Other articles by Erica Meltzer:

County incentive for Flowing Wells: from blight to bright economy, jobsPima County's breaks for small business may growIf D-backs leave, Sox will payIllegally bladed land vacant months laterCounty to cut 23 workers in planning, permit areaD-backs looking to leave here; Rockies, too County elections praised as well-run County accepts $5M for White Sox to leave cityPima County accepts White Sox buyout offerWhite Sox offer $5M to break Tucson deal

Construction
Komatsu Equipment Co
Mechanic Education
Assessment Technology, Inc
Social Studies Content Writer General
CORT
WAREHOUSE/DRIVER General
CORT
Warehouse Supervisor Health Care
Rio Salado College
PA's/Online Instructors

The Court of Appeals will decide whether county residents who built off-road-vehicle tracks on their property before 2005 have the right to keep them.

That was the year Pima County adopted its off-road-vehicle-track ordinance, which requires homeowners who want to put in the tracks to get a conditional-use permit. They aren't allowed at all on properties with less than 10 acres.

County officials said, when the ordinance was adopted, that they intended to make it retroactive.

Before 2005 the county code didn't say anything about off-road-vehicle facilities, either way. County officials said that meant it was prohibited in the past, an interpretation some land-use attorneys have questioned.

When Ricky Robinson, a Tanque Verde Valley resident who has ridden dirt bikes and four-wheelers on his property for many years, was cited for his track, he fought back, eventually appealing to the Board of Adjustment for a variance.

The Board of Adjustment sided with Robinson, and the Board of Supervisors sued the Board of Adjustment to overturn its decision.

Last month, a Pima County Superior Court judge found in favor of the county.

For the track to have grandfathered rights, it would have to be considered an "accessory use," a use that is "incidental or subordinate" to the primary use of the property as a residence.

The basic question is: Is maintaining an off-road-vehicle track for your own use the same as any other hobby you might engage in at home, like gardening or woodworking? Or is it so unusual or annoying that it could not be considered an ordinary home activity?

In 1976, the Division One Court of Appeals found a 90-foot radio tower for a family's amateur radio hobby was an accessory use. But in 1987, the Division Two Court of Appeals found a helicopter landing pad on a three-acre property was not an accessory use.

Taking her cue from the helicopter-pad decision, Judge Leslie Miller found maintaining an off-road-vehicle track on a residential property was not an accessory use.

That means Robinson had no rights to be grandfathered.

The Board of Adjustment appealed that decision, and the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to fight the appeal, rather than try to settle.

The move was supported by residents who don't like living next to the noise and whine of off-road vehicles.

"If he is permitted to continue, all the tracks that made the ordinance necessary in the first place would be allowed to continue," Karen Reifschneider told the supervisors.

In other business, the supervisors amended the meet-and-confer process that allows union representatives to meet with management and advocate for changes. The changes extend the meet-and-confer process to include Pima County sheriff's deputies, a point of contention that delayed adoption of the changes for several months.

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik had argued that while he wasn't opposed to unions or negotiating with unions, he didn't think the Board of Supervisors had the authority to extend the meet-and-confer process to his office.

The supervisors also gave the go-ahead for the county to research leasing county land to a developer who would build and operate a skating rink here and hired a coordinator to manage league play and tournaments at Tucson Sports Park.