Print
Comment
Rate
Developers: SP Partners acted in good faith
Thelma Grimes/San Pedro Valley News-Sun
San Pedro Partners owners Harold Ashton and Jerry DeGrazia said they believe in property rights, and have tried to purchase the 10 acres of land holding up their venture to be annexed into the city.
San Pedro Partners has received unofficial approval from the council to annex 43 acres of land west of Benson into city limits. That property would connect to 305 acres annexed several years ago in preparation of building a proposed 850-home development.
The newest proposal has been met with some controversy. Neighboring land owner Matthew MacDonald does not want to be annexed.
To get their 43 acres annexed, San Pedro Partners convinced the Harlan Trust, which owns about 62 acres next to their property, to sign off on the annexation.
That means 50 percent of the landowners involved agree to the annexation, and the city now has the authority to proceed with a hostile annex of MacDonalds' property.
DeGrazia said that's not how they wanted the situation to end. San Pedro Partners had offered $30,000 per acre, but MacDonald refused, he said.
"We really did work with him, and it just never happened," DeGrazia said. "We believe in private property rights as much as anyone else. We respect his rights, but we have rights too."
Trying to annex the property has not been easy for San Pedro Parnters, as DeGrazia noted they have been working on this for the last three years. They have gone through several city managers and have been working to negotiate an agreement with MacDonald.
In a letter to the city, MacDonald said he wants to be left alone.
In the July 30 letter he said, "I am opposed to annexation to the City of Benson for several reasons including but not limited to: Any service the city could offer would not be cost effective for the city, nor would they upgrade the services already present to the property. Any appreciation of value to the property by extension of city services would only serve to increase my property taxes. Inclusion into the city would result in additional taxes/service fees being levied against Debra (his ex-spouse) and myself. The resultant bureaucratic requirements imposed by the city will diminish my quality of life and happiness, i.e. zoning changes; applied ordinances, permit fees, and numerable unforeseen surcharges."
City Manager Glenn Nichols said MacDonald would not be impacted that much unless he plans a major construction project, which will then have to be built under city code. Currently, MacDonald falls under Cochise County jurisdiction, which is more lenient that the city.
Ashton said as with any major project, there is always going to be somebody that does not want to participate.
"It's kind of the end of the road, and when you can't make a deal, you have to say what our position is," Ashton said. "When the majority of neighbors want to be annexed, then the land can be annexed. If it only takes one person to say no, then there would never be an annexation."
Legally, the city and San Pedro Partners are within their rights to move forward. DeGrazia and Ashton said even without this annexation, the development is going to move forward, but having this additional 43 acres would be a big help with their sewer portion of the project.
At the April 20 meeting, where the City Council approved a pre-annexation agreement in principle, Ashton said he and DeGrazia paid cash for the 305 acres of land from the Getzweiler family in 2005. However, having an engineer on the property after it was purchased, the developers were informed that the sewer system could not be installed to the master-planned community because of the uphill slopes.
San Pedro Partners said they need the additional 43 acres to make the sewer system work for the proposed development. Because the proposed annex is more than 10 acres, by law the developer also had to submit a general development plan amendment to the city.
DeGrazia said he has no idea when everything will go through the city and when the land will actually be ready for development.
Because the City Council only approved the pre-annexation agreement in principle, San Pedro Partners still has to get an official approval, then the council will have to vote on the general development plan amendment, the final annexation and along the way, several public hearings will have to be held as well.
Nichols said while the developer is pushing to have the council vote on the issue as soon as possible, his feeling is to wait.
"It has been approved in concept, and now we are working through the process on the general development plan amendment," he said. "There is a timeline we have to follow, and that's what we are doing right now."
DeGrazia and Ashton said they were both surprised when the council only approved the pre-annexation agreement in principle, and Vice Mayor Toney King and Councilman David Lambert voted against it completely, stating they did not like the idea of forcing MacDonald into a hostile annexation.
Councilwoman Lori McGoffin said she voted yes, but that doesn't mean she will approve the final plan. Councilwoman Jo Deen Boncquet was absent from the meeting, and Mayor Mark Fenn and council members John Lodzinski and Al Sacco voted yes.
The reason for the approval "in principle" instead of a final approval appeared to be item number 14 in the proposed contract.
The item, which is labeled "hierarchy of documents." It states, "In the event of a conflict or inconsistency, to the extent permitted by law, this agreement shall take precedence over the applicable ordinances, rules, regulations, permit requirements, development fees, other requirements and official policies of the city in effect upon the date of acceptance."
McGoffin said she is concerned that in the future this paragraph would allow the developer to dictate what impact and other development fees will be.
After some discussion, with Councilman Al Sacco's motion to approve the document in principle, the council agreed that the paragraph would be clarified better in the next draft.
DeGrazia and Ashton said they were are still a little confused over what the council wants the paragraph to say, and their attorney and City Attorney Michael Massee have been discussing the matter.
Ultimately, DeGrazia and Ashton said they feel the project they are proposing will only improve the city, noting that the State Route 90 area is where growth should happen with better water and soil quality.
