[0:07] Why can't why can't they

[0:11] trust the other people?

[0:14] >> So we have only two.

[0:16] >> Yeah. But do we have enough to remove?

[0:19] >> Yeah.

[0:23] » Okay. All right.

[0:26] >> Okay.

[0:28] Are we ready?

[0:31] Okay. Uh, good evening everyone. We're

[0:34] going to call the meeting of the

[0:37] planning and zoning commission of the

[0:40] village of Corales meeting of July 15,

[0:44] 2026 to order. And uh

[0:50] we are going to call the role

[0:53] um and then we'll look at the agenda.

[0:57] So, please uh call the role.

[1:00] >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jerry Sturmer

[1:03] >> here.

[1:03] >> Mary Chappelle

[1:04] >> here.

[1:05] >> Jodie Harrington

[1:06] >> here.

[1:06] >> Edgar BS

[1:07] >> here.

[1:07] >> Mike Source

[1:08] >> here.

[1:09] >> Salame Ward

[1:10] >> here.

[1:10] >> We have a quorum.

[1:12] >> So, we have a quorum. And we would uh

[1:16] like to look at the draft agenda

[1:20] and ask for approval of the agenda by

[1:23] motion. I motion to approve the agenda.

[1:27] >> We have a a motion to approve.

[1:29] >> I'll second

[1:31] >> and seconded. Uh so a a motion to

[1:35] approve by Commissioner Harrington and

[1:38] second by Commissioner uh Source and

[1:42] please call the RO.

[1:43] >> Okay, for the vote. Salame

[1:45] [clears throat] Ward

[1:47] >> I. Mike Source

[1:48] >> here. I

[1:50] >> Edgar BS

[1:51] >> I. Jody Harrington.

[1:53] >> Hi.

[1:53] >> Mary Chappelle.

[1:54] >> Hi.

[1:54] >> And Jerry Sturmer.

[1:56] >> Hi. So, we have our agenda and the next

[2:00] item is to approve the minutes of the

[2:03] meeting of June 17th

[2:06] and uh we have the draft uh minutes

[2:10] before us. Do we have a motion to

[2:13] approve or is there

[2:16] any concern about the minutes?

[2:21] I have no concerns.

[2:22] >> Okay. Do we have a motion to approve?

[2:25] >> Move to approve the minutes.

[2:30] » And do we have a second?

[2:33] >> I'll second that motion.

[2:34] >> Okay. The uh we have a motion and second

[2:39] to approve the meeting mo minutes of

[2:41] June 17th.

[2:43] Uh and please call the RO.

[2:45] >> Okay. And we have a unique situation for

[2:47] the minutes. Only the folks that were

[2:49] here present in June can vote. So Mary

[2:52] Chappelle

[2:54] >> I.

[2:54] >> Jerry Sturmer

[2:55] >> I.

[2:56] >> And Jody Harrington

[2:57] >> abstain.

[2:59] >> So because uh

[3:05] Commissioner Harrington was not here and

[3:08] no one else besides the two of us are

[3:11] here. We have a unanimous vote of the

[3:15] two of us. And according to councel,

[3:19] this is uh sufficient be uh because what

[3:23] did you call it?

[3:26] >> An implied quorum. In this case, the

[3:27] only other option would be to just not

[3:29] vote at all. And in that case, it's

[3:30] implied approval.

[3:32] >> So it's better our our council said it's

[3:34] better to have some council or some

[3:36] commissioners who were present to

[3:38] actually vote even though it's not a

[3:40] full quorum. Thank you. So, um

[3:46] those minutes are now approved and in

[3:49] the record. Uh as everybody can see from

[3:52] the draft agenda, we're going to move to

[3:55] the Coralaneous public forum and we have

[3:58] no public hearing items today. But

[4:01] happily we do have a opportunity for uh

[4:05] thorough training um with uh Brennan

[4:09] Williams and we'll get to that in a

[4:11] minute. Uh let's begin with the

[4:13] coralenous public forum. We do have one

[4:16] comment um in written form here but I

[4:21] would hope that we could also hear from

[4:24] the commenter.

[4:27] Would would you like to come forward,

[4:29] please? So So tell us your name and

[4:33] address.

[4:35] My name is Pat McClennon. Uh 2968

[4:38] Carellis Road. Uh I submitted a letter

[4:41] and I don't I I don't think I need to

[4:45] repeat that information. I I basically

[4:48] uh was looking for a revision to our

[4:52] minutes and and our recordings.

[4:54] I think uh particularly tonight uh in

[4:58] this training session that this re the

[5:00] recording the video recording of this

[5:02] meeting should be retained uh long term

[5:06] for review. Uh it's a it's a complicated

[5:10] job and there's things that I think uh

[5:12] Mr. Williams will be telling us tonight

[5:14] that perhaps we want to look at again.

[5:17] So I would urge that we keep that uh as

[5:22] a as a record video copy of this

[5:25] meeting. Uh this the other items I think

[5:30] I suggested was just a premeating and

[5:34] even perhaps Mr. Williams had a comment

[5:36] since it it started actually in the city

[5:39] of Albuquerque which he's very familiar

[5:41] with. Uh I just thought that this would

[5:44] be beneficial to uh create a better

[5:48] informed decision. Uh uh those were my

[5:51] two comments and uh I hope you'll

[5:53] consider them. Thank you.

[5:55] >> Thank you.

[5:56] >> Okay. Uh

[5:57] >> um I I will say that tonight's meeting

[5:59] because there are no uh items requiring

[6:02] swearing in, the audio will be saved and

[6:04] I believe that the administrator is

[6:06] going to put it online because it's

[6:08] different than a usual quasi judicial

[6:10] meeting. So it will be saved.

[6:12] >> Great. And posted.

[6:13] >> Okay. Okay. Um,

[6:17] anything else? Otherwise, we have the

[6:20] opportunity. We'll move on to the next

[6:22] item. Uh, I uh before we do that, I want

[6:26] to welcome all the new commissioners.

[6:28] And I hope those present uh are familiar

[6:31] with uh the names of people who have

[6:34] been approved. And I wanted to make sure

[6:36] that we had uh the names of the current

[6:40] commissioners available for the public.

[6:42] And um I've asked that uh the

[6:47] administrator

[6:48] uh put this in all subsequent packets so

[6:51] that it it's available to everybody and

[6:54] it's clear who are members of the

[6:56] commission. um just for the public

[6:59] members and and I want to welcome the

[7:02] new members are volunteers from the

[7:05] community who have agreed to uh

[7:08] participate in the decision making that

[7:12] comes before the planning and zoning uh

[7:15] commission uh at our monthly meetings.

[7:18] And now uh I get to introduce uh Brennan

[7:23] Williams who is going to walk us through

[7:26] um some very important points. Uh both

[7:30] Commissioner Harrington and I had an

[7:32] opportunity to hear you. Uh I think it

[7:35] wasn't more than 20 months ago or

[7:38] >> it was September last year.

[7:40] >> September last year. So it's very clear

[7:43] in my mind. Of course. Um Mr. Williams

[7:46] is a retired planning and zoning

[7:48] professional with more than 25 years of

[7:51] hands-on experience in the Albuquerque

[7:54] metro area. Uh having served uh in

[7:58] various administrative roles both for

[8:00] the city of Albuquerque and the Bernalo

[8:03] County Planning Department. and he

[8:06] retired in 2021

[8:09] and today helps many communities

[8:12] establish uh their procedures and make

[8:16] sound legally defensible land use

[8:19] decisions with complete confidence and

[8:22] clarity. Thank you. Uh please join me in

[8:26] welcoming Mr. Williams.

[8:31] » Thank you commission and members of the

[8:33] public. Thank you. It's quite the setup.

[8:35] I appreciate that. Um, I am happy to be

[8:38] here. I appreciate the invitation. Uh,

[8:40] it's good to see folks that I've I've

[8:42] seen before. I apologize the corny jokes

[8:46] uh will remain. So, you'll have to laugh

[8:48] all over again at those if you would

[8:49] please. Uh, but I am I'm pleased to be

[8:52] here. Uh, I am particularly happy on a

[8:55] personal level because uh July, in my

[8:58] opinion, has always been Commissioner

[9:01] Appreciation Month.

[9:03] Uh 30 years ago, uh in July of 1996,

[9:10] I attended my very first planning

[9:12] commission meeting at the city of

[9:13] Albuquerque.

[9:15] Um, I was a brand new uh zoning

[9:19] inspector with the city of Albuquerque

[9:21] and the supervisor that I was uh

[9:24] training with uh grabbed myself and

[9:26] three of the other new hires and said

[9:29] one morning, "Come on, we're going to go

[9:31] to the planning commission meeting." And

[9:34] um I was disgusted

[9:37] because uh I watched two members of the

[9:40] public, an applicant and a member from a

[9:42] neighborhood association

[9:45] act like little kids. They had no common

[9:49] courtesy was out the window. And so, uh,

[9:52] one of the one of the applicants was a

[9:55] developer that had had to make some

[9:57] changes to, uh, their fire lanes, the

[10:00] location of the fire lanes on their

[10:02] shopping center site development plan

[10:04] that they were trying to get through the

[10:05] process. They had been before the

[10:07] commission a couple times. The fire

[10:09] marshall's office was insistent that

[10:11] wherever the current location of those

[10:13] fire lanes were, it needed to be

[10:15] adjusted because they weren't able to

[10:16] turn around their their large fire

[10:18] trucks. Uh they didn't want to be

[10:20] backing out. Uh so they had asked the

[10:23] commission to uh request that the

[10:26] developer make changes and he had done

[10:28] so, but he was not happy about it. And

[10:30] so he stood before the commission and

[10:32] shook his finger at them and said, "Uh,

[10:34] I've wasted time and money on this. It's

[10:37] cost me um if I don't get approval

[10:40] today, I'm going to sue every single one

[10:42] of you. Uh the other uh individual I

[10:47] remember was someone from a neighborhood

[10:49] president of a neighborhood association

[10:51] who told the commission uh and I quote,

[10:54] "Don't be stupid. Everybody knows we

[10:56] don't need another gas station on the

[10:58] west side of town. Uh listen to what

[11:01] constituents are telling you, what the

[11:03] members of the public are telling you.

[11:05] Don't approve this. I turned to one of

[11:07] my uh my new hires, one of my brand new

[11:10] buddies, and said, "I I just can't

[11:12] believe that people would act like this

[11:14] in a public forum."

[11:16] And he said, "Well, this is no different

[11:17] than the way they treat us at the permit

[11:19] counter or out in the fields when we're

[11:21] doing our jobs." And I said, "Well,

[11:24] that's true, but we get paid.

[11:27] We we collect a salary. We get a

[11:29] paycheck every two weeks. We've got

[11:31] health benefits. We've got dental plans

[11:32] that we can rely on." uh the planning

[11:35] commission are volunteers that come in

[11:39] uh to do this. Why should they be

[11:41] subjected to uh that type of behavior

[11:44] was my point? Um I can tell you over the

[11:47] past 30 years working with various uh

[11:49] commissions at both the city of

[11:51] Albuquerque as well as Berno County as

[11:53] well as other jurisdictions across the

[11:55] state. Uh unfortunately, it's not

[11:57] uncommon for people uh that are in the

[11:59] process to behave that way. So, let me

[12:01] say as I begin, uh, thank you for what

[12:04] you do as volunteers for your community.

[12:06] I have found without fail that members

[12:08] of the climate commission care deeply

[12:10] about, uh, how their community is

[12:12] developed, how how decisions are made,

[12:14] and that sort of thing. So, uh, I

[12:17] appreciate your your, uh, invitation to

[12:20] be here tonight, as well as that from

[12:21] the members of the public uh, who

[12:23] obviously again care about planning and

[12:25] zoning issues. So, let's get started.

[12:27] What's it all about? uh as I mentioned

[12:29] as an appointed official uh of the

[12:31] village uh you serve a vital important

[12:34] role in your community. The decisions

[12:36] that you make today will live on for

[12:39] generations, hundreds hundreds of years.

[12:41] And I am going to take this point and

[12:43] I'm going to beat it over the head today

[12:45] because again your role is is very

[12:48] important and and doing it conducting

[12:51] your business the right way is

[12:53] critically important to success. Uh as I

[12:56] mentioned there how you conduct your

[12:58] business meetings. Uh all of that

[13:01] affects how you are perceived in the

[13:03] community. Your level of of success and

[13:05] influence is judged by that.

[13:09] The goals for tonight are basically to

[13:11] discuss and consider uh some common uh

[13:14] planning and zoning uh terminology, some

[13:16] topics. Uh we'll talk about how to deal

[13:19] with various uh planning and zoning

[13:21] issues. I'm going to outline the roles

[13:24] and the responsibilities

[13:26] of various uh individuals uh and groups

[13:29] uh in the in the planning and zoning

[13:31] process. And then finally, we'll touch

[13:34] on how to avoid uh unnecessary pitfalls

[13:37] or obstructions that might lead to some

[13:39] sort of liability uh to you personally

[13:43] or to the village uh as a whole.

