Draft Minutes – Verde
April 20, 2011
Page 1
7.Use Permit; APN: 408-21-006, C, F, H, J and -465D; HA# H11011.
THESE MINUTES CONTAIN PUBLIC COMMENT
Applicant:Tao Fellowship
Agent:Connie Dedrick, D&H Consulting, LLC
Project:MagoRetreatCenter
Request:Consideration of a Use Permit to allow for a retreat center on approximately 168 acres in an RCU-2A (Residential; Rural; 2 acre minimum) zoning district. Located approximately 11 miles off of State Route 89A out Bill Gray Road between the Cities of Cottonwood and Sedona.
Located in SEC6 TWN7N R4E G&SRB&M
Tammy DeWitt, Planner made the presentation. She concluded her presentation by stating that there were thirteen (13) stipulations being offered should the Commission choose to recommend approval.
Chairman Stewart opened the discussion to the Commission.
Commissioner Reilly asked if there was a definitional difference between a retreat center and a hotel. Ms. DeWitt responded that the Ordinance did not have a definition of a “retreat center”. Commissioner Reilly asked what the difference was. Ms. DeWitt replied that the Use Permit would allow third party groups to use the property.
Commissioner Kerkman requested clarification regarding RCU-2A and religion-neutral zoning in that the religious institution would be subject to the same zoning requirements as a RCU-2A zoning area which would then mean that temporary rentals was not allowed. Ms. DeWitt noted that was the reason for the Use Permit for the retreat center.
Boyce Macdonald, Planning and Land Use Unit Manager explained that the casitas had been permitted under the religious use as an accessory use for overnight accommodations for Tao students/practitioners.
There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Stewart asked the applicant/agent to address the Commission.
Connie Dedrick, Agent stated that since the land use became an issue in 2009 the Tao Fellowship ceased all third party uses, hosted a site inspection and had several meetings with County staff and the County Attorney and it was determined that a Use Permit would be the most effective way to ensure compliance. She delineated their Citizen Participation efforts and noted that as a result of those efforts the Tao Fellowship had substantially scaled back their site plan and request. Ms. Dedrick noted that there would only be ten (10) events, no amplified music, the property would either be fenced or screened by vegetation, there would be a five (5) acre buffer on the east side of the property and all unauthorized gates would be closed. She explained the new buildings being requested, the alternative energy systems being proposed and addressed traffic control specific to Forest Service Road 525. Ms. Dedrick concluded by noting that the Tao Fellowship was in agreement with the stipulations. She then introduced Steve Kim, President and Paul Gilbert, Attorney.
Commissioner Lindner asked what percentage of the reduction had been done in response to the neighbors concerns in terms of general use. Mr. Kim said they had
removed most of the expansion of the facility. Mr. Gilbert said that they had scaled construction back to the absolute minimum needed to function and had abandoned their plans for expansion. Commissioner Lindner requested clarification regarding the uses as to where there would be more or less activity. Mr. Gilbert responded that there would be less activity with the Use Permit. He noted that as a religious facility any use of a religious nature was allowed but under the Use Permit they would eliminate all daytime visitors except for the ten (10) events and Sunday worship services which would greatly reduce the number of people on the property. Commissioner Lindner requested confirmation that access would be by Bill Gray Road only. Mr. Gilbert said that was correct, they would not allow access from Forest Service Road 761. Commissioner Lindner asked if they would assist in the maintenance of Bill Gray Road. Mr. Gilbert replied affirmatively.
Commissioner Reilly requested confirmation that the issue was not whether or not this was a religious facility, the real issue was that they wanted to rent or lease the facility out to third parties. Mr. Gilbert replied affirmatively. Commissioner Reilly expressed the opinion that the crux of the matter was whether or not this land use, basically a two hundred (200) room hotel, was appropriate or not and asked if there was anything proposed that would limit the ability of guests to come and go from the property on a daily basis. Mr. Macdonald said staff was trying to address that issue with Stipulation #10 and, more specifically, Stipulation #11 and deferred to the applicant for an explanation of their operations.
Mr. Gilbert addressed the definition of a retreat center vs. a hotel by noting that for a hotel you paid your money and did whatever you wanted but a retreat was restricted to certain areas and activities. He said that all third party users would have to meet the Tao Fellowship application guidelines and abide by all their rules.
Commissioner Reilly commented that answered some of his issues regarding the uses and asked how that would be enforced. Mr. Macdonald said that if this were to move forward and the stipulations were not being complied with, there would be complaints. He said that the Use Permit stipulations would give staff an enforcement tool. Mr. Gilbert suggested that their letter of application/intent be incorporated into the Use Permit approval. [Amended Stipulation #2 “…Letter of Intent dated 2/22/11 and Addendum dated 4/9/11….”]
