Extracted text (via pymupdf)
22974 characters
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.
Page 6 of 7
Outstanding Concerns from Reviewing Agencies
Para.10
No mention of outstanding ADEQ complaints. Mr. Spargo received a response from
Mario Barrios ADEQ (barrios.mario@azdeq.gov). Regarding soil contamination. Dust
issue forwarded to Maricopa County.
Para. 12 d
“All outdoor lighting shall conform to Section 2318 of the Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance.”
MC Zoning Ordinance Section 2318 is nonexistent. Either supply that ordinance as an
attachment or use current applicable ordinance.
Para. i.
Referenced “Section 2806”.
MC Zoning Ordinance Section 2806 is nonexistent. Again, either supply that ordinance
as an attachment or use current applicable ordinance.
Note:
Sent on behalf of Planning and Development Custodian of Records.
Your request Details:
Request #: 3732
Date Submitted: 7/22/2020 12:33:47 PM
Request description: Maricopa County Zoning Ordinances effective in the
year 1999.
Custodian of Records Comments: I have searched and did not locate the
1999 Zoning Ordinance. This request is complete and is now closed.
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION
One Stop Shop photo of Eagletail Airstrip Map describes Gross Acres 7.52 approximate.
Area outlined on map is 20.14 Acres.
Email to Sean Watkins dated February 27, 2020 (attachment included)
Discloses Mr. Spargo contacted Ombudsman Kathryn Garcia, who assured Mr.
Spargo that his signature for authorization of the inclusion of his property was
required (6/24/2019.)
EAGLETAIL AIRSTRIP APPLICATION Received February 24, 2020
I.
Description of Proposal-
“For approximately thirty five years (55) years the Ranch..”
Numerical disparity. (Eagletail Ranch is irrelevant anyway)
The Property is confined within the boundaries of the Ranch…
Eagletail Ranch East boundary is 547th Ave. (West of the proposed SUP.)
“The airstrip has also been used by…local farmers in support of their agricultural
requirements.” This started in 2019 and was not part of the original Narrative.
Crop dusting is a commercial activity. Commercial aviation operations were not
considered in the original SUP narrative.
This seems to be a violation of the spirit and intent of the 2000 SUP.
II
Relationship to Surrounding Boundaries
“The remaining owners provided the Manager, Michael Tragarz to manage the
affairs of the Special Use Permit and the airstrip operations at the first and
subsequent five (5) year status updates on file with the County.”
•
Signatures obtained were for one 5 year Report only.
•
All required signatures by spouses not obtained.
1
Physical Boundaries
“no other neighbors located within three hundred (300) feet of the Airstrip
other than the Owners who have, through the Supplemental Use Permit
process, authorized the Manager, Michael Traqgarz to represent the interests of
the Supplemental Use Permit with regard to County requirements.”
•
Is there a difference in a Supplemental Use Permit rather than the
Special Use Permit as described in document?
•
March 17, 2020 County Attorney affirmed in writing that Mr. Tragarz did
not have the legal authority to represent the Owners. At the Planning
and Zoning Meeting, it was also mentioned that since he could not
represent the Owners, he didn’t have the right to request an extension.
•
Why wasn’t the application dated February 24, 2020 thrown out then?
•
The Application for Renewal of the SUP requires written signatures and
dates by the Owners on their Renewal Application form.
Conformance with Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Section 2308
“Section 2308 of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance…”
“Pursuant to Section 2308…”
MC Zoning Ordinance Section 2308 is nonexistent. Supply that ordinance as an
attachment or use current applicable ordinance.
Operation
“The Airstrip will be used by (the Owners) in accordance with the Supplemental
Use Permit…”
There is a legal difference when using the word Supplemental Use Permit and
Special Use Permit.
Benefits to the Community
“(c) as provided for is the current Special Use Permit, support for the local
farming community by reducing the cost of production of their crops.”
The current SUP only supports Ranching and residential concerns. The omission
of Agricultural is purposeful because crop dusters are noisy, dusty and are a
concern of chemical contamination. Mr. Tragarz inserted this new statement in
the renewal narrative.
Use and Enjoyment of Property
“The Owners enjoyment of their property will be enhanced without
compromising the use and enjoyment of the other property owners.”
Commercial Operations compromise the enjoyment of owners that reside on
the runway and the collateral chemical contamination is health hazard.
•
The Spargos have soil samples of chemical contamination on the runway
from the crop dusters (with pictures).