[13:47] Um before we get officially started,

[13:50] questions are appreciated. I know this

[13:52] is I'm standing at a at a podium and

[13:55] this looks rather formal and stiff. I

[13:57] don't want it to be that way. Uh please

[13:59] if you have questions uh ask that they

[14:02] are encouraged. Um I have found over the

[14:05] years that uh if you've got a a question

[14:07] about a particular issue or I need to

[14:09] explain further uh there's somebody else

[14:11] in the room that has the same or similar

[14:14] question. So again, please don't don't

[14:15] hesitate to ask. I mean this truly there

[14:18] is no such thing as a stupid question. I

[14:21] formally declaring that the Vegas rule

[14:23] is in effect. Meaning, uh, the things we

[14:26] talk about here, uh, I want you to feel

[14:28] free, uh, to be able to do that because

[14:31] again, that's how I find that a majority

[14:33] of of the issues can be resolved.

[14:38] And then lastly, keep in mind while

[14:40] there are certain legal requirements

[14:42] that I'm going to talk about uh and

[14:44] impress upon you that those are legal

[14:46] requirements, there is not a right way

[14:49] to to zone or or to regulate land use in

[14:53] your community. The way they do it in

[14:55] Corales uh might be similar to but it's

[14:58] probably different than the way they do

[14:59] it in Carl'sb. Does it mean that one

[15:02] community is right or better than

[15:03] another? I like to tell communities that

[15:06] if you find somebody else that does it a

[15:09] little bit better than you do or you

[15:10] like a certain aspect of how they do

[15:12] things, uh, it's a lot like pop music.

[15:15] Take that idea, repackage it as your

[15:18] own, and then and then use it. That's a

[15:20] there's no such thing as plagiarism when

[15:23] we're talking about zoning.

[15:25] Um and last bullet point there,

[15:27] municipalities can create their own

[15:29] ordinances, their own codes, their own

[15:31] plans depending upon the unique

[15:33] characteristics and goal of of your

[15:35] community. Uh what you can't do is make

[15:38] up rules on the fly. Uh so if something

[15:41] is not working uh and you want to change

[15:44] those rules, you have to engage in the

[15:45] formal process to do that. But there's

[15:47] nothing that says that you can't change

[15:50] what you've got if you as a commission

[15:53] feel like it's not not working

[15:55] correctly.

[15:58] So, what is zoning? Uh, if you're old

[16:00] school like me, you go over to the

[16:02] bookshelf and you wipe the dust off the

[16:05] dictionary and you go to Z and you look

[16:07] up zoning and you might find something

[16:09] like this. Zoning is local government

[16:11] law that controls the use of land within

[16:14] the specified jurisdiction.

[16:17] Clear as

[16:19] uh if you are young and hip and you

[16:22] Google it or Type it into chat GPT. You

[16:25] might find something that says zoning is

[16:27] a systemized method of land use

[16:29] regulation designating the activities

[16:31] which may occur thereon.

[16:34] Again, not too educational. It doesn't

[16:38] explain. The land's version is this.

[16:41] Zoning is the government's ability to

[16:42] tell you what you can or you cannot do

[16:46] on your own property.

[16:48] Uh, I don't know about you, but

[16:49] sometimes hearing that after saying it

[16:52] for years and years and years still

[16:53] makes the hair on the back of my neck

[16:55] stand up because your home is your

[16:57] castle, right? You think of your

[16:59] property as yours. That's that's very

[17:02] personal uh to you. I can assure you uh

[17:06] as a young zoning inspector in

[17:07] Albuquerque,

[17:09] uh you weren't fully vetted. you had not

[17:11] paid your dues until you had been called

[17:14] a communist, a terrorist or a fascist in

[17:18] the performance of your duties. Uh while

[17:20] that may be a common uh complaint about

[17:24] zoning, when done correctly, that that's

[17:27] not what zoning is. Okay, let's talk

[17:30] about what what zoning is. The truth is

[17:32] that land use standards have been in

[17:34] effect for as long as mankind has has

[17:35] walked the earth.

[17:37] If you're a hunter, a fisherman,

[17:38] outdoorsman, you know, whatever, uh,

[17:42] think about setting up a campsite. In a

[17:44] nutshell, that is zoning. You figure out

[17:46] the location for your tent, which is

[17:48] going to be your residential, maybe your

[17:51] house for the weekend. Uh, you place the

[17:53] cooler at a specific sp on the

[17:57] campground. You don't want it too close

[17:59] to the tent, but you also don't want it

[18:00] so far away that it's inconvenient to go

[18:02] grab something out of out of your food

[18:04] source, out of the cooler. you set up a

[18:07] campfire, you don't again want that so

[18:09] close to the tent that it damages the

[18:10] tent, nor do you want it damaging the

[18:12] food source. And then of course, if

[18:15] you've ever been camping with little

[18:16] kids, the question is, "Daddy, where do

[18:19] we go to the bathroom?" Right? You you

[18:21] that's done somewhere else far away from

[18:23] the campfire in the tens.

[18:25] That's that's planning. That's community

[18:27] planning in a nutshell. There are really

[18:30] three significant events that happened

[18:32] about 100 years ago uh that that kind of

[18:35] established the foundation of what we

[18:38] consider what we talk about zoning uh

[18:40] today. The first uh was construction of

[18:43] the equitable building in Manhattan in

[18:46] New York City that occurred over about a

[18:48] 2-year period 1915 1916.

[18:51] Uh this was the home of built

[18:53] specifically for the equitable insurance

[18:56] company. Uh when completed this was a

[18:59] 36story dual tower office building uh

[19:03] was over 550 or was 5

[19:05] ft tall, provided over 1.2 million

[19:08] square feet of gross floor area. And uh

[19:11] the big issue, the big rub was that when

[19:14] the building was completed, uh it cast a

[19:17] 7 acre shadow. Uh so that there were

[19:20] properties literally across the street

[19:22] from this building that have not seen

[19:25] the sun, direct sunlight since 1915 or

[19:28] 1916 uh because of the the monstrosity

[19:33] of the equitable building. And so uh it

[19:36] was certainly not the first large

[19:37] building in New York City nor the last.

[19:40] Uh but the people of New York had had

[19:42] enough. They petitioned their elected

[19:44] officials and they said, "These massive

[19:46] buildings without any control, without

[19:49] any regulation, make us feel crowded. It

[19:51] chokes out the sunlight. It it feels

[19:53] oppressive. We're walking down these

[19:56] canyons of buildings and we don't want

[19:58] that anymore." And so what New York City

[20:00] came up with uh were uh requirements for

[20:04] step back architecture. So if you go a

[20:06] certain number of feet high and continue

[20:09] to want to build up, you have to step

[20:12] your building back. Um there was a shift

[20:16] to separating office developments from

[20:17] one another. They weren't all in one

[20:20] area. There was they intentionally

[20:22] separated those types of activities. Uh

[20:24] there were adoption of daylight and air

[20:26] requirements again so that people uh

[20:29] didn't always feel like they were being

[20:31] uh oppressed by these big buildings. And

[20:34] there were also protections for

[20:35] residential development uh to protect it

[20:38] from from commercial or industrial uses.

[20:41] So that was issue uh event number one.

[20:44] Number two occurred a few years later

[20:46] 1922. The department of commerce

[20:48] publishes the standard state zoning

[20:50] enabling act. Uh this becomes the

[20:52] blueprint uh for cities particularly

[20:54] along the east coast uh to come up with

[20:57] framework on how to regulate land use

[20:59] within their communities. There were

[21:01] nine sections of the document. They

[21:03] outlined how to uh divide a local

[21:06] jurisdiction uh up, how to adopt

[21:09] enforcement mechanisms to ensure those

[21:11] standards are met. Uh included things

[21:13] like formal notice and public hearings

[21:16] for for certain uh planning and zoning

[21:18] matters. Uh created uh height limits and

[21:22] story limits for buildings, yard

[21:24] requirements. We commonly refer to those

[21:25] as setbacks. Uh and there were some

[21:28] density limits that were placed there.

[21:32] That was number two. Issue number three

[21:34] was a uh United States Supreme Court

[21:37] case decided in 1926.

[21:40] Uh it's the Village of Uklid, Ohio

[21:42] versus the Amler Reality Company. And

[21:44] this is a lawsuit that centered on

[21:46] whether or not the village of Uklid,

[21:48] which is still there in Ohio, uh their

[21:51] suburb of Cleveland, whether or not they

[21:52] could establish uh land use restrictions

[21:56] uh and adopt a zoning code for the

[21:58] properties that were in their their

[22:00] village limits.

[22:02] The background is that in 1922, the

[22:05] village adopted an ordinance through a

[22:07] public hearing process. That ordinance

[22:10] came up with six six different zones uh

[22:13] and They applied those new six different

[22:15] zones uh to all the properties that were

[22:18] within the jurisdiction. One of the

[22:20] property owners was the Amler Reality

[22:22] Company. They owned 68 acres of land and

[22:25] they argued that uh the village by

[22:28] imposing limitations and restrictions on

[22:31] their 68 acres. They had reduced the

[22:34] value of the land. Their argument was

[22:35] that we have always intended on

[22:37] developing these 68 acres for heavy

[22:39] industrial uses and by you imposing you

[22:42] the village imposing these restrictions

[22:45] you're taking away you know land value

[22:48] here and you're not compensating us for it and consequently

[22:52] you know because of that you're being

[22:54] unconstitutional in your in your

[22:56] governmental action. So parties begin

[22:59] suing each other and it works its way up

[23:00] through the United States Supreme Court

[23:02] and again in 1926 the courts the United

[23:05] States Supreme Court decided the

[23:07] following that despite the argument the

[23:10] ordinance was not an unreasonable use of

[23:12] the villages police power or their

[23:14] inherent ability to control and regulate

[23:17] what occurs within village limits.

[23:20] Secondly, that the ordinance was not

[23:22] discriminatory as had been argued

[23:24] because the court found a rational basis

[23:26] for standards to separate residential,

[23:29] commercial and industrial uses. And

[23:32] finally, uh the ordinance was not

[23:34] unconstitutional or in other words, it

[23:36] was deemed to be constitutional in

[23:38] nature because the process that was used

[23:41] by the village to establish the

[23:43] standards

[23:44] uh was uh was adhered to was was

[23:47] recognized by the courts as being

[23:48] correct. The court recognized that the

[23:51] presumption of favor of local

[23:54] governments to create zoning regulations

[23:56] unless they are clearly arbitrary,

[23:58] unreasonable, have no substantial

[24:00] relation to public health, safety,

[24:02] morals or general welfare is the is the

[24:05] standard which needs to be met and the

[24:07] court determined that Uclid the village

[24:09] of Uclid had done that. So those are the

[24:11] three events equitable building standard

[24:14] state zoning enabling act and then this

[24:17] United States Supreme Court case. Here

[24:20] in New Mexico, uh, something very

[24:21] similar happened in 1965. The

[24:23] legislature adopted the municipal zoning

[24:26] act 3211.

[24:28] This is legislation that provides for

[24:30] the purpose of promoting health, safety,

[24:32] morals, and general welfare. A county or

[24:35] a municipality is a zoning authority and

[24:39] as such they may regulate and restrict

[24:40] within the jurisdiction the following.

[24:43] Height, number of stories and size of

[24:44] buildings and other structures, the

[24:46] percentage of a yard that can be

[24:47] occupied. The size of yards, courts and

[24:50] other open space, the density of the

[24:52] population and the location and use of

[24:54] building structures and land for trade,

[24:56] industry, recreation or any other

[24:58] purpose. with anything that occurs, you

[25:01] can use properly zoning to control and

[25:04] regulate the use of land within the

[25:07] jurisdiction.

[25:08] The act goes on to require that the

[25:10] zoning authority has to adopt a

[25:12] comprehensive plan upon which the zoning

[25:14] should be based. The comp plan is your

[25:17] policy document that talks about uh in

[25:20] generalities uh characteristics of the

[25:22] community that wish to be protected. Uh

[25:25] or uh we appreciate the rural So, we're

[25:29] going to require large lots and large

[25:32] setback distances to preserve that

[25:34] feeling of openness, things of that

[25:36] nature. The zoning code then gives you

[25:39] specifics or the details on how to meet

[25:42] those policy goals.

[25:45] The act says that the comp plan should

[25:46] be designed to lessen congestion in the

[25:48] streets and the public ways to secure

[25:50] safety from fire, flood waters, panic,

[25:52] and other damages. Promote health and

[25:54] general welfare. We've heard that

[25:55] before. Provide adequate light and Heard

[25:58] that one before. Prevent the

[26:00] overcrowding of land. Avoid undue

[26:01] congest, excuse me, undue concentration

[26:03] of the population, facilitate adequate

[26:05] provisions for transportation, water,

[26:07] sewage, schools, parks, and other public

[26:10] requirements. And control the uh control

[26:12] and debate the unsightly use of

[26:13] buildings or land.

[26:16] also goes on to say that the zoning

[26:18] authority must provide by ordinance the

[26:21] process by which zoning decisions or

[26:23] zoning determinations are made, the

[26:25] standards that are to be enforced and

[26:27] the procedures that are used to change,

[26:29] to modify, to supplement or to repeal or

[26:33] adopt uh land use requirements.

[26:36] The act also mandates that uh a properly

[26:38] noticed public hearing must occur when a

[26:41] hearing body is engaged in those

[26:44] activities. The notice must indicate the

[26:47] time and the place where the hearing is

[26:49] to take place. It's got to be provided

[26:51] at least 15 days in advance of the

[26:53] hearing. And depending upon uh the the

[26:56] size of the request or or the property

[26:58] that will be affected by the request,

[27:00] you either have to send out certified

[27:02] mail return requested or first class

[27:05] mail. And again, that's all under state

[27:07] statute.