Commissioner Reilly asked if the Tao Fellowship sold the property would the Use Permit go away. Mr. Macdonald replied that the Use Permit would be non-transferable as per Stipulation #1.
Commissioner Kerkman noted that their letter of intent stated they had completely stopped third party uses in 2009 and asked what would be done differently now to alleviate the neighbors’ concerns. Mr. Gilbert responded that the daytime uses would cease, except for Sunday services and the events, and that they were committed to diligently enforcing their rules. [Amended Stipulation #11 “…and 10 scheduled events.”]
Commissioner Garner expressed his concerns regarding possible non-religious commercial use of the property in the future and asked if their tax exemption went away, would the Use Permit go away. Mr. Macdonald replied that the Use Permit ran with the owner not with the tax exempt status.
Steve Mauk, Development Services Director explained that if the Department was no longer able to recognize them as a religious institution, the activity would be disallowed and they would have to amend the Use Permit to encompass the activities as a whole.
Commissioner Garner requested confirmation that they would still be allowed to rent the facility for third party uses. Mr. Mauk concurred, unless the Commission wanted to adopt language that the Use Permit would be in effect only as long as the County continued to recognize the religious allowance on the property. He noted that language could be added if the Commission so desired.
Mr. Gilbert commented that it was possible that a religious organization might not qualify for a 501C3 but it would still be a religious organization even without the tax status. He noted that the Tao Fellowship had a 501C3 classification; however, regardless of their tax classification they were primarily a religious organization.
Mr. Kim commented that they would do everything possible to maintain their status and that he felt the Use Permit was an important element and device for the public to monitor their activities and confirm their continued religious use of the property.
Commissioner McClelland asked regarding Stipulation #8 if when the people attended an event were they able to come and go from the property at any time. Mr. Kim said that they could leave for activities but that people who were not participating in their programs would no longer be allowed access to the property. Commissioner McClelland asked if someone was participating in a two (2) week program would they be able to come and go from the property just like a hotel. Mr. Kim replied negatively. Mr. Gilbert explained that event (worship/training sessions) participants would need to abide by all rules/regulations during their stay which would include the overnight stay and participation in all-day activities on site. Commissioner McClelland asked how long events usually ran, how many days. Mr. Kim responded that events were generally four (4) to five (5) days long.
Chairman Stewart asked if most of the guests were transported as a group or did they come in individual vehicles. Mr. Kim responded that they provided a shuttle bus but they could also come in individual vehicles. Mr. Gilbert added that there was a shuttle service provided on Sundays.
Commissioner Garner asked how many visitors attended their Sunday services. Mr. Kim replied approximately thirty (30) to fifty (50) people. Commissioner Garner asked if that included third party participants. Mr. Kim said that number was mostly local community attendees.
There being no further questions of the applicant/agent, Chairman Stewart opened the floor to public participation.
Support:
Public Participation forms from members of the public not wishing to speak:
Tom Garrett (6200 Bill Gray Road) – We (myself & my wife, Sunny) feel strongly that Tao Fellowship should be allowed to keep their entrance at its current location and be allowed to add a sign and camera and video monitoring of traffic so they can tell which direction it is coming from. With the changes Tao has recommended; with strict enforcement; with narrow limits to Use Permit; with great effort to avoid traffic through the private section of Bill Gray Road; that Use Permit be tied to continued religious use in eyes of the IRS. We are thankful for the great effort put forth by Boyce and Tammy regarding this Use Permit. We are also thankful to Steve Kim and Tao Fellowship for all the changes they have made to their original plan.
Jeanne Freeland (9735 N. Sycamore Pass Road) – I am in favor of the Use Permit asamended only because it does provide some parameters for the uses and conditions of use.
Opposition:
Samuel Sam Morey (2176 S. Quail Run Road) expressed his concerns regarding maintaining the existing zoning and the on-going violations. He said he was against granting the Use Permit.
Peter Nelson (4450 Bill Gray Road) said he appreciated the establishment of the buffer zone adjacent to his property and removal of the other entrance. He expressed his concerns regarding dormitory usage, traffic and their purchase of additional property. Mr. Nelson suggested that the Use Permit be made contingent upon keeping the exempt status.
Victoria Nelson (4450 Bill Gray Road) expressed her concerns regarding questionable enforcement ability without a retreat center definition in the Ordinance, third party uses/users, the non-residential use of the property as a retreat and allowing commercial vs. residential activity in a residential area.
Susan Obijiski (4920 E. Nihigan Pass) expressed her concerns regarding the resort activities, commercial uses in a residential neighborhood, enforcement, future expansion, use of Forest Service Road 525, uses of the existing structures, and third party uses/users.
