I am compelled to comment on the subject letter that appeared in the July 8th issue of the Verde Independent. The letter begs the question” “Why is it that folks who do not follow the rules whine and complain when they do not get their way?”
Here are the rules and the facts:
• Verde Santa Fe is a Planned Area Development (PAD) and activities within the community are subject to the rules and stipulations set forth by the Yavapai County Planning and Zoning Commission and approved by the County Board of Supervisors.
• The County P&Z Commission at their meeting on July 12, 1995, at which they approved the Final Site Plan for the VSF Golf Course, made the following stipulation pertaining to the golf clubhouse, “The clubhouse amenities are within a parcel designated by the Master Plan for commercial activities normally associated with golf course activities.” So said the County P&Z Commission. Amenities related to golf such as a pro shop are allowed. The County Board of Supervisors at their meeting on July 24, 1995 approved the recommendations of the Commission.
I do not think that given the documented rules and stipulations that one can deny that the due process that is required and should have been followed is that Realty On The Greens should have made application for a PAD Amendment. The process for doing this is clearly set forth in the Yavapai Co. P&Z Ordinance in SECTION 440 PAD DISTRICT on pages 54 and 55, Items G1, G2. G3, H3. This ordinance is found at the Co. web site. Granting a Use Permit for a real estate office in the temporary golf clubhouse would fly in the face of the PAD. I fear that the applicants may have been misguided to pursue a Use Permit process rather than a PAD Amendment process.
The letter writers claimed, “a real estate office doesn’t qualify as commercial and no zoning change is needed.” This statement is totally irrelevant as regards the PAD stipulation that does allow commercial activities in the golf clubhouse, but only those normally associated with golf course activities. A pro shop and a restaurant are amenities that fit the stipulation, but a real estate office? I think not. A real estate business is by definition certainly commercial (profit-oriented, money-oriented, sales). It is true that regarding zoning, a real estate office may be located in a zoning district zoned R1L, single-family residential. However, it falls under the Co. P&Z Ordinance SECTION 453 HOME OCCUPATION that stipulates, “Home occupations, where permitted, shall be subject to the issuance of a Home Occupation Permit and shall comply with the noted criteria.” This has nothing to do with the issue of establishing a real estate office in the VSF golf clubhouse that is in violation of the PAD, contrary to what the letter writers would have you believe. The only other allowance provided for in the Ordinance is for a Temporary Real Estate Office in a R1L Use District to provide on-site sales of homes when a subdivision is under development (see SECTION 570).
The letter of 7/8 cites that “430 total support letters from VSF property owners (were) turned in for verification prior to the (Supervisors) meeting. The question to be asked is were all of the signatories told in advance that by signing a letter supporting establishing a real estate office on the VSF golf clubhouse they approve that the (1995) VSF Golf Course PAD agreement approved by the County should be ignored and violated. I believe they were not so informed. Citizen support for an issue that violates rules and stipulations or the law is meaningless, of no value. The letter states, “Since when doesn’t a majority of written support hold any weight? The answer is when the support was misguided and represented a violation of the Planned Area Development Agreement for the VSF community we live in. No one is exempt, not even the folks representing Realty On The Greens.
Verde Santa Fe