[27:09] As we drilled around a little bit

[27:10] further, uh I hope I'm not surprising

[27:12] anyone here. Uh but the village of Kalis

[27:14] has section in your uh in your zoning

[27:17] ordinance that talks specifically about

[27:18] the planning and zoning commission. Um

[27:22] talks about the number of members,

[27:23] seven. You're appointed uh by the mayor

[27:26] with consent of the governing body. Uh

[27:28] you're charged to serve staggered terms

[27:31] of two years. You have to reside within

[27:34] the village.

[27:36] Uh talks about makeup. You've got to

[27:39] have a chair, a vice chair, and a

[27:40] secretary. Uh those positions serve for

[27:43] one calendar year or until the planning

[27:46] commission elects somebody else. Um

[27:50] you've got duties that are outlined

[27:51] there. I won't read all of those. Uh but

[27:54] you are to hold hearings, public

[27:55] hearings on planning and zoning matters

[27:57] that come before you, offer

[27:58] recommendations to the governing body,

[28:01] uh and work with them on uh any

[28:03] necessary public improvements as well as

[28:05] if you've got ideas on how to finance

[28:07] those. Those all fall under your

[28:09] responsibilities as commissioners.

[28:12] Uh you've got to hold at least uh one

[28:14] regular meeting a month unless there is

[28:16] no business before the commission.

[28:18] You've got to adopt rules of procedure.

[28:20] Uh and you've got to keep minutes and

[28:22] make sure those are turned over to the

[28:24] village clerk for recordkeeping

[28:25] purposes.

[28:28] So in a nutshell uh as I mentioned at

[28:30] the beginning your authority to regulate

[28:34] uh is is guaranteed is protected is

[28:37] outlined at the federal the state and

[28:39] the local level. Um

[28:42] I've always liked this quote with great

[28:44] power comes great responsibility. I was

[28:46] taught that it was some some version of

[28:49] a speech given by Winston Churchill. Uh

[28:52] my teenage daughter informed me, "No,

[28:54] Dad, that's from Spider-Man 3." Uh so

[28:57] whether it's Church Hill or Spider-Man

[28:59] 3, I do think it's applicable to the to

[29:02] the role that you're doing uh as as

[29:04] planning commissioners, uh you've got a

[29:06] lot of responsibility. Uh but with that

[29:10] uh comes comes the cost of making sure

[29:14] you're doing your job correctly every

[29:17] single time or as close to every single

[29:19] time as possible.

[29:21] Let me stop right there. Questions?

[29:27] » Yes, sir. Go ahead. Go ahead.

[29:30] >> Just to clarify, Brennan, that um

[29:33] the municipality

[29:35] has the primary responsibility and

[29:38] authority to govern all those things

[29:41] you've listed as opposed to the state or

[29:45] the federal government. Right.

[29:46] >> Correct. Yes, sir. Yes. At the local

[29:49] level, uh your local ordinance is going

[29:52] to dictate uh how you do things. Uh but

[29:55] there are protections

[29:57] uh and and allowances and authority

[29:59] given at the at the federal and the

[30:01] state level.

[30:02] >> Yeah. As long as we were staying within

[30:04] the enabling legislation to both of

[30:06] those.

[30:07] >> Yes. Correct. Good point.

[30:12] Um

[30:16] there was a in your slide you talked

[30:19] about um

[30:25] the

[30:27] Uklid versus Amber.

[30:29] >> Yes sir. They argued

[30:32] that is the uh Amber Realy

[30:37] that something was taken away from them.

[30:41] They had already purchased this 68 acres

[30:47] and so they lost something that they

[30:51] thought they had.

[30:54] >> Look, I I would agree with that. But the

[30:58] >> but the court said

[31:01] for the good of the community these

[31:04] rules need to go forward.

[31:08] >> Correct. And the and the court also said

[31:11] having not been on the court but I I'll

[31:14] summize what what the court said in the

[31:16] decision was that the process that that

[31:19] the village used to create the

[31:20] ordinance. It was it was a public

[31:22] process.

[31:23] Um that that allowed all property owners

[31:27] as well as Amber or including Amler to argue to petition to raise points as

[31:35] to why they should or shouldn't be

[31:37] subject to the code. Uh and because that

[31:39] process was public, it was open, it was

[31:42] transparent, it met all the notification

[31:44] requirements, that the law, the zoning

[31:48] law was allowed, that it went through

[31:50] the right process and that it wasn't

[31:53] unconstitutional

[31:55] uh at its at its base in its nature.

[31:58] There was a question here in the

[32:01] community

[32:02] um

[32:04] in the most recent comprehensive plan

[32:08] where um the village was encouraged to

[32:12] consider

[32:14] um

[32:17] smaller uh use of a of a lot, a smaller

[32:22] percentage. that seemed to have been in

[32:25] the minds of the state legislators at

[32:27] one point. That's a a power that the the

[32:31] village would have to have smaller or

[32:34] larger percentage. Um some uh

[32:40] owners of lots came and testified before

[32:43] this commission that you can't take away

[32:46] what we already own.

[32:49] We own the ability to build this big and

[32:53] now you're saying that if we that you

[32:56] might change that to smaller. We

[32:59] purchased in order to build big and now

[33:03] you're considering taking away our

[33:06] ability to have a big lot or a big

[33:08] house. You see what I'm trying to say?

[33:12] >> Uh yes. I mean

[33:14] >> like the Supreme Court said but if if

[33:17] done properly the could change the

[33:20] percentage and that homeowner who only

[33:24] purchased a lot not an already existing

[33:26] building

[33:29] might not win in court. Sure. And and I

[33:32] am painting not to be difficult. I am

[33:34] painting with a pretty broad brush, but

[33:37] um something of this nature can be

[33:39] argued in several ways where the village

[33:44] uh may be told be careful if you adopt

[33:46] this particular regulation or if you

[33:48] make this change to the code, it could

[33:49] have a ripple effect. Uh it could lead

[33:52] to uh properties or or buildings that

[33:55] are nonconforming. In other words, they

[33:57] don't meet the current standard. Uh that sometimes is difficult to regulate.

[34:03] Uh But you also may be getting into

[34:04] depending on the on the particulars on

[34:06] the details, you may also be getting

[34:08] into territory where you might be uh

[34:11] improperly restricting or taking care of

[34:13] somebody's property rights. It's really

[34:15] issue specific. Um but it's it's not

[34:19] uncommon to hear folks say if you're

[34:21] looking to change the code, we don't

[34:23] want to change because we always wanted

[34:25] to or we've anticipated or we dreamed

[34:28] about doing

[34:29] >> X Y or Z.

[34:32] You know, again, broad brush brush here,

[34:33] but that doesn't always meet the legal

[34:36] standard for prohibiting a community

[34:39] from changing, adopting, tweaking,

[34:42] updating their regulations.

[34:44] >> So, we're only going to get I mean,

[34:46] those people he's talking about then

[34:47] threatened to sue us if it was adopted

[34:49] so they couldn't build the house they

[34:50] had planned. Um, but it seems to me the

[34:53] only answer we're going to get is if

[34:55] it's changed and they sue us, we'll go

[34:57] to court. The court will have to

[35:00] And [clears throat] and we'll talk about

[35:01] this in detail a little bit more, but

[35:03] the court is going to be looking at

[35:05] should it go to court, the court is

[35:07] going to be looking at the record that

[35:09] was created. And one of the points I'm

[35:11] going to express to you is make sure you

[35:13] create a a good clean record. Doesn't

[35:17] guarantee, you know, anybody can sue

[35:19] anybody for anything. Doesn't mean that

[35:21] uh given the circumstances that the

[35:23] court would necessarily overturn a

[35:26] decision that was made by the

[35:27] commission. Uh but it it helps if if the

[35:31] record is clean and the process uh is

[35:34] followed to a tea. It just protects you

[35:36] and it protects the village in those

[35:38] decisions that you make that some people

[35:40] feel might

[35:41] >> and it's actually the village council

[35:42] that would make that change.

[35:44] >> Right.

[35:45] >> We don't have that.

[35:47] >> Correct. Yes. I mean you're again I'm

[35:49] assuming in this scenario that you're

[35:51] relying on staff, you're relying on uh

[35:54] the village attorney or or the firm uh

[35:57] to to advise you and then you testimony

[35:59] and you look at the evidence and you

[36:01] make the best decision possible and

[36:04] we'll talk about what those benchmarks

[36:06] are. But yes, you you are not

[36:10] you're not stuck out on a limb somewhere

[36:13] uh with the fear that somebody's behind

[36:15] you, you know, with a handsaw trying to cut your legs out from

[36:19] underneath.

[36:21] Okay. Anybody else?

[36:25] Okay.

[36:30] So major point here, if you leave with

[36:34] nothing else in mind, as a hearing body,

[36:37] you have to adhere, you must, you shall

[36:39] adhere to the established rules and

[36:42] those procedures when conducting your

[36:43] business. Let's talk about what those

[36:45] are. Uh it was mentioned, Commissioner

[36:48] BS mentioned that, uh the the

[36:51] distinction between a a federal and and

[36:54] state standard. Uh I'm not here you uh

[36:58] but it's not uncommon uh during our

[37:01] legislative session sessions uh for

[37:03] bills to be proposed to both the House

[37:05] and the Senate that seek to preempt or

[37:08] take away a local community's uh ability

[37:12] to make decisions on planning and zoning

[37:13] matters. Um really it's one of those

[37:16] situations where uh if if approved or if

[37:19] adopted uh certain bills would would

[37:22] take away your authority uh to to decide

[37:27] certain matters. Um those are just a

[37:29] couple that have come up in the past

[37:31] couple legislative sessions. Uh there

[37:33] are more uh that are out there and I can

[37:36] tell you uh there will be more in the

[37:38] future. And again, one of the common

[37:41] complaints uh that

[37:46] House members or senators will uh will

[37:48] use is that they're hearing complaints

[37:50] from their constituents that the that

[37:52] the process is broken, that people are

[37:54] not treated fairly and equally, that one

[37:57] decision on a particular matter is made

[38:00] one month and then the next month a very

[38:02] similar request comes forward and the

[38:04] commission makes a completely different

[38:05] decision.

[38:06] any any level of predictability in the

[38:09] process is gone. And so some of these

[38:12] proposals are meant to uh take away that authority at the local level uh and

[38:18] make it a statewide requirement. So

[38:20] again, adhering to the process is

[38:22] important. It really comes down to

[38:24] ethical decision making and that is

[38:28] crucial to keeping the local community

[38:30] out of uh legal, procedural, and and

[38:33] public problems. Uh you want to make as

[38:35] a commission that uh you're you're

[38:38] respected, that the work that you do uh

[38:41] is respected. People may not like the

[38:42] answer or the decision that you give

[38:44] them. Uh but if you're engaged in a a

[38:48] fair open process, uh that gives people

[38:51] an ability to to get involved and and

[38:55] try to have their side of the of the

[38:57] story told.

[38:59] High standards of integrity and

[39:00] proficiency are required so that again

[39:02] public respect for the process is

[39:04] maintained.

[39:05] Committing to doing things as written,

[39:07] following the established process and

[39:09] being open and transparent is the key.

[39:12] The public has a right to be informed.

[39:14] It is a public process. So, they have a

[39:16] right to be informed uh and participate

[39:19] in that process.

[39:22] Some key points here. Planning and

[39:24] zoning commission shapes the future of

[39:25] the community. I've talked about that a

[39:27] couple times before, right? Don't forget

[39:29] that. Uh often you are responsible for

[39:32] helping or sometimes hindering uh

[39:35] dollars, development dollars, could be

[39:37] in the tens of thousands, could be in

[39:39] the millions. Uh but you have the

[39:42] authority to make a decision that could

[39:43] affect uh a really big project, a really

[39:46] good project, a really bad project.

[39:48] That's why adhering to uh the standards

[39:50] and the criteria is important.

[39:53] There should be an emphasis on gaining

[39:55] and holding community trust. Always

[39:57] acting with fairness and integrity uh

[40:00] helps create that favorable rapport with

[40:02] the public. And having a clean slate

[40:05] approach for matters that come before

[40:07] you uh is is necessary, is required by

[40:12] the law. We'll talk about this a little

[40:13] bit more in just a little bit, but you

[40:16] uh as planning and zoning commissioners

[40:17] sit as judges very similar to what a

[40:20] judge in a courtroom would do when you

[40:22] hear planning and zoning matters that come before you and you should act

[40:27] accordingly. Not saying that you don't,

[40:28] but it's important to remember that

[40:30] that's that's the level that's where

[40:32] we're going to raise the bar uh to make

[40:34] sure that that we act and behave in that

[40:37] capacity.

[40:40] Uh due process is required. We'll about

[40:42] that more at length here in a little

[40:43] bit. But it just ensures fairness and it

[40:46] gives participants an opportunity to be

[40:48] heard. Guarantees that they've got an

[40:50] opportunity to be heard. Transparency

[40:52] provides openness and accountability. Uh

[40:55] we are public servants in whether we

[40:57] work directly for the planning and

[41:00] zoning department uh or you serves serve

[41:02] as representatives of the planning and

[41:04] zoning commission. Uh but we are public

[41:06] servants in that aspect. Uh perception

[41:08] is extremely important. Participants

[41:11] need to that they were heard, that the

[41:13] hearing was fair, and that they were

[41:15] treated with respect.

