House stated in a July 20 city memo that appellants who opposed the proposed 300,000-square-foot facility at 2701 E. Ryan Road in the Chandler Airpark do not meet the ordinance standards for the appeal process. House has advised Charles Coleman, Chandler's Development Services Manager, not to schedule a meeting on the appeal and for City Clerk Marla Paddock to return the filing fee that accompanied the appeal application.

"The city has moved to dismiss this case," House said Wednesday.

Paddock said she mailed the application and fee back to Darin Sender, a Tempe attorney representing Washington, D.C.-based Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), on July 24. The group, along with seven other plaintiffs, filed the appeal with the Chandler Board of Adjustment earlier this month. A spokesman for PCRM said the response is a black eye for open government.

 

"Chandler citizens have a right to be involved in city government," said Patrick Sullivan, a spokesman for PCRM. "It must be a great concern for residents to hear the city say, You really don't have a right to appeal these decisions.' City leaders have gone to great lengths to shut the citizens out of the public process just so they can get Covance into Chandler."    

Mayor Boyd Dunn said he questioned the timing of the appeal, intimating it was another tactic to stall the construction of the facility.

"I agree with the city attorney that this is pretty far out there, and frankly I question the timing of all of this," Dunn said. "They waited until all of the permits were approved and at the start of construction. The ironic part is that we have very strict zoning laws."    

Covance attorney Paul Eckstein wrote in a July 9 letter to House that the appellants have not established that they are aggrieved parties and have not proven a particular, individualized injury.

Jan McClellan, who is a co-founder of Citizens Against Covance, said the drug-testing firm's response is typical.

"Covance's response is no surprise. We expected it. Nothing they do is a surprise," McClellan said. "What is outrageous is Covance's posture that the residents of Chandler have no right to be involved in large-scale development plans in our own backyard and no right to question the city. This is an attack on the citizens of Chandler and we will not accept it. We have every right to be involved in city decisions that affect our very lives and our future."    

In a separate action, the same appellants filed a lawsuit in Maricopa County Superior Court against the city earlier this month. The lawsuit accuses city officials of violating the Arizona Open Meeting Act and colluding with Covance officials.

House has asked the county to dismiss the case.