Glare of criticism shines on Anthem Council regarding church variance
Marc Buckhout ~ Managing Editor ~ 2/3/2010

Let there be light!
Why was the public left in the dark?
Those were the conflicting sentiments being voiced at Wednesday’s Anthem Community Council meeting.
At the request of St. Rose Philippine Duchesne Roman Catholic Parish, the Anthem Community Council approved a variance allowing the church to build three lighted baseball fields on its property, located at 2825 W. Rose Canyon Circle in Anthem.
The variance allows for the church to erect 17 60-foot high towers with five of those having 20 foot extension for cell towers.
While the meeting in which the variance was approved, in December, brought about little if any reaction from the community the Jan. 27 meeting was a different story.
The tone was set for the issue when board president Bill Clower, the deacon at St. Rose, who has reclused himself throughout discussions on the issue so as to avoid any suggestion that he has a conflict of interests on the matter, let it be known that he is disappointed in the comments that has been directed toward the council with regard to the issuing of the variance.
“I try to find value in criticism, but I have no regard for anonymous vile attacks. I consider these cowardly attacks and without benefit to anybody,” he said.
With that he left, turning over the meeting to Vice President Donna Gloshen, who read a prepared statement in which she outlined the process by which the council had come to their decision, a 4-1 vote, to approve the variance.
Gloshen explained that Anthem lacks enough ball fields to meet the needs of not only youth, but adults from the area. She further explained that the addition of fields at St. Rose will give Anthem the ability to host a variety of tournaments that currently take place at Rose Mofford in Phoenix, Thunderbird’s Paseo Park in Glendale or at Rio Vista Park in Peoria.
“First of all we really believe this is a good thing for kids,” Gloshen said. “These weekend tournaments also would bring hundreds of families to Anthem for events that start Friday and go through Sunday. You’d have people finding lodging in Anthem, shopping in Anthem and eating in Anthem so we also viewed it as an economic benefit to the community.”
When four cell phone companies emerged, offering to contribute $100,000 each to build the fields in exchange for the ability to attach their cell towers to some of the lights the project made even more sense for the council. The package of bringing in a desired amenity at no cost without using Anthem’s community property and also improving cell service in the area swayed Gloshen, Bob Coppen, Pat Henson and Jack Noblitt to vote for the variance.
While some members of the audience supported the measure, they were in the minority, at least vocally. Critics angrily protested, questioning the council’s motives. The question of the financial gain that would go to the church through the arrangement with the cell companies remained unclear.
Audience members questioned why they had not been made aware of the church’s intentions to build the lighted fields. Concerns about the aesthetics of light and cell towers and the potential devaluation of nearby property were voiced, as were questions about what arrangements would be worked out with regards to usage of the fields between the church and the Anthem community as a whole. Those in the audience were also upset that temporary towers were raised by the church following the December vote. The council claimed no involvement with the temporary towers, which have since been removed, being erected.
Henson suggested the large vocal crowd had misplaced anger that should be directed at the church rather than at the council.
Coppen, who chaired the committee that made the recommendation to the board to approve the variance, asked for some understanding.
“We did the best we could,” he said. “I was the chair of the board and I thought we were doing something for the betterment of the community.”
After initially being defensive in their position the council seemingly was moved by the revelation that the church had failed to inform their own parishioners of plans for the fields.
“It seems pretty clear that a lot of people were misled on this issue,” Henson said.
Board member Ron Jerich, the lone dissenting vote in December, repeated his stance in opposition of the variance.
“We made a quick decision without knowing all the facts,” Jerich said. “We don’t know how many times we’re going to use these fields. It’s all conjecture. I’m not happy about that. We should never, in my opinion, change the (variance) for any entity to provide for their financial support. I can’t make a motion to rescind the variance because I was against it in the first place, but I certainly would hope someone else on this board would see fit to doing so. Clearly we need an open meeting to get input from the community.”
Gloshen would end the debate after being advised by legal counsel that the matter would need to be discussed in executive session as to where the council goes next.
“I think the lesson we’ve learned here is that we can’t try and do anything in a hurried manner,” she said.
In addition to a disgruntled crowd at the meeting the Council is also facing litigation. On Jan. 25 Allen and Carolyn Rodgers, who live in the vicinity of St. Rose, filed a formal complaint with the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County.
The complaint challenges the alleged actions of the Anthem Community Council Board leading up to and including the granting of the “variances” needed by St. Rose to move forward with “The St. Rose Proposal.”
Both Allen and Carolyn, who have started a website, www.stopstrose.com, were at the meeting and said they feel as though the board has overstepped its bounds.
They also disagree with the Anthem Community Council’s assertion that the fields will be free to the community.
“The people that have to carry the costs of the fields the most are the people that live in close proximity to the St. Rose property. There is no argument that the home values of those people will definitely depreciate and we do not feel the ACC board has taken that into account when considering the cost of the fields,” Carolyn Rodgers said. “The people living in close vicinity of St. Rose are counting on the CC&Rs that were in place prior to St. Rose buying their property would be upheld by the ACC board to protect our home values and we are very upset that with the vote of a couple ACC board members that they granted these variances to St. Rose.”
The next Anthem Community Council meeting is set for 6:30 p.m. Feb. 24 at the Anthem Community Center.