[41:19] Very quickly, let me give you a

[41:20] practical example. This is completely

[41:22] made up. Um I I take no credit. The

[41:24] names have not been changed to protect

[41:26] the innocent because there were no names

[41:28] to begin with. But um in my practical

[41:30] example, [snorts] uh the San Gabriel

[41:33] Treatment Center LLC proposes to build a

[41:36] new building uh to house a methodone

[41:38] treatment center. And the code

[41:41] fictitious code uh that we're talking

[41:43] about requires them to go through a

[41:44] public hearing process in order to get

[41:47] approval before they can turn in their

[41:49] plans and start building their building.

[41:51] Okay.

[41:52] The zoning code classifies the methodone

[41:55] clinic, the methodone treatment center

[41:57] as a clinic. And it also defines a

[42:01] pharmacy, an urgent care center, a legal

[42:04] aid uh operation, a dental clinic, and

[42:08] count mental health or counseling

[42:09] services also fall under this umbrella

[42:12] of a clinic. Okay.

[42:15] A couple months ago, uh, for what it's

[42:17] worth, the planning and zoning

[42:18] commission, uh, approved a veterinary

[42:21] clinic, uh, in the same zone, but on the

[42:24] opposite side of town. So, it's not

[42:26] apples to apples necessarily, but but

[42:28] they're similar projects, classified

[42:31] similarly, uh, and within the same

[42:33] zoning designation.

[42:36] Uh, a large neighborhood opposition uh,

[42:38] comes to the public hearing and they are

[42:40] opposed, vehemently opposed to the

[42:42] methodone treatment center. They say

[42:45] things like it's too close to the

[42:46] daycare center that's just down the

[42:48] street. Traffic is already a problem in

[42:50] this area. Uh you know, clientele of

[42:53] methanone treatment centers, um there

[42:56] are going to be problems and there are

[42:57] going to be problems in this

[42:58] neighborhood if if the planning

[42:59] commission approves this. We don't want

[43:01] those type of people in our

[43:02] neighborhood. Uh and somebody else

[43:04] argues that the building style doesn't

[43:06] reflect the design characteristics of

[43:07] the neighborhood. They're proposing just

[43:09] a square metal building, black and white

[43:13] colors. there's no character, there's no

[43:15] architectural feel to that. So, we're

[43:18] opposed uh to that as well.

[43:21] So, members of this hearing body after

[43:23] hearing from from the public and their

[43:25] concerns, one says, you know what, we

[43:27] should implement a moratorum and we

[43:29] should during that moratorum period, we

[43:32] should change the definition of clinic

[43:33] to remove methanote centers.

[43:37] Somebody else says, you know what,

[43:38] traffic is a problem with that

[43:40] intersection. I think it would be a good

[43:41] idea that we require the developer to

[43:44] come up with a traffic stud.

[43:46] Somebody else suggested the applicant

[43:48] meet with the police department to come

[43:49] up with a public safety plan because,

[43:51] you know, there's going to be problems

[43:52] based on this land use and we want to

[43:54] make sure the police are working with

[43:55] the operator so that we know how we're

[43:57] going to deal with with these people

[43:59] when they start causing problems.

[44:02] And finally, somebody says, um, I

[44:05] understand the architectural concerns

[44:07] and I think we should have the developer

[44:09] hold three or four different public uh

[44:12] sharets meetings where the members can

[44:14] come in and we can ask the director to

[44:16] change it to make it fit with the

[44:18] neighborhood.

[44:20] Anybody see problems with with any of

[44:22] that?

[44:24] >> All of it.

[44:25] Please explain.

[44:28] Well, if each of those areas of concern

[44:32] isn't specifically addressed in the

[44:34] zoning code, then there's no authority

[44:37] to require any of that to happen.

[44:43] That's Thank you. That that was exactly

[44:45] what is that you want to be careful.

[44:48] We're we're engaged in a public hearing.

[44:51] We're listening to and it's not always

[44:54] opposition, but we're listening to to

[44:56] feedback from the public. It has to be

[44:59] feedback that's pertinent to the

[45:00] established standards. If the code

[45:03] doesn't require a traffic study,

[45:06] theoretically, I guess you could ask the

[45:08] developer to to put together a traffic

[45:10] study, but you wouldn't use that as a as

[45:12] basis to deny the request. We asked them

[45:14] to put together a traffic study and they

[45:16] didn't do it. Well, the code doesn't

[45:17] require it. So, you've got to play by

[45:21] the existing rules. Okay.

[45:24] Questions about that?

[45:29] uh as as decision makers, these are

[45:31] questions I think you need to be asking

[45:32] yourself consistently. What are the

[45:34] standards? What are the rules for

[45:36] review? What you know what are our

[45:38] parameters? What are the bumpers set up?

[45:40] How far can we go? What can we ask for?

[45:42] What can we not ask for? What are the

[45:44] necessary steps uh as established? And

[45:47] are we following those steps in the

[45:49] process? Don't skip a step. Uh you have

[45:52] to follow those steps. If they're

[45:53] established, you have to follow those

[45:55] steps. And as a decision maker, have I

[45:57] been open, honest, and in my involvement

[46:00] in that matter. Again, it comes back to personal ethics. You want to make

[46:03] sure that you're above board uh as

[46:06] you're making these decisions and

[46:07] determinations.

[46:10] Very quickly, some legal considerations

[46:12] uh for for you as commissioners. Uh

[46:15] these don't uh these affect you. You're

[46:18] not necessarily responsible for them per

[46:20] se, but I do want to make sure you're

[46:22] aware of these. Uh the Open Meetings

[46:24] Act, it's a it's a state actuh that

[46:26] requires public and openness during

[46:31] decisions and and planning and zoning

[46:33] deliberations. So if you've got a

[46:35] request that comes before you, you have

[46:36] to adhere to the standards of OM.

[46:40] The inspection public records act also

[46:42] affects you. Um that act indicates that

[46:46] while you conduct your business, the

[46:48] notes that you make, uh the

[46:50] conversations that you have, uh the

[46:53] emails that you send all become part of

[46:55] the record and the public has a right uh

[46:58] to look at those should they choose to

[47:00] want copies of those or listen to the

[47:02] recordings or whatever. Uh and and the

[47:05] village has to has to provide those for

[47:07] folks that that make those requests.

[47:10] The United Civil Rights Act uh it's very

[47:13] similar to uh protections that we'll

[47:15] talk about in just a second at the

[47:17] federal level. Uh but it makes sure that

[47:19] people again are treated fairly. they

[47:21] are not discriminated against as they

[47:23] engage uh in public planning and zoning

[47:26] hearings and processes. Uh it does allow

[47:29] should a court find that a commission uh

[47:31] has violated the uh New Mexico Civil

[47:33] Rights Act. It does allow for municipal

[47:36] officials, which include planning

[47:38] commissioners uh to be held uh to to be

[47:41] sued to be held accountable. So again,

[47:44] not that anybody that I'm aware of would

[47:46] intentionally do something like that, uh

[47:48] but you want to make sure Everybody's

[47:50] getting a fair shake, everybody's being

[47:52] treated the same.

[47:54] Finally, uh the human rights act uh

[47:57] again also just ensures that people are

[47:59] not discriminated against and that

[48:00] they're treated fairly throughout the

[48:02] process. The subdivision act, the state

[48:05] subdivision act may affect your

[48:06] decisions. Uh the state engineering

[48:08] water law may affect some of that. Uh

[48:11] cultural properties act uh may have some

[48:13] bearing on what you're doing. Again,

[48:15] you're going to be relying on on staff

[48:17] or the attorney uh should a request come

[48:20] before you that would be affected by

[48:22] that. But again, it's important to

[48:24] remember that you're not making the

[48:25] decision in a silo, you've got other

[48:28] standards that you have to make sure are

[48:31] to

[48:32] the federal level. Uh we'll talk about

[48:35] this more in just a second, but due

[48:36] process under the 14th and the fifth

[48:38] amendments. Uh again, it just protects

[48:40] people's rights as individuals and

[48:42] property owners through the process,

[48:44] requires fairness uh of all concerning

[48:46] how the resulting decision is made, and

[48:49] it avoids depriving the property of all

[48:51] economically viable uses.

[48:54] uh may include such things as the Fair

[48:56] Housing Act, uh the Americans with

[48:58] Disability Act, or the Religious Land

[49:00] Use Institutionalized Persons Act or UPA

[49:03] may may affect certain decisions. But

[49:05] again, you would rely on on staff uh to

[49:08] help you understand should one of those

[49:11] should a request come up that's affected

[49:12] by one of these federal protections.

[49:18] Uh in being ethical, it's important to

[49:20] remember the following. These are kind

[49:22] of things that have always worked for me

[49:24] in my career. Don't forget zoning

[49:26] standards apply to all properties within

[49:29] the municipal limits. Um, we've got a

[49:31] few empty seats here tonight. Uh, it

[49:33] does not mean that because those seats

[49:35] are empty, people don't care. Uh,

[49:37] there's an expectation that you as a

[49:39] commission will conduct your business

[49:41] whether I'm in the room or not, members

[49:43] of the community are in the room or not.

[49:45] And so, it's important to remember that

[49:48] uh just because you got a packed house

[49:50] uh doesn't mean that you run the meeting

[49:52] any differently. We just got one or two

[49:53] that are sitting in the audience. There

[49:55] should be some consistency and some

[49:57] predictability to your process.

[49:59] Uh familiarity with relevant state local

[50:01] laws, development codes, and planning

[50:03] ordinances is required. You don't have

[50:05] to be a subject matter expert, but

[50:08] having a working knowledge of your code

[50:10] or your subdivision ordinance. Uh you

[50:13] know, make sure you've got that. Make

[50:14] sure you're reading that and your

[50:16] understanding. If you got questions,

[50:18] you're asking for clarification.

[50:21] um the result of the decision that's

[50:23] made may not be popular uh but decision

[50:26] makers have to play by the rules. I like

[50:28] to say sometimes that uh the decisions

[50:31] that you make, it's not a popularity

[50:32] contest. I've got more people voting for

[50:35] me for homecoming king than somebody

[50:37] else. Uh that that's not a planning and

[50:40] zoning. Again, we'll get into it in more

[50:42] detail, but you're acting as judges and

[50:45] you have to listen, be unbiased, and

[50:47] listen to the evidence that's presented

[50:49] in order to make a decision.

[50:51] If you adhere to the criteria, more than

[50:53] likely you and your community are going

[50:54] to stay out of trouble. And we'll talk

[50:57] about avoiding conf excuse me, conflicts

[50:59] of interest uh and disclosing. When is

[51:02] it necessary to disclose

[51:04] uh any personal or financial interests

[51:07] which may create a conflict?

[51:10] Questions?

[51:14] » Okay. Yes, sir. Go ahead. about the uh

[51:16] I'll just call it a feedback loop

[51:18] between this commission and the

[51:20] governing body.

[51:21] >> Yes.

[51:22] >> So when it seems that proposals are

[51:26] coming before us and they are let's

[51:29] [clears throat] say um they are not

[51:32] specifically aspects of them are not

[51:35] specifically

[51:36] uh prohibited in our zoning code. then

[51:40] um and we end up approving projects that

[51:44] displease let's say a large number of

[51:47] people in the public. Um

[51:50] can you just comment I don't want you to

[51:52] go deep on this but say something about

[51:55] if and when it's appropriate for this

[51:58] commission to communicate to the

[52:00] governing body that such and such issue

[52:03] seems inadequately addressed in the

[52:06] code.

[52:08] Excellent question and I would just very

[52:10] briefly say that um I I think the idea

[52:14] or the the concept is to have a an

[52:18] appointed body and a governing body that

[52:20] are working together. They're on the

[52:22] same page, things of that nature. But uh

[52:24] it's not uncommon sometimes for there to

[52:26] be a disconnect or uh my words maybe a

[52:30] lack of appreciation at the governing

[52:32] body level. uh the planning and zoning

[52:34] commission spent four hours talking

[52:36] about uh you know building height or or

[52:39] you know solar protection or whatever it

[52:41] might be and it seems uh that once it

[52:44] got to the governing body that that was

[52:46] an afterthought or that wasn't

[52:48] appreciated as much. Uh that happens.

[52:51] Um, I would advise or my suggestion

[52:53] would be that if if a commission feels

[52:55] like a governing body is not listening

[52:57] or vice versa, the governing body is

[52:59] concerned about what goes on at the

[53:01] planning and zoning commission level.

[53:03] Um, one of the great ways to do that is

[53:05] when you render a decision, you're

[53:07] outlining in writing uh why you made the

[53:10] decision, what aspects or what

[53:12] characteristics uh were considered. Uh

[53:15] what were considered is also

[53:17] appropriate. Just again explaining how

[53:21] you went from point A to point decision

[53:24] is is advising and I get it. You know

[53:27] groups can be very dynamic and some

[53:29] groups get along better than others. Uh

[53:32] but it doesn't mean that you don't put

[53:35] in the effort and the time to come up

[53:38] with a good decision, you know, good

[53:41] notice of decision that explains uh what

[53:43] you were what the commission was moved

[53:45] by and maybe what didn't hold quite as

[53:47] much.

[53:48] Thank you.

[53:50] >> There was a question.

[53:52] >> Yes, sir. Yes.

[53:55] Question comes to my mind about a

[53:58] concern that an applicant for a change

[54:02] in the use of their property. Um there

[54:06] may be a history of of actions that

[54:10] cause neighbors of that applicant to

[54:13] have misgivings or reservations. And

[54:16] they are to one commissioner. They know

[54:20] that commissioner, they're old friends.

