directly affected by aircraft operations. What about the 2,000,000 square feet of Prohibited Zones? Rather than detail in a lengthy email all the problems I see in this “Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission”, I will attach a document describing what I see. I think these misstatements and errors would be misleading and could possibly bias, a commissioner not intimately familiar with this situation. Give this matter the rigorous scrutiny it deserves. This SUP application should be REJECTED with prejudice. Your timely response is important to allow opportunity to escalate further if necessary. Sincerely, Lyle Spargo Parcel 506-27-055A/506-27-055B 602 421 4833 Attachments: Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission received: 15 July 2020 Original SUP complete Discrepancies DISCREPANCIES OF REPORT TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Page 1 of 7 “Municipal Comments: None Received” Notice of Public Hearings Post Card instructed: “Instructions on how to submit Questions/Comments may be found at: WWW.MARICOPA.GOV/797 one week prior to the hearing date or by contacting the planner as noted below.” Sean Watkins submitted his recommendation to: Approve with conditions Z99-87 on July 15, 2020. Meeting scheduled for July 23, 2020. (wording suggests that you must wait until one week prior to submit questions or comments.) Support/Opposition: Opposition from Lyle Spargo Opposition from Lyle Spargo, Irene Spargo, Stephen Kooistra, Stephanie Kooistra Support: NONE listed Page 2 of 7 PROJECT SUMMARY: “That approval was to expire on April 5, 2020, however, on April Para. 1 22, 2020 the County Board of Supervisors approved a resolution to extend all deadlines with critical dates from March1, 2020 to July 1, 2020 for 120 days.” It was not a deadline, it was an Expiration Date. The expiration date was determined in April 2000. Para. 3 Violation V201902093. “No runway lighting was found and the complaint was found to be invalid. Accordingly, the violation case was closed with no further action.” • Video of twinkling lights at night time was submitted along with complaint by Mr. Spargo. Lights do not meet FAA standards. • Mr. Kooistra spoke with County Representative on the airstrip where the cones with lighting hardware can easily be seen in various photos. • Mr. Tragarz is presently advertising lighted runway property for sale on the internet. “Lighted runway” implies night operations are possible. • The original SUP is restricted to day VFR use only. • Reference Page 4 under “Operations” by Michael Tragarz narrative- “In support of an Arizona State University aviation research group program, the Airstrip owners provided an opportunity and an airstrip environment to design, install and test a unique, private strip marking and lighting system.” • This statement conflicts with the assessment made by the Planning and Zoning Representative who did her evaluation during daylight hours. • After the experiment, the lights were disconnected so they could not be used or give non-standard visual reference. Mr. Tragarz reconnected the lights. Para. 4 d “This Special Use Permit shall be in Perpetuity…” The Board of Supervisors originally declined to grant for” perpetuity” and granted a 20 year timeline only. This is a major change. Stipulation f. Major changes to this Special Use Permit must be processed as a revised application with approval by the Board of Supervisors upon recommendation of the Commission. This “Stip-mod” should be a new application with thorough vetting. Page 3 of 7 Owner Opposition photos are incorrect. The Kooistra’s property is identified in support and not opposition.