•
There are testimonials attesting to crop dusters dumping over vacant
and residential land.
•
Noise from the powerful turbine engines is loud causing the walls in the
home to vibrate.
•
The turbine powered crop dusters running multiple missions per day on
an unstable dirt strip generate huge quantities of dust. The
environmental complaints sent to ADEQ are an example.
Conformance with Adopted General Plans
“…operation of an airstrip at this location is a compatible private non-
residential use which provides support services for aviation, agricultural and
ranching activities and the surrounding area.”
The original text from the 20 year SUP never included support services for
aviation and agriculture. These were added so Tragarz could include the crop
dusters which have been contested by the Kooistras and Spargos.
The original petition was for a Private Residential Airstrip.
“The owners purchased the parcels with the anticipation of using the airstrip for
their personal use.”
Drawing for Special Use Permit- 7.5 Acres is runway only!
Missing Documents
Packet did not include:
•
Document from Planning and Zoning March 17, 2020 Meeting.
Conclusion by County Attorney that Michael Tragarz did not
have the legal authority to represent ALL the landowners.
•
Email dated April 7, 2020 from Sean Watkins to Lyle Spargo.
Mr. Watkins confirmed the expiration of the SUP on 4/5/2020
• Evidence of required property owner’s authorization signatures
on Renewal Application by all single and joint property owners.
• Original Narrative Report
• Obsolete ordinances referenced
Z2020011
Page 1 of 7
Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case:
Z2020011 – Eagletail Airstrip
Hearing Date:
July 23, 2020
Supervisor District:
5
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) Z99-87
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
Support/Opposition:
Opposition from Lyle Spargo
Recommendation:
Approve with conditions
Z2020011
Page 2 of 7
Project Summary:
1.
The applicants are requesting a modification of condition ‘d’ of SUP Z99-87, to renew the
SUP and allow continued use of Eagletail Airstrip in perpetuity. SUP Z99-87 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 approved a resolution to
extend all deadlines with critical dates from March 1, 2020 to July 1, 2020 for 120 days.
Accordingly, the deadline for Z99-87 was extended to August 5, 2020.
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 Z99-87, 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 Z99-87 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 Z99-87 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 7
2018 Aerial Photo
(SUP Area Outlined in Red)
SUP Area Ownership and Support/Opposition Status
Z2020011
Page 4 of 7
Zoning Map
(SUP Area Outlined in Red)
Site Plan
Rural-190
Rural-43
Rural-43
Z2020011
Page 5 of 7
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 opposition has been
received by staff from one party, Mr. Lyle Spargo who, along with Irene Spargo, owns one
of the parcels that comprise the SUP area (APN: 506-27-055A) and an adjacent parcel
(506-27-055B) which includes a residence and an apparent aircraft hangar with access
to the airstrip. Mr. Spago opposes the current SUP renewal and inclusion of his property in
it because he opposes the commercial (crop dusting) operations that have apparently
been taking place at the airstrip, which Mr. Spargo believes were never part of the intent
of the SUP. Additionally, Mr. Spargo believes the crop dusting aircraft create more noise
and dust than non-commercial aircraft would produce. Finally, Mr. Spago does 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
his objection.
Z2020011
Page 6 of 7
Outstanding Concerns from Reviewing Agencies:
10.
Staff has received no comments of concern from reviewing agencies including Luke Air
Force Base, the Arizona State Land Department and the Arizona Department of
Transportation.
Staff Analysis:
11.
County records indicate that Eagletail Airstrip has adhered to the stipulations of approval
for SUP Z99-87. There have been no zoning violation issues and staff is supportive of the
current perpetual SUP renewal request. Reviewing County agencies have no objection
to the modification of conditions.
Recommendation:
12.
For the reasons outlined in this report, staff recommends the Commission motion for
Approval, subject to stipulations ‘a’ – ‘j’ of Z99-87 including modified condition “’d.”’ All
other stipulations associated with Z99-87 shall remain in effect.
a.
Development shall comply with the site plan, entitled "Site Plan of Eagletail
Airstrip,”, consisting of 1 sheet, dated January 3, 2000 and stamped received
January 14, 2000 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 7 pages, dated January 28, 2000 stamped received February 3, 2000
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.
Z2020011
Page 7 of 7
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.
Presented by:
Sean Watkins, Planner
Reviewed by:
Matthew Holm, AICP, Planning Supervisor
Attachments:
Case map (1 page)
Opposition Comment (3 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)