[54:21] They talked before and they feel that

[54:24] they know something that would have a

[54:26] bearing or might have a bearing on that

[54:28] situation.

[54:30] Um the preferred method of course is for

[54:34] that person to show up in due process

[54:37] and present their findings in open form.

[54:41] But um but does it mean that when

[54:44] there's

[54:46] outach

[54:47] from the neighborhood to a commissioner.

[54:50] They are supposed to say no, I will not

[54:53] hear that comment. You must give your

[54:56] comment through the formal process. That

[55:00] is the structure of the due process. The

[55:06] short answer would be yes. And I'll talk

[55:09] about that a little bit more. I'll give

[55:11] some specifics on that. But yes,

[55:14] theoretically,

[55:15] uh, all all discovery, all discussion,

[55:19] uh the presenting of evidence, the

[55:21] reviewing of documents and materials and

[55:23] site plans and elevations, you know,

[55:26] whatever. But the the culmination of all

[55:30] of that should occur in public at a

[55:33] public hearing. Uh there's a legal issue

[55:35] that's created if you got individuals

[55:37] that are communicating with the decision

[55:39] makers outside the public hearing. And

[55:41] I'll I'll cover that in just a little

[55:43] bit. Could could I just throw something

[55:46] up?

[55:47] >> Um, what about texting during a public

[55:50] meeting or emails?

[55:53] Say a person is emailing a counselor or

[55:57] a planning and zoning commission

[56:00] and trying to influence them at the

[56:02] meeting. Now, is that legal?

[56:06] >> Uh, or does that come down to exparte

[56:11] communication?

[56:12] >> Correct. Yes. it would fall under

[56:13] expporte which we'll talk about that's

[56:16] legal issues that I I was mentioning and

[56:19] again just being quite candid uh from my

[56:22] experience it's also rude if you're a

[56:25] decision maker and you keep checking

[56:28] your phone and whether it's you know

[56:30] you're surfing eBay or you're trying to

[56:32] arrange your

[56:34] >> yes

[56:34] >> Jamaican vacation or you're uh getting

[56:37] communication and and influence or

[56:40] information rather from not in the room

[56:43] or even if they are in the room, they're

[56:44] not standing at the at the podium and

[56:46] speaking into the microphone.

[56:48] >> Correct.

[56:48] >> It it creates a legal issue, but it's just not we're not treating people

[56:53] fairly in that scenario.

[56:54] >> Right. So, how do you handle something

[56:56] like that?

[56:58] >> You walk up behind the offending

[56:59] commissioner and

[57:02] I mean, you you do it professionally. I

[57:04] mean, I you know, I'm just using you all

[57:06] as an example here, but uh if

[57:08] Commissioner BS, who has always been

[57:10] problematic,

[57:12] >> uh if he continues to to send emails or

[57:15] answer emails and get information from

[57:17] folks that that aren't at the meeting on

[57:19] his laptop, then I would approach the

[57:22] chairman and I would say, can we have a

[57:24] conversation with him uh and and remind

[57:26] him that, you know, if he could be

[57:28] focused on on the speaker or the

[57:30] presentation or whatever the the issue

[57:32] is that he's kind neglecting. Uh maybe

[57:35] the the city attorney, the village

[57:38] attorney might be able to help in that

[57:39] scenario. But you want to again

[57:41] encourage and reward good behavior and call out and as much as as quickly

[57:46] as possible do away with with bad or

[57:49] behavior

[57:50] would be my suggestion.

[57:53] Kind of an in between situation.

[57:55] If I'm a commissioner and there's

[57:58] someone that's interested in what we're

[58:01] discussing at the moment and that

[58:03] individual texts me because they're

[58:05] unavailable,

[58:08] would it be fair to me as commissioner

[58:10] just to say to the whole group, I

[58:13] received this communication from so and

[58:15] so here's the input, etc. Or should I

[58:19] just ignore it?

[58:22] is someone that wants to be there but

[58:23] can't be there but has some input.

[58:26] >> Sure. Um

[58:27] >> or should they just do it ahead of time

[58:29] and not do it?

[58:31] >> Right. And that would be my advice. I

[58:33] mean I get it that the world is an

[58:35] unpredictable place. Uh but if I can't

[58:39] be here in person or I can't participate

[58:42] via Zoom or or call in or do something

[58:44] of that nature, I mean I guess

[58:47] technically you could receive that

[58:49] correspondence and then read it into the

[58:51] record or make it part of the

[58:53] discussion. To me, it's just it feels a

[58:57] little wonky and you're almost violating

[58:59] kind of the intent of that. Um, but it

[59:03] does,

[59:05] again, my words, if it's important

[59:07] enough for me to want my opinion to be

[59:10] considered as as part of the entire

[59:13] process, then I need to make sure that

[59:15] I'm I'm in the room or that I've

[59:17] provided written comment during the

[59:19] comment period or that I hire somebody

[59:22] to come in and speak on my behalf.

[59:26] It just again it kind of looks and

[59:30] smells a little bit wonky and so I would

[59:32] just try to stay away from that as much

[59:34] as possible.

[59:35] >> Actually I recently looked at a Scaffa

[59:38] meeting and what they required were all

[59:41] cell phones to be shut off

[59:43] >> prior to the meeting.

[59:45] >> Sure. Sure. And as a commission, I'm

[59:47] just throwing this out there, but if you

[59:48] felt that uh that standard was

[59:51] warranted, you could certainly adopt

[59:52] that as part of your rules of procedure

[59:54] and

[59:56] looking at cell phones, laptops,

[59:59] >> things of that nature.

[1:00:02] >> Yes, sir. Following up on Commissioner

[1:00:05] Boltz,

[1:00:07] there's been occasion when we have heard

[1:00:10] from the community a problem

[1:00:14] um that

[1:00:17] um

[1:00:19] can only be handled by an alteration of a village ordinance.

[1:00:24] >> Okay. So, what we've tried to do is

[1:00:29] both put it in listen the member of the

[1:00:33] community at the Coraleno forum. So it

[1:00:36] might not have been associated with an

[1:00:40] application. It was coral forum but

[1:00:44] something that the village uh admin uh

[1:00:48] council needs to deal with. And so uh

[1:00:52] sometimes we've taken a vote and said

[1:00:56] we'd like you to consider this or

[1:00:58] consider that. A lot of times we staff

[1:01:02] to to look into it further and to engage

[1:01:06] with the administration.

[1:01:08] >> So, there's all a variety of ways of

[1:01:11] doing this, but but I think what I heard

[1:01:13] from the commissioner is, you know, when we hear an application

[1:01:20] that the ordinances are not clear about,

[1:01:25] shouldn't we, you know, take it upon

[1:01:27] ourselves to alert the council the

[1:01:31] village uh administration.

[1:01:34] >> Um yes, I mean just as a matter of of uh

[1:01:38] government efficiency, I I think that's

[1:01:40] important and that can be accomplished

[1:01:41] in any number of ways. Whether it's it's

[1:01:43] a written decision uh where that's you write that out and you clearly

[1:01:48] somebody writes it out on your behalf,

[1:01:49] but the decision that's made the

[1:01:51] concerns that are raised at the at the

[1:01:53] planning and zoning commission uh are clearly outlined within the notice

[1:01:57] of decision. You can rely on staff uh to

[1:02:00] do that. Um, you know, again, I don't

[1:02:03] want to get too far in the weeds, but

[1:02:05] depending on what the issue is, it might

[1:02:07] be appropriate for members of the

[1:02:09] commission uh to to reach out directly

[1:02:12] to to their uh to the elected officials.

[1:02:15] If it's legislative in nature, if it's

[1:02:17] something if it's an ordinance change

[1:02:19] that needs to take place, not specific

[1:02:21] to a case or particular piece of

[1:02:24] property, but if it's something uh the

[1:02:26] village wants to adopt um um short-term

[1:02:30] rental regulations that, you know,

[1:02:33] community members have expressed

[1:02:34] concerns about that or they're in

[1:02:36] support of that and there's nothing on

[1:02:37] the books that would allow for that.

[1:02:39] Certainly, it would be appropriate for

[1:02:41] the commission uh to to reach out to the

[1:02:44] elected officials and say, "Hey, um you

[1:02:46] know, we've heard complaints or we have

[1:02:49] ideas or we've got uh issues on this.

[1:02:52] Can we create an ordinance or can we

[1:02:54] perform a study that would work on

[1:02:56] something of that nature?" That that's

[1:02:59] good government.

[1:03:02] >> Yes, ma'am. So my concern with part of

[1:03:04] what you said in the beginning there and

[1:03:06] some comments I've heard earlier

[1:03:08] >> is

[1:03:09] my um

[1:03:13] understanding was that

[1:03:15] >> if we came across something that we

[1:03:17] thought the council should address that

[1:03:20] it would be the commission as a whole

[1:03:23] that would send that to the council, not

[1:03:27] each individual

[1:03:29] >> um commission member saying I have issue

[1:03:32] that I want you to address because I'm

[1:03:34] on the planning and zoning commission.

[1:03:36] It doesn't seem to me to be appropriate

[1:03:38] for individual

[1:03:40] people to be doing that.

[1:03:42] >> Understood. And I I apologize for any

[1:03:44] confusion. Yes, I would agree that if

[1:03:47] [clears throat] the commission, the

[1:03:49] membership of the commission has a an issue

[1:03:56] that you know a letter signed by the

[1:03:59] chair or signed by all the commissioners

[1:04:02] or how whatever form uh that

[1:04:04] communication takes place is most

[1:04:06] appropriate. However, there is some and

[1:04:09] again I apologize because I feel like

[1:04:11] I'm getting too far down into details on

[1:04:13] this, but there is some allowance uh

[1:04:16] without any sort of impropriy where if

[1:04:19] you bump into uh the mayor uh at the

[1:04:22] coffee shop uh and you want to make sure

[1:04:25] he got the email or the letter about the

[1:04:27] short-term rental ordinance uh that that

[1:04:31] doesn't violate the law and again

[1:04:33] it's it's specific

[1:04:36] >> [clears throat]

[1:04:36] >> uh but in that scenario there there's

[1:04:38] nothing wrong with a commissioner or a

[1:04:40] couple commissioners saying hey Mr. Veer

[1:04:43] I just want to make sure you're aware of

[1:04:45] this. Uh or attending the governing body

[1:04:47] hearing uh as a member of the community

[1:04:50] and just expressing uh you know in my

[1:04:52] role as as a member of the planning and

[1:04:54] zoning commission uh we've heard that

[1:04:57] there are issues with this and want to

[1:04:58] make sure that uh that the governing

[1:05:01] body is aware of that.

[1:05:02] >> See I get concerned because then if you

[1:05:04] say well they're individually going to

[1:05:06] the council say you know and if they're

[1:05:10] supposedly representing

[1:05:13] opinion of all of us. We should know

[1:05:16] what that is.

[1:05:17] >> Absolutely.

[1:05:18] >> And and I don't think I mean there are

[1:05:20] questions about if being on the

[1:05:22] commission takes away some of your

[1:05:24] individual rights, but I think they

[1:05:26] would need to make it clear that they're

[1:05:27] there as a member of the community and

[1:05:29] not from the commission unless we have

[1:05:32] all said we want you to go represent us.

[1:05:34] >> Yes, ma'am. I am in complete agreement

[1:05:36] with you. The distinction or the

[1:05:38] difference that I'm making is

[1:05:40] >> from a legal standpoint

[1:05:44] There may be a possibility that if you

[1:05:46] informally uh bump into the mayor and want to talk about that that it

[1:05:51] doesn't violate any legal standard.

[1:05:54] However, from an operational

[1:05:56] perspective, I think it's much cleaner

[1:05:58] and easier and keep guarantees that you

[1:06:01] stay out of any sort of possible problem

[1:06:05] if you act as as a unified body uh when

[1:06:08] it comes to a situation like that. So

[1:06:10] >> because my practical concerned about oh

[1:06:13] hey mayor did you get our email is

[1:06:15] generally conversations don't end there

[1:06:18] they don't the mayor doesn't say oh yes

[1:06:20] I mean he may say oh no what did it say

[1:06:23] I guess I missed that then you lead into

[1:06:25] a whole

[1:06:26] >> and you're getting dangerously close to

[1:06:28] me

[1:06:29] >> I think it's better not to do that

[1:06:31] >> and I would agree and I apologize the

[1:06:33] only distinction I was trying to make

[1:06:34] that that from a legal standpoint it

[1:06:37] might be uh that it doesn't create a

[1:06:39] problem but from an operational you

[1:06:42] know, how are we going to do this in

[1:06:44] practice? I would just again if if the

[1:06:46] need comes or or the issue is such that

[1:06:49] it requires some sort of formal

[1:06:52] notification or some sort of formal

[1:06:53] communication with the governing body

[1:06:55] that that's done as as you know a

[1:06:58] unified front rather than one

[1:07:02] commissioner goes and another

[1:07:03] commissioner goes and that that gets

[1:07:05] messy and it also creates a perception

[1:07:07] problem sometimes too. may be completely

[1:07:09] legal, but it may look to the public

[1:07:11] like something's going, you know, deals

[1:07:13] are being made, backroom deals are being

[1:07:15] made or things are being discussed that,

[1:07:17] you know, I'm suspicious of,

[1:07:19] >> right?

[1:07:21] >> It's the appearance.