Commissioner Kerkman requested clarification regarding Forest Service Road 761. Ms. Obijiski explained that was a privately owned/maintained section of Bill Gray Road.
Chairman Stewart asked the applicant to respond to the oppositions’ comments.
Mr. Gilbert responded to the oppositions’ comments as follows: the property was in compliance with the zoning as well as with the County General Plan due to the religious uses noting that regardless of whether or not the Use Permit was approved the religious use of the property would continue; they had originally planned to expand their uses onto the additional purchased property as well as change their access but now were utilizing a portion of that property as a buffer to the adjacent neighbor and were maintaining the existing access; the Use Permit would be an important tool for enforcement; they were committed to maintaining their status as a religious organization; there would not be any expansion of the facility/use without amending the Use Permit; Tao Fellowship rules/restrictions would prevent resort-type use of the facility; and they would do everything possible to prevent usage of Forest Service Road 761 to access the facility.
Mr. Kim mentioned that they had not provided horse-riding activities since 2009. He said they had been working closely with Commissioner Garner to restrict traffic use of Forest Service Road 761 but that not all of the vehicles using that road were for the Tao Fellowship. Mr. Kim commented that under the Use Permit the traffic restrictions would be stipulated rather than voluntary. He said that transparency of use, compliance with regulations and eliminating conflict with the neighbors were the hoped for results of this process.
Commissioner Garner asked if the applicant would have a problem with language added to the stipulations to the effect that if the religious tax status went away the Use Permit would go away. Mr. Gilbert responded that 501C3 tax exempt classification was an independent determination apart from whether or not someone was a religious
organization. He said that they would have no problem with adding the basic statement that they must remain a religious organization to maintain the Use Permit into the stipulations. [Amended Stipulation #1 “…as an accessory use to a religious institution…”]
Commissioner Garner commented that at the end of ten (10) years the Tao Fellowship did not have to renew the Use Permit and suggested that the Use Permit be made permanent with staff review every two (2) years. Ms. DeWitt noted that under the recently adopted Zoning Ordinance Amendment any expansion of a religious facility would require a Use Permit. Commissioner Garner requested confirmation that the stipulations would go away if the Use Permit was not renewed. Ms. DeWitt responded affirmatively. Commissioner Garner expressed the opinion that a permanent Use Permit would keep the stipulated restrictions in place and that would be beneficial for the area property owners.
Mr. Mauk commented that even with a permanent Use Permit if the conditions were not complied with the Use Permit could be revoked therefore the issue at hand was whether or not the stipulations addressed the neighbors’ issues/concerns. Commissioner Garner noted that the stipulations would address those issues/concerns for ten (10) years. Mr. Mauk mentioned that the ability to lease the facility to third parties would go away with the Use Permit. Commissioner Garner commented that it would then be up to interpretation of what was a commercial vs. a religious use.
Mr. Gilbert said that they had no problem with changing the timeframe from ten (10) years to permanent and having it tied to the religious use. Mr. Kim expressed the opinion that the ten (10) year timeframe would be more beneficial to all parties involved but that he had no problem with making it permanent.
Commissioner Kerkman asked if the Use Permit went away but the facility was still there what the value of this would be to the County. Mr. Mauk replied that the value would be in bringing the focus back onto the land use thereby enabling the County to enforce issues such as traffic, hours of operation, etc.
Commissioner Lindner said it was his understanding that Use Permits were no longer tied to the Letter of Intent. Mr. Macdonald said that staff felt it was appropriate in this case as it would delineate what the applicant was committing to and it would be a good enforcement tool as part of the stipulations.
Commissioner McClelland requested clarification of the response to Commissioner Garner’s question regarding the Use Permit timeframe. Ms. DeWitt explained that if in ten (10) years the Use Permit went away the property would go back to the religious use allowance and the County would not be able to regulate the number of events, traffic, etc. Commissioner McClelland requested confirmation that they could not be a retreat center at that time. Mr. Gilbert responded affirmatively. Commissioner McClelland expressed the opinion that there would be no advantage to changing the timeframe to permanent.
Commissioner Garner expressed the opinion that the advantage of permanent over ten (10) years would be if the Use Permit evaporated in ten (10) years it would be up to the County and the neighbors to prove that the activities being conducted on the property were not religious thereby putting the burden of enforcement on the neighbors.
Mr. Mauk commented that the original intention was to pursue this as a Planned Area Development but the reason it was decided to move forward with a ten (10) year use permit was to provide an opportunity for the retreat to operate and demonstrate to the neighbors that they could meet the obligations of the approval and said he believed it was