The development has already received its 100-year water supply approval from the Arizona Department of Water Resources, and they are now negotiating with area property owners to build a road that will serve as access to the property.
Over the last six years, DeGrazia has worked with three different city managers in Benson. The general development plan changed twice, San Pedro Partners received approval to rezone the property from low-density residential to B-2, which allows business and residential development in a master-planned community.
DeGrazia and Ashton acknowledged that it's been a long process, and they are still moving along despite a struggling economy.
"This is the time to do it," DeGrazia said. "We want to get this stuff behind us, so when the economy does turn we have a package with a big bow on it. All we are trying to do is get it ready to go."
Nichols could not say when the general development plan amendment or annexation issue would be discussed again by the council.
San Pedro Partners owners Harold Ashton and Jerry DeGrazia said they believe in property rights, and have tried to purchase the 10 acres of land holding up their venture to be annexed into the city.
San Pedro Partners has received unofficial approval from the council to annex 43 acres of land west of Benson into city limits. That property would connect to 305 acres annexed several years ago in preparation of building a proposed 850-home development.
The newest proposal has been met with some controversy. Neighboring land owner Matthew MacDonald does not want to be annexed.
To get their 43 acres annexed, San Pedro Partners convinced the Harlan Trust, which owns about 62 acres next to their property, to sign off on the annexation.
That means 50 percent of the landowners involved agree to the annexation, and the city now has the authority to proceed with a hostile annex of MacDonalds' property.
DeGrazia said that's not how they wanted the situation to end. San Pedro Partners had offered $30,000 per acre, but MacDonald refused, he said.
"We really did work with him, and it just never happened," DeGrazia said. "We believe in private property rights as much as anyone else. We respect his rights, but we have rights too."
Trying to annex the property has not been easy for San Pedro Parnters, as DeGrazia noted they have been working on this for the last three years. They have gone through several city managers and have been working to negotiate an agreement with MacDonald.
In a letter to the city, MacDonald said he wants to be left alone.
In the July 30 letter he said, "I am opposed to annexation to the City of Benson for several reasons including but not limited to: Any service the city could offer would not be cost effective for the city, nor would they upgrade the services already present to the property. Any appreciation of value to the property by extension of city services would only serve to increase my property taxes. Inclusion into the city would result in additional taxes/service fees being levied against Debra (his ex-spouse) and myself. The resultant bureaucratic requirements imposed by the city will diminish my quality of life and happiness, i.e. zoning changes; applied ordinances, permit fees, and numerable unforeseen surcharges."
City Manager Glenn Nichols said MacDonald would not be impacted that much unless he plans a major construction project, which will then have to be built under city code. Currently, MacDonald falls under Cochise County jurisdiction, which is more lenient that the city.
Ashton said as with any major project, there is always going to be somebody that does not want to participate.
"It's kind of the end of the road, and when you can't make a deal, you have to say what our position is," Ashton said. "When the majority of neighbors want to be annexed, then the land can be annexed. If it only takes one person to say no, then there would never be an annexation."
Legally, the city and San Pedro Partners are within their rights to move forward. DeGrazia and Ashton said even without this annexation, the development is going to move forward, but having this additional 43 acres would be a big help with their sewer portion of the project.
At the April 20 meeting, where the City Council approved a pre-annexation agreement in principle, Ashton said he and DeGrazia paid cash for the 305 acres of land from the Getzweiler family in 2005. However, having an engineer on the property after it was purchased, the developers were informed that the sewer system could not be installed to the master-planned community because of the uphill slopes.
San Pedro Partners said they need the additional 43 acres to make the sewer system work for the proposed development. Because the proposed annex is more than 10 acres, by law the developer also had to submit a general development plan amendment to the city.
DeGrazia said he has no idea when everything will go through the city and when the land will actually be ready for development.
Because the City Council only approved the pre-annexation agreement in principle, San Pedro Partners still has to get an official approval, then the council will have to vote on the general development plan amendment, the final annexation and along the way, several public hearings will have to be held as well.
Nichols said while the developer is pushing to have the council vote on the issue as soon as possible, his feeling is to wait.
"It has been approved in concept, and now we are working through the process on the general development plan amendment," he said. "There is a timeline we have to follow, and that's what we are doing right now."
DeGrazia and Ashton said they were both surprised when the council only approved the pre-annexation agreement in principle, and Vice Mayor Toney King and Councilman David Lambert voted against it completely, stating they did not like the idea of forcing MacDonald into a hostile annexation.
Councilwoman Lori McGoffin said she voted yes, but that doesn't mean she will approve the final plan. Councilwoman Jo Deen Boncquet was absent from the meeting, and Mayor Mark Fenn and council members John Lodzinski and Al Sacco voted yes.
The reason for the approval "in principle" instead of a final approval appeared to be item number 14 in the proposed contract.
The item, which is labeled "hierarchy of documents." It states, "In the event of a conflict or inconsistency, to the extent permitted by law, this agreement shall take precedence over the applicable ordinances, rules, regulations, permit requirements, development fees, other requirements and official policies of the city in effect upon the date of acceptance."