[1:07:22] >> The appearance. Yes, ma'am. Very

[1:07:24] important.

[1:07:26] >> Okay.

[1:07:34] if you would please. I think my clicker

[1:07:38] >> I

[1:07:41] » So good all good questions. Thank you

[1:07:44] for those. Uh just some tips uh some

[1:07:47] make sure we talk about uh avoiding or

[1:07:51] navigating rather ethical dilemmas. So

[1:07:54] some pretty obvious examples here. Uh

[1:07:56] everybody knows that accepting gifts or

[1:07:58] favors in order to vote a certain way is

[1:08:01] not something uh a planning commissioner

[1:08:03] should engage in. Uh voting on matters

[1:08:06] that will provide individual financial

[1:08:07] gain or benefit is something you should

[1:08:09] stay away from. Uh discussions of

[1:08:11] project details outside the scheduled

[1:08:13] public hearing uh creates an ethical

[1:08:16] issue. Don't engage in that behavior. Uh

[1:08:18] if you've got a personal relationship

[1:08:20] with an applicant, an agent, a member of

[1:08:21] the a participating party, that in and

[1:08:24] of itself is not a problem. But you

[1:08:26] certainly should be open and honest to

[1:08:28] say while I don't like my

[1:08:30] brother-in-law, he is the applicant on

[1:08:32] this particular case and I'm going to go

[1:08:34] ahead and recuse myself um because I

[1:08:37] don't want there to be any appearance of

[1:08:38] impropriy. Uh always take the take the

[1:08:41] high road on situations like that. But

[1:08:43] those are pretty easy, right?

[1:08:47] >> Mine's working.

[1:08:48] >> Oh, good.

[1:08:48] >> Yes. Thank you. I think you just went to

[1:08:50] sleep there for a second. Sorry about

[1:08:51] that.

[1:08:53] >> How about some not so obvious

[1:08:55] ethical issues.

[1:08:58] Uh, how about advising a community

[1:08:59] member on how they should prepare their

[1:09:01] application?

[1:09:03] You're at Walgreens on a Saturday

[1:09:04] morning and somebody says, "Aren't you

[1:09:06] the chair of the planning and zoning

[1:09:08] commission? You do a great job." Hey,

[1:09:10] listen. Um, I'm gonna I'm thinking about

[1:09:12] asking for a variance. I want to build

[1:09:14] an addition on the back of my house.

[1:09:16] What What do I need to say? What should

[1:09:18] I fill out on my application so that I

[1:09:20] make sure that I get approved? Because,

[1:09:21] you know, the stuff like the back of

[1:09:22] your head, right?

[1:09:24] Do you engage in that conversation? No.

[1:09:28] Uh answering phone calls, emails, or

[1:09:30] text messages with questions from the

[1:09:32] community member about a particular

[1:09:34] piece of property. I see that five acres

[1:09:36] there at the corner of Corales Road and

[1:09:39] Applewood uh is going up for sale. Uh

[1:09:42] Commissioner, do you know what the

[1:09:43] zoning designation is for that? And

[1:09:45] could I put a bed and breakfast in

[1:09:47] there?

[1:09:49] That could create a problem. Stay away

[1:09:50] from that. Um this is big one,

[1:09:54] conducting site visits in order to to

[1:09:56] get a feel for the property. I want to I

[1:09:58] want to listen uh to how much traffic

[1:10:01] affects this particular location or I

[1:10:04] want to see how many trees are are on

[1:10:07] the property or I want to touch the

[1:10:09] dirt. I'm just one of those people that

[1:10:11] likes to to feel it with my hand. So,

[1:10:13] I'm going to take a trip out to the

[1:10:14] property. That creates an ethical dile

[1:10:17] that creates a problem. We'll talk about

[1:10:18] that more in a question about that.

[1:10:21] Sure. Suppose the

[1:10:23] In a public forum, all the commissioners

[1:10:26] said, you know, we need to get a better

[1:10:28] understanding of what the applicant

[1:10:30] requesting. Therefore, we as a whole

[1:10:35] field trip to that site and look to see

[1:10:38] what's going on. Is that

[1:10:41] so

[1:10:43] should stay away from it? But as a

[1:10:45] whole, the commissioners agree that

[1:10:47] that's good feedback.

[1:10:53] » That's correct. And and the distinction,

[1:10:55] very good question. The distinction is

[1:10:56] an individual commissioner or a couple

[1:10:59] of commissioners taking it upon

[1:11:01] themselves to conduct that site visit

[1:11:03] versus the group deciding and you have

[1:11:07] to invite the public.

[1:11:09] >> Yeah.

[1:11:09] >> Uh to to attend a site visit. It may

[1:11:11] come up that a site visit is deemed

[1:11:14] necessary. But again, this is not

[1:11:17] something where you as a commissioner

[1:11:19] would go out and and do an invest an

[1:11:21] independent investigation to try and

[1:11:24] gain some facts. Uh because as we'll

[1:11:26] talk about in just a minute, that

[1:11:27] constitutes exparte communication, which

[1:11:30] you can't be doing as it relates to the

[1:11:32] matters that come before you.

[1:11:34] >> Can I make a quick comment on that?

[1:11:36] >> Sure. Because um in a case like that, if

[1:11:39] all of the commissioners were going to

[1:11:40] do a site visit, I would have to do the

[1:11:42] public notice.

[1:11:45] Okay? I would have to do a public

[1:11:46] notice. Um in fact, there was something

[1:11:49] recently where it was understood that

[1:11:51] probably a lot of counselors were going

[1:11:54] to attend and the clerk's office put up

[1:11:57] possible quorum just just to let the

[1:12:00] public know that a bunch of counselors

[1:12:02] were going to be in one place at one

[1:12:03] time. Um and and it would say and in the

[1:12:06] other instance in this instance I don't

[1:12:08] think I could say that there might not

[1:12:10] be or that that there's not going to be

[1:12:11] any discussions made but uh or decisions

[1:12:14] made. There shouldn't be any decisions

[1:12:16] made on the fly. Um so it's kind of

[1:12:19] treading dangerously a little bit.

[1:12:21] >> Right. Again it's very similar to the

[1:12:23] communication issue that came up

[1:12:25] earlier. It's possible there are ways to

[1:12:27] do it. I am aware of one community.

[1:12:30] There may be more, but I'm aware of one

[1:12:31] community in New Mexico uh that

[1:12:33] schedules a a site visit uh and they

[1:12:36] literally take a school bus and they put

[1:12:39] all the commissioners on that on that

[1:12:40] bus and any members of the public that

[1:12:43] wish to participate uh they have very uh

[1:12:45] specific rules that they're not to talk

[1:12:47] about the case uh during the site visit

[1:12:50] portion but they drive to property A and

[1:12:52] then to property B and then property C.

[1:12:55] Uh but uh that is not typical

[1:12:59] uh of the way site visits should they be

[1:13:02] deemed necessary site visits should

[1:13:04] occur.

[1:13:06] >> Yes sir.

[1:13:07] >> So if commissioner my neighbor is going

[1:13:15] for some issue I should recuse myself.

[1:13:19] [clears throat]

[1:13:19] >> Uh I and that's I think you know

[1:13:21] generally speaking again painting with a

[1:13:23] broad brush here but I think that would

[1:13:25] be appropriate. But uh if you have a

[1:13:28] situation where this comes up sometimes

[1:13:30] where you as a commissioner are familiar

[1:13:32] with a a subject property that's on the

[1:13:34] agenda because you drive by it every day

[1:13:37] when you take the kids to school or go

[1:13:38] to work or whatever.

[1:13:39] >> That's going to be my next question.

[1:13:41] >> That is okay. The problem is created

[1:13:43] when an individual decision maker makes

[1:13:47] a singular purposeful trip to the site.

[1:13:51] you drive by it and you're familiar with

[1:13:52] it or you lived in the community for 53

[1:13:54] years and you just you know it used to

[1:13:56] be the old garage and it was a saloon

[1:13:58] for a while and I know that property

[1:14:00] very well. That's different than uh

[1:14:03] going out and again conducting an

[1:14:05] independent investigation.

[1:14:10] Okay,

[1:14:12] good questions.

[1:14:14] So, uh, my scenario here, I'm not

[1:14:17] getting the look. I'm not getting a

[1:14:19] confused look, uh, on your faces, but

[1:14:22] I'm not telling you, uh, or excuse me, I

[1:14:25] am telling you as as a commission

[1:14:26] member, I'm not telling you you can't

[1:14:28] talk to the community. You just have to

[1:14:30] be careful about when you do it and how

[1:14:34] you do it. Uh, we'll talk about this a

[1:14:36] little bit more in just a second, but

[1:14:38] again, you're acting as a judge and you

[1:14:41] have to be judgeike.

[1:14:43] So, uh, I get a speeding ticket. Uh, is

[1:14:46] it okay for me to go knock on the

[1:14:48] judge's door or call him up in his

[1:14:50] chambers and want to talk to him about

[1:14:52] my speeding ticket and how the officer

[1:14:54] aired when he wrote me a ticket for

[1:14:56] doing 65 and a 45? No. The judge would

[1:14:59] never talk to me, right? The same

[1:15:01] concept needs to apply to planning and

[1:15:03] zoning matters that come before this

[1:15:05] commission.

[1:15:08] Um, so what do you do? Well, you rely on

[1:15:11] staff. And whether that's staff of one

[1:15:13] or that's an a team of five or more. Uh

[1:15:17] you rely on staff and or the

[1:15:19] administration to assist you. Um you get

[1:15:22] questions, you get emails, you get phone

[1:15:24] calls. Uh refer those pass those along.

[1:15:28] Give those to uh to Lori, give those to

[1:15:31] give folks the the phone number for

[1:15:34] planning and zoning or direct them to

[1:15:37] the website. But you want to make sure

[1:15:39] that your involvement in those

[1:15:41] situations is limited and that you're

[1:15:44] again essentially keeping your hands

[1:15:46] clean by passing that along to staff.

[1:15:49] That that's their job. Uh very quickly

[1:15:52] it's important to know what staff does.

[1:15:54] I can tell you that uh before a meeting

[1:15:57] staff is consulting with applicants.

[1:15:59] Rarely if ever does an application come

[1:16:01] in that staff has no idea that somebody

[1:16:04] was going to file. Usually there's inquiries, there's emails, uh

[1:16:09] sometimes it's the result of enforce

[1:16:11] code enforcement action. Uh but staff

[1:16:14] typically has a pretty pretty good idea

[1:16:16] uh of who's getting ready to or who's

[1:16:18] submitting an application to come before

[1:16:20] the planning and zoning commission. Uh

[1:16:22] they're engaged in public outreach. Uh

[1:16:24] advertisements are sent to the

[1:16:26] newspaper, legal ads, uh mailouts.

[1:16:29] Staff's making sure those are done

[1:16:30] correctly. Uh providing one or more

[1:16:32] signs for an applicant to post on the

[1:16:34] property, including a report of some

[1:16:36] form based on the criteria in the code.

[1:16:40] They may be giving you a recommendation.

[1:16:42] It appears based on review that this

[1:16:44] proposal meets the applicable criteria

[1:16:46] of the zoning code and the planning

[1:16:48] department is recommending approval.

[1:16:49] Maybe something like that. That all

[1:16:51] occurs before the hearing. During the

[1:16:53] hearing, they're making sure uh that the

[1:16:56] signup sheets are kept. That's part of

[1:16:58] the Inspection of Public Records Act

[1:17:00] requirements and the Open Meeting Act

[1:17:01] requirements. uh that minutes are being

[1:17:04] kept, accurate minutes are being kept.

[1:17:06] Uh and they're also working on the

[1:17:07] notice of decision. Not exactly sure how

[1:17:09] you all do it here. It could be

[1:17:11] something that's prepared by staff. Uh

[1:17:13] you may be a decision based on

[1:17:15] recommendations that you find in your

[1:17:17] staff report. Uh but again, staff is

[1:17:19] making sure after a decision is made

[1:17:21] that the that the mail out that the

[1:17:23] notice is sent out in accordance with

[1:17:25] the board. [clears throat]

[1:17:28] And then after the meeting, uh it's

[1:17:30] certainly possible and plausible for uh

[1:17:32] reports or updates of some sort to be

[1:17:34] given to the administration.

[1:17:36] Uh staff also works uh just because

[1:17:39] people get a decision at the planning

[1:17:41] and zoning commission uh doesn't mean

[1:17:43] that their project uh automatically

[1:17:45] continues to move forward. So staff

[1:17:47] works to advise to consult uh with

[1:17:50] property owners uh maybe something

[1:17:52] associated with plan review or somebody

[1:17:54] may want to file an appeal of a decision

[1:17:56] that's made at the planning and zoning

[1:17:57] commission. So again staff is continuing

[1:18:00] to work with uh participants after the

[1:18:03] public hearing.

[1:18:05] It's really a two-way street.

[1:18:07] Commissioners can expect from staff uh

[1:18:10] advocacy for good planning. Uh the

[1:18:13] American Planning Association has a set

[1:18:15] of ethics uh and they require uh

[1:18:19] planners to to act in accordance uh to

[1:18:22] advocate rather for for good planning

[1:18:24] and so you can expect that from staff.

[1:18:27] Uh things like tonight training on

[1:18:29] process, procedures, legal requirements,

[1:18:32] terminology. Uh you can expect that out

[1:18:34] of out of your staff. Uh report the

[1:18:37] facts of the case related to the code.

[1:18:40] Identify uh the connection or the

[1:18:42] relationship between uh the comp plan

[1:18:45] and the code and the subdivision

[1:18:47] ordinance, things of that nature.

[1:18:49] And then a commission should be able to

[1:18:52] get and expect to get from their staff

[1:18:55] jargon free, easy to use, easy to read

[1:18:59] staff reports. Um, we want to make we as

[1:19:02] staff so to speak want to make your job

[1:19:05] uh as easy as possible. There still

[1:19:09] requires a lot of brain power, requires

[1:19:10] a lot of work that goes into it. But we

[1:19:12] want to make sure that any

[1:19:13] communications that we are preparing for

[1:19:14] you, which are public communications, so

[1:19:17] the public also gets to look at those

[1:19:19] make sense and they're easy to use and

[1:19:21] they're easy to read.

[1:19:23] Uh what can staff expect from

[1:19:25] commissioners? Uh before you get to the

[1:19:28] hearing, please review your materials. I

[1:19:30] have dealt with some commissioners that

[1:19:33] expected that staff gets to the podium

[1:19:35] and to tell me everything I need to know

[1:19:37] when all of the pertinent details are

[1:19:40] usually included within that staff

[1:19:42] report. So be familiar with that. Uh if

[1:19:44] you got a question you're going to ask

[1:19:46] that please uh if you've got concerns

[1:19:48] about something uh it's appropriate

[1:19:51] we'll talk about the parameters uh to

[1:19:53] give some forewarning or to ask what is

[1:19:56] the acreage of the property? Is it 80

[1:19:58] acres or is it

[1:20:01] things of that nature would be

[1:20:02] appropriate. Uh don't blindside staff uh

[1:20:05] if you've got issues again uh that are

[1:20:08] not pertinent to the cases that are

[1:20:11] being heard. That's a conversation for

[1:20:14] outside the public hearing

[1:20:18] and um and then just showing respect for your staff.

[1:20:25] So key points here, uh, discussing the

[1:20:27] potential conflicts of interest promptly

[1:20:28] and clearly. Recusing yourself from

[1:20:31] voting on a matter you have a real or a

[1:20:33] perceived conflict of interest is

[1:20:35] appropriate. It's required. It's

[1:20:37] expected. It is not a bad thing to have

[1:20:40] to recuse yourself. I've seen some

[1:20:42] commissioners that struggle because uh,

[1:20:45] you know, again, they were related to an

[1:20:47] applicant, say, um, but they didn't they

[1:20:50] didn't want to say anything because they

[1:20:51] didn't want it to make it they had done

[1:20:54] something wrong. It's not a bad thing to

[1:20:56] recuse yourself. It really helps

[1:20:58] demonstrate what we've been talking

[1:20:59] about openness, transparency, honesty,

[1:21:02] ethical behavior. If you even if it's a

[1:21:06] perceived or a possible perceived

[1:21:07] conflict, uh identifying that, calling

[1:21:10] it out, saying I want to make sure for

[1:21:12] the record, uh that you know it it shows

[1:21:15] that the applicant is my brother-in-law.

[1:21:17] Uh I feel like I can make an unbiased

[1:21:19] decision, but from a perception

[1:21:21] standpoint, I understand how people

[1:21:22] could be confused. So, I'm going to

[1:21:24] recuse myself.

[1:21:25] >> Okay. So, random question.

[1:21:27] >> Yes, sir.

[1:21:28] >> Suppose a commissioner lives within the

[1:21:32] legally required uh radius of a property

[1:21:36] that's being brought before the

[1:21:38] commission for review.

[1:21:40] >> Is that an automatic recusal for that

[1:21:42] commissioner?

[1:21:44] >> You guys, you got good questions.

[1:21:47] Um I don't think so. And I'll tell you

[1:21:51] kind of where I'm coming from is I would

[1:21:54] certainly uh make sure the record, you

[1:21:57] know, I I would say something or read

[1:21:59] something into the record, but then it

[1:22:01] becomes a personal decision. You're

[1:22:03] going to rec, you know, you're letting

[1:22:06] other members, participants, whether on

[1:22:08] the commission or in the audience, know

[1:22:09] that you live within 300 ft of the

[1:22:12] subject site and then you make a

[1:22:14] decision, a personal decision. and being

[1:22:17] prox in close proximity to that site.

[1:22:19] Does that somehow influence or bias your

[1:22:22] ability to listen to the proposal as it

[1:22:25] comes forward? Um, it might it also

[1:22:30] might not. I mean, I've got people that

[1:22:32] live near me that

[1:22:34] probably need to go knock on their door

[1:22:36] and meet them. I don't know them that,

[1:22:38] you know, they've lived in the

[1:22:38] neighborhood for a couple years and I

[1:22:40] see them come in and out every once.

[1:22:42] situation like that. I feel like if I

[1:22:43] was a decision maker, I could make an

[1:22:45] unbiased decision. Conversely, there's

[1:22:48] people that live in the neighborhood

[1:22:49] that I think are great, uh, and if that

[1:22:51] were the situation, I, you know, an

[1:22:53] applicant were to come forward that was

[1:22:54] somebody I knew or I knew very well, uh,

[1:22:57] I would probably choose to recuse

[1:22:59] myself. But again, it's an individual

[1:23:02] decision in a scenario like that.

[1:23:05] >> That's good. Thank you. [clears throat]

[1:23:07] Um, and then the last sub point there,

[1:23:11] just remember, it's always better if

[1:23:13] you're the one to mention a conflict or

[1:23:17] a perceived conflict than to have

[1:23:20] somebody call you out on it after you've

[1:23:23] voted or after you've already started to

[1:23:24] engage in in the public hearing process

[1:23:27] of that. So, again, just being honest

[1:23:29] and open.

[1:23:31] Uh, very recently, the legislature

[1:23:33] adopted House Bill 298 and specifies

[1:23:37] that uh when a hearing body member has a

[1:23:40] conflict of interest uh by state statute

[1:23:43] they are required to do the following.

[1:23:45] They have to state the conflict on the

[1:23:47] record. So what what's the issue or the

[1:23:50] perceived issue and then secondly they

[1:23:53] have to leave the room until the matter

[1:23:54] is decided and the hearing body has

[1:23:56] moved on to the next matter. standing at

[1:23:59] the back of the room. I've seen this

[1:24:00] before. Uh and uh engaging in nonverbal

[1:24:06] communication,

[1:24:07] you know, is is not allowed. Or sitting

[1:24:10] in the front row and and glaring at your

[1:24:12] fellow commissioners, you guys better

[1:24:14] approve this. You know, my mother-in-law

[1:24:16] needs this. Um that that is not

[1:24:19] appropriate. Wasn't appropriate to begin

[1:24:21] with. Uh but this this bill goes on to

[1:24:24] specify that should a decision maker

[1:24:26] whether it's at this level or at the

[1:24:28] governing body level if you've got a

[1:24:30] conflict you got to declare it and you

[1:24:31] got to leave.

[1:24:34] What if you don't think you can make an

[1:24:36] unbiased decision as an individual?

[1:24:42] >> If you you don't think you can make an

[1:24:43] unbiased decision then you need to

[1:24:45] recuse yourself whatever sort of

[1:24:47] inclination against or for the

[1:24:50] >> proposal. Correct. I personally I could

[1:24:52] not vote for anybody that was a fan of

[1:24:55] the Dallas Cowboys. It was just

[1:24:56] something unique. Uh but yes, if you if

[1:24:59] you had an issue that you convinced

[1:25:02] yourself or maybe a fellow commissioner

[1:25:04] reminded you uh that that you had bias

[1:25:08] or you had a pre-existing opinion.

[1:25:10] >> Um yes, by all means, you know, again,

[1:25:14] this is for the long haul, right? We we

[1:25:16] want decisions that are made that are

[1:25:18] legally sound, compliant with the with

[1:25:21] the criteria. Uh we don't want a

[1:25:24] situation where a decision is made uh in

[1:25:26] haste or a decision is made improperly

[1:25:29] or incorrectly only to have a court

[1:25:31] overturn that uh because that doesn't do

[1:25:33] anybody.

[1:25:38] » Yes, sir.

[1:25:40] on the on the

[1:25:42] believe the room law. Yes, you said that

[1:25:45] was recent.

[1:25:47] >> Uh yes, I think it was it went into it

[1:25:49] was adopted.

[1:25:52] I believe it was adopted last

[1:25:56] not the most recent legislative session

[1:25:58] but before that but it went into effect

[1:26:03] recently. I don't think it was July one.

[1:26:06] I think it was at the end of the

[1:26:07] calendar year last year. So, I'm sort of

[1:26:09] thinking

[1:26:10] it just as a reminder, we might put that

[1:26:13] in our rules of procedure.

[1:26:16] >> I I would agree with that and advise

[1:26:19] that and be fully in support of that.

[1:26:22] >> It just again, if you've got it in

[1:26:25] writing, it just helps us helps helps

[1:26:28] you remember and then if there's ever a

[1:26:30] question, theoretically, it's black and

[1:26:32] white.

[1:26:34] >> Yes, sir. So basically um something that

[1:26:37] keeps on just coming to my mind is we're

[1:26:40] a small community. So at what level I

[1:26:43] mean I run into the same people

[1:26:45] constantly. Is it just okay if someone's

[1:26:48] if you know if you're just like I don't

[1:26:49] want to hear anything. I'm leaving. I'm

[1:26:50] not going to talk to you if you're going

[1:26:52] to discuss a a project or I don't tell

[1:26:54] me if you're going to come before P&Z or

[1:26:56] at what point because the more active

[1:26:58] you are in the community the more people

[1:27:00] you're going to cross paths with. So I

[1:27:02] just see that being really difficult in

[1:27:03] a place like Corales.

[1:27:07] >> Yes, I would agree with you. It's not it

[1:27:10] doesn't happen

[1:27:11] >> in larger communities.

[1:27:13] >> But yes, I mean it's very common

[1:27:16] >> for me to hear and I understand that

[1:27:18] >> you know if you grew up here or you live

[1:27:21] here and you laid down roots and you've

[1:27:23] got a large social circle and and things

[1:27:25] of that nature which are all benefits to

[1:27:27] the community. Uh but you have to there

[1:27:30] gets to the point uh where individually

[1:27:34] uh you need to be able to say guys I

[1:27:35] can't talk about this right now. Can we

[1:27:37] change the conversation to

[1:27:39] >> the Real Housewives of Miami or whatever

[1:27:42] would be more appropriate than talking

[1:27:44] about my plans to subdivide my 10 acres

[1:27:48] and I'm going to you know create lots

[1:27:50] and I'm going to start building houses

[1:27:52] and do you think you know we're just

[1:27:54] here at the cocktail party but can you

[1:27:55] just give me some off-the cuff advice?

[1:27:58] You're You're bleeding in over. You're

[1:27:59] bleeding over into dangerous territory.

[1:28:02] >> Yeah. No, and I get that. But I guess

[1:28:03] what my concern would be is we talked

[1:28:05] about the perception. So then you I

[1:28:06] wouldn't want someone else being like,

[1:28:08] "Oh my gosh, like you I know you know

[1:28:09] that person." So I think we need to be

[1:28:11] trusted to show our good judgment and we

[1:28:13] need to Okay.

[1:28:15] >> Absolutely. Absolutely. And again, I

[1:28:18] think

[1:28:18] >> we've kind of touched on it a little

[1:28:20] bit, but we may be good friends. uh

[1:28:23] there come and if I come before you come

[1:28:26] before this body um I probably as your

[1:28:29] friend would want to tell or make a good

[1:28:33] argument for why my project should be

[1:28:34] approved uh because I want to be treated

[1:28:37] fairly. But if you feel at a personal

[1:28:40] level that it either could be a conf

[1:28:43] would be a conflict or could be

[1:28:44] perceived as a conflict then you have an

[1:28:46] obligation to to call it out and if you

[1:28:51] feel the need to recuse yourself

[1:28:52] statewide and reform. But there could

[1:28:55] be, you know, there could be a situation

[1:28:57] where we know each other, but our

[1:28:59] relationship or our the circles that we

[1:29:01] ran in or the little league team that we

[1:29:03] coached together doesn't affect your

[1:29:06] ability to to make a judgment about a

[1:29:08] land use.

[1:29:11] But again, it all comes down to what

[1:29:13] you're comfortable with, too.

[1:29:19] Uh as decision makers, you need to base

[1:29:21] your decision on the facts and the

[1:29:22] evidence presented, not on personal

[1:29:24] preference, on bias or individuals that

[1:29:26] are involved. Uh none of those things

[1:29:29] matter. Name, age, race, religion, how

[1:29:32] long I've lived in the community, uh

[1:29:34] things of that nature. All discussions,

[1:29:36] deliberations, and resulting decisions

[1:29:38] have to be properly documented and must

[1:29:41] be accessible to the public. And if you

[1:29:44] have questions when in doubt, It's

[1:29:46] almost always appropriate to reach out

[1:29:48] to staff to your to your attorney to get

[1:29:51] clarification,

[1:29:53] particularly when it's related to

[1:29:55] process and not the details of a

[1:29:58] particular request.

[1:30:02] Pause one more time for questions.

[1:30:05] All right.

[1:30:07] So, matters that come before the hearing

[1:30:09] body fall into one of two categories. Uh

[1:30:11] they're either legislative in nature or

[1:30:13] they're quasi judicial. We're going to

[1:30:15] focus on quasi judicial matter. The

[1:30:18] distinction or the difference between

[1:30:20] the two depends upon the subject matter

[1:30:23] of the proceedings. Quasi judicial

[1:30:26] matters while they do uh pertain to or

[1:30:29] affect or go before a governing body uh

[1:30:33] the meat and potatoes of what you do as

[1:30:35] planning and zoning commissioners is

[1:30:37] quasi judicial in nature. And this is

[1:30:40] when the commission is charged with

[1:30:42] rendering a decision on the rights of a

[1:30:44] specific individual or a small group of

[1:30:47] affected people or a specific piece of

[1:30:49] property based on the criteria that's

[1:30:51] outlined in the code. And you have to

[1:30:54] base that decision on the evidence

[1:30:57] that's within the record. Again, you're

[1:31:00] acting as a judge. Uh I'm dating myself

[1:31:03] here, but when I was a kid, I wanted to

[1:31:05] grow up and be Judge Wner. I've loved

[1:31:07] the People's Court. come home every day

[1:31:09] after school and turn on the people's

[1:31:12] court. And if you'll think about the

[1:31:13] people's court or other judicial shows

[1:31:15] like that, you have a judge that's

[1:31:18] sitting behind the dis or the desk and

[1:31:21] you've got typically two parties and the

[1:31:23] judge starts with the first party and

[1:31:25] the judge says tell me your side of the

[1:31:27] story and gives uh that individual an

[1:31:31] opportunity to to tell what happened and

[1:31:33] that may include uh diagrams and that

[1:31:36] may include pictures or um recordings of some sort. And then after the judge

[1:31:42] listens to the first party, they turn to

[1:31:44] the second party and they say, "Okay,

[1:31:45] you tell me your side of the story and

[1:31:47] they do the same thing, right?" Then the

[1:31:49] judge collects all the evidence and

[1:31:51] what's the next thing they do?

[1:31:54] They take a commercial break because

[1:31:55] they recess to the chambers and they

[1:31:59] look over all of the evidence that's

[1:32:01] presented and they think about the the

[1:32:03] testimony and the credibility or the

[1:32:05] lack thereof of people that participated

[1:32:08] in that process and then they re render

[1:32:10] a decision based on the law. That's

[1:32:13] exactly what you guys are doing in your

[1:32:15] capacity as planning and zoning

[1:32:17] commissioners. In order to do that, you

[1:32:20] have to afford participants these three

[1:32:21] things. Due process, the opportunity to

[1:32:24] be heard and a written decision based on

[1:32:27] the evidence in the record that provides

[1:32:29] findings which demonstrate how the

[1:32:31] applicant met or did not meet the

[1:32:34] applicable criteria. Let's talk about

[1:32:36] those. Due process comes in two forms,

[1:32:38] procedural and substantive. Procedural

[1:32:41] due process is guaranteed by the 14th

[1:32:43] and the fifth amendments of the United

[1:32:44] States Constitution. You've also got

[1:32:47] mirroring standards in uh in state

[1:32:50] requirements. But in a nutshell, it

[1:32:52] ensures that uh the fairness of

[1:32:55] government actions that might deprive

[1:32:57] someone of their property, excuse me,

[1:33:00] their life, their liberty or their

[1:33:01] property are undertaken. people are

[1:33:04] protected from from that type of

[1:33:05] government action. What it requires is

[1:33:07] notice an opportunity to be heard and a

[1:33:11] neutral decision making body. That's why

[1:33:13] we if you need to recuse yourself

[1:33:15] because you might be biased in some way.

[1:33:17] You want to make sure that that the

[1:33:19] decision-m body is neutral.

[1:33:22] Secondly, subjective due process talks

[1:33:24] about uh those same protections from

[1:33:27] state and federal uh authority.

[1:33:31] Give me just a second. So,

[1:33:33] >> you're okay.

[1:33:38] » You're good. Um, again, protects

[1:33:40] people's fundamental rights. Uh,

[1:33:43] ensuring that there's a compelling

[1:33:44] government interest associated with the

[1:33:45] determination that's being made. Uh, and

[1:33:48] really the focus in substantive due

[1:33:50] process is on the result of the hearing.

[1:33:53] These questions are typical from uh, a

[1:33:55] court. Uh, was the decision that was

[1:33:58] reached arbitrary or capriccious? Fancy

[1:34:00] words to say. Was it a reasonable

[1:34:03] decision? Does it make sense based upon

[1:34:06] the evidence and the criteria?

[1:34:08] Um secondly, was it based on substantial

[1:34:11] evidence in the record? Um a decision, a

[1:34:15] determination to deny something because

[1:34:18] uh traffic is an issue without any sort

[1:34:20] of scientific traffic study of that

[1:34:22] nature. Um that is not evidence,

[1:34:24] substantial evidence that's in the

[1:34:25] record. So that could create a problem.

[1:34:27] Don't just wing it. Right.

[1:34:30] Finally, was the result otherwise in

[1:34:32] accordance with the law? Those are those

[1:34:33] are considerations that a court makes to

[1:34:35] ensure or to test if due process has

[1:34:38] been provided.

[1:34:40] Next, opportunity to be heard. All

[1:34:43] witnesses that come before you, anybody

[1:34:45] that's going to testify, including

[1:34:46] staff, uh has to be sworn in, is

[1:34:49] required to be sworn in. Uh you don't go

[1:34:52] to zoning jail uh if you don't tell the

[1:34:56] truth when you stand at the podium here.

[1:34:58] There's no such thing as perjury from a zoning standpoint. However, it is

[1:35:02] a reminder to participants that this is

[1:35:04] a formal proceeding. They are to be on

[1:35:06] their best behavior. They're to put

[1:35:08] their, you know, good foot forward, that

[1:35:10] sort of thing. They're to participate uh

[1:35:13] professionally and ethically.

[1:35:16] Uh if necessary, time periods can be

[1:35:18] established uh for testimony or

[1:35:20] presentations. That's very common. You

[1:35:22] may do that already. It may be in the

[1:35:23] rules of procedure, but an applicant

[1:35:25] will have 10 minutes to explain their

[1:35:27] proposal. Uh, individuals in support of

[1:35:30] that will have two minutes to talk about

[1:35:32] that. Then we'll jump over to anyone uh

[1:35:34] that's in opposition. We'll give them a

[1:35:36] certain time period. Uh it's okay to to

[1:35:39] limit time period. Sometimes you'll hear

[1:35:41] two minutes isn't enough. Uh don't

[1:35:43] forget there are other methods of

[1:35:45] communicating with the commission. You

[1:35:46] can send your emails, provide written

[1:35:48] comments to staff, things of that

[1:35:50] nature.

[1:35:53] uh opportunity to be heard also includes

[1:35:55] uh providing for an opportunity for

[1:35:57] cross-examination of witnesses. It

[1:36:00] really just gives each party the ability

[1:36:03] to to question uh motivation or bias or

[1:36:07] things of that nature uh should that be

[1:36:09] offered. Uh this is not a you know Jack

[1:36:12] Nicholson you can't handle the truth

[1:36:15] kind of situation. I've seen uh various

[1:36:18] commissions that will either uh offer a

[1:36:21] cross- examination uh time period uh

[1:36:23] once testimony has been provided once we

[1:36:26] get to that point in the hearing and the

[1:36:28] commission and the chair will say uh all

[1:36:31] commissions, excuse me, all questions

[1:36:33] need to be submitted in writing and then

[1:36:34] the chair will read the commission. It

[1:36:36] kind of helps to take should it be a a

[1:36:40] controversial matter kind of takes some

[1:36:41] of the sting out of you know what do you

[1:36:44] mean you did do a traffic study or how

[1:36:47] much did you pay your your traffic

[1:36:49] engineer? It just helps to keep things a

[1:36:52] little bit calmer and more professional.

[1:36:54] But the witness uh but witnesses during

[1:36:56] cross- examination should never be

[1:36:58] subject to to badgering or anything of

[1:37:00] that nature. They should be treated with respect.

[1:37:05] Finally, the written decision. So all

[1:37:07] evidence that's presented has to be

[1:37:09] reflected within the decision. And it's

[1:37:12] aokay to give different weight and

[1:37:14] different influence to different

[1:37:16] evidence. Uh things like scientific

[1:37:19] reports, professional studies, or

[1:37:21] testimony by a subject matter expert

[1:37:24] typically warrant significance because

[1:37:26] they're grounded in technical expertise

[1:37:28] and objective analysis.

[1:37:30] Courts usually rely on the record and

[1:37:33] not the emotion that may be in the room

[1:37:36] or not anything that's not already

[1:37:38] codified or written down in the

[1:37:40] standards.

[1:37:41] when they determine a matter that comes

[1:37:43] before them, they're simply looking at

[1:37:45] uh what was said and how the connection

[1:37:48] is made from the evidence that was

[1:37:49] presented to the determination that was

[1:37:51] ultimately rendered.

[1:37:54] I think it's important to remind uh the

[1:37:56] commission that a decision isn't

[1:37:58] official until it's in writing. Uh I am

[1:38:01] aware that uh some commissions make a hearing on uh excuse me make a

[1:38:05] decision on Tuesday night during the

[1:38:07] hearing and then staff turns around

[1:38:09] Wednesday morning and writes it all up

[1:38:11] and and sends it out. There also

[1:38:14] jurisdictions that make a decision at

[1:38:16] one meeting and then two weeks later

[1:38:18] they have another meeting where uh

[1:38:20] findings and conditions have been

[1:38:22] prepared based on the discussion and

[1:38:23] decision that was rendered two weeks

[1:38:25] prior. It doesn't really matter, but

[1:38:27] it's not official until it's in writing.

[1:38:30] So, if I'm standing before you and you

[1:38:33] approve my my subdivision request and

[1:38:36] you have the authority to approve it at

[1:38:38] this level, I can't go out tomorrow

[1:38:39] morning and start digging trenches and

[1:38:41] that sort of thing. It's got to be in

[1:38:43] writing and if there's an appeal period

[1:38:46] to that, the appeal period needs to

[1:38:47] expire before any rights have been

[1:38:50] conveyed to me as a property owner based

[1:38:52] upon the decision from this commission.

[1:38:56] The decision must outline findings of

[1:38:58] fact to support the determination. This

[1:39:00] is really nothing more than a sufficient

[1:39:02] explanation that connects the evidence

[1:39:03] that's presented to the criteria. And it

[1:39:07] really comes in three components. The

[1:39:08] applicable standards as they are

[1:39:10] enumerated in the code, the evidence

[1:39:12] presented or not presented that's in the

[1:39:14] record, and a conclusion explaining

[1:39:17] whether the criterion was met or not.

[1:39:19] Another very quick practical example

[1:39:21] here. I'm making this up, but section

[1:39:24] 5.5.3

[1:39:26] L of the zoning ordinance requires that

[1:39:28] the proposed garage for automobile

[1:39:30] repair be compatible with surrounding

[1:39:31] development.

[1:39:33] Factual statement, right?

[1:39:36] Evidence presented during the hearing

[1:39:37] established that the surrounding area

[1:39:39] contains commercial and mixeduse

[1:39:40] properties on three sides of the subject

[1:39:42] site, including a gas station in the

[1:39:44] east, gymnastics and trucking facility

[1:39:46] in the west, and a retail establishment

[1:39:48] to the south. The 3acre size of the

[1:39:51] property is sufficient in size and shape

[1:39:53] to meet all applicable development

[1:39:54] requirements for yards, open space,

[1:39:56] parking, loading, and landscaping. And

[1:39:58] the applicant has testified that all

[1:40:00] noise generating activities will occur

[1:40:03] inside the building will occur indoors.

[1:40:06] Here comes the concluding statement.

[1:40:08] Based on this evidence, the planning and

[1:40:10] zoning commission finds that the

[1:40:11] proposed use is compatible with the

[1:40:12] surrounding area and the applicable

[1:40:14] development standards. there's a

[1:40:16] connection between the evidence and the

[1:40:19] resulting ultimate decision.

[1:40:24] Um I also recommend highly recommend

[1:40:27] that the decision if there is

[1:40:29] conflicting evidence uh that it be also

[1:40:33] referenced. Um, I think ignoring

[1:40:36] unfavorable

[1:40:38] uh evidence or or evidence that is

[1:40:42] contrary to the decision that's made weakens your decision. So,

[1:40:46] it could include something like this.

[1:40:49] Although several residents expressed

[1:40:50] concerns regarding increased traffic

[1:40:52] congestion, the traffic impact analysis

[1:40:55] prepared by a licensed traffic engineer

[1:40:57] concluded that the increase in traffic

[1:41:00] um created by the project would remain

[1:41:02] within acceptable level of service

[1:41:04] standards established by the village.

[1:41:06] The planning zoning commission assigned

[1:41:07] substantial weight to the professional

[1:41:09] traffic analysis submitted with this

[1:41:11] request because it was based on

[1:41:12] measurable data and accepted engineering

[1:41:15] methodologies. you haven't ignored the

[1:41:17] people that said, "I feel like I may not

[1:41:20] have evidence, but I know in my gut that

[1:41:22] traffic is going to be a problem." And weighing that against

[1:41:27] a study, an official study, analysis

[1:41:31] using adopted methodologies.

[1:41:35] So, we've touched on this very briefly.

[1:41:37] Let's just run through it quickly. But

[1:41:38] exparte is any communication that occurs

[1:41:41] outside of a public. It involves fewer

[1:