McGoffin said she is concerned that in the future this paragraph would allow the developer to dictate what impact and other development fees will be.
After some discussion, with Councilman Al Sacco's motion to approve the document in principle, the council agreed that the paragraph would be clarified better in the next draft.
DeGrazia and Ashton said they were are still a little confused over what the council wants the paragraph to say, and their attorney and City Attorney Michael Massee have been discussing the matter.
Ultimately, DeGrazia and Ashton said they feel the project they are proposing will only improve the city, noting that the State Route 90 area is where growth should happen with better water and soil quality.
The development has already received its 100-year water supply approval from the Arizona Department of Water Resources, and they are now negotiating with area property owners to build a road that will serve as access to the property.
Over the last six years, DeGrazia has worked with three different city managers in Benson. The general development plan changed twice, San Pedro Partners received approval to rezone the property from low-density residential to B-2, which allows business and residential development in a master-planned community.
DeGrazia and Ashton acknowledged that it's been a long process, and they are still moving along despite a struggling economy.
"This is the time to do it," DeGrazia said. "We want to get this stuff behind us, so when the economy does turn we have a package with a big bow on it. All we are trying to do is get it ready to go."
Nichols could not say when the general development plan amendment or annexation issue would be discussed again by the council.
 |
||
| Bobby Porter overcame many obstacles as a child, sets sights on the Air Force |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of bensonnews-sun.com.
They Tried wrote on Jun 11, 2009 4:58 PM:
" Fenn's silience on all of this is suspecious at the very least. Just exactly who is he representing, the people or the developers? It seems clear to me. "
Mike Jackson wrote on Jun 11, 2009 11:41 PM:
" First the story says "DeGrazia and Ashton said even without this annexation, the development is going to move forward, but having this additional 43 acres would be a big help with their sewer portion of the project." Two paragraphs down, the story says SPP "said they need the additional 43 acres to make the sewer system work." So, is the 43 acres necessary, or just nice? And what do the 43 acres, which DeGrazia already owns, have to do with McDonald's 10 acres? "
JV wrote on Jun 15, 2009 8:25 AM:
" If the city is needed for DeGrazia to obtain the rights he needs to control the property, WHAT IS THE BENEFIT TO THE CITY???
People are losing the ability to hold their investments, so someone needs to benefit from this annexation and I hope it is the city and not private individuals. "
People are losing the ability to hold their investments, so someone needs to benefit from this annexation and I hope it is the city and not private individuals. "
Vigilant1 wrote on Jun 15, 2009 6:19 PM:
" If we listened to all the McDonalds in the world nothing would ever get done. Sounds like he's just obstinent in my opinion. That's why this country runs on the principle of majority rule so that cry babies like him don't end up controlling what is in the interest of the greater good for everyone else...including those who are willing to take a huge financial risk to make a profit. The only people that call developers greedy are those that have no financial sense themselves. "
JV wrote on Jun 22, 2009 9:38 AM:
" Vigilant1,
How is the annexation of land a deed of the greater good for the city? Sure, in theory, increase population increase economic activity in the area but are you aware of what time you are living in?
The greater good is related to the individuals directly benefiting from the transaction and don't forget that. indirectly it will effect the city for the better but that is not the first motive of potential parties involved.
Developers = business and sometimes business and the potential for profit overrun a single citizens rights to own property. Matters for principles, not greed. "
How is the annexation of land a deed of the greater good for the city? Sure, in theory, increase population increase economic activity in the area but are you aware of what time you are living in?
The greater good is related to the individuals directly benefiting from the transaction and don't forget that. indirectly it will effect the city for the better but that is not the first motive of potential parties involved.
Developers = business and sometimes business and the potential for profit overrun a single citizens rights to own property. Matters for principles, not greed. "
sly dogs and tricks wrote on Jun 22, 2009 4:23 PM:
" Maybe we can just have a czar here in Benson to tell everyone what the greater good is and at whose expense.
There might be majority rule but we are also a nation of laws and property rights.
I think just maybe Degrazia knew all along he would need Matt's land and is playing the game. Here you have, by his own admission, a sophisticated businessman and developer and he would have you believe that he doesn't know which way his land slopes. And his partner is in highway construction and deals with grades for a living.
So yeah these guys have my vote for good guys of the year. NOT "
There might be majority rule but we are also a nation of laws and property rights.
I think just maybe Degrazia knew all along he would need Matt's land and is playing the game. Here you have, by his own admission, a sophisticated businessman and developer and he would have you believe that he doesn't know which way his land slopes. And his partner is in highway construction and deals with grades for a living.
So yeah these guys have my vote for good guys of the year. NOT "
do unto others wrote on Jun 10, 2009 9:12 PM:
So because Degrazia messed up McDonald must lose the enjoyment of his home. I mean doesn't the guy know who he is dealing with.
If DeGrazia can pull this off the City of Benson will enrich the guy whether or not he ever disturbs one blade of grass.
So if Benson can just expedite this little item, life will be good again.
My God if the man can't do business without disrupting the private life of others to gain for himself then where is the good in it?
Matt check out the Goldwater Institute they know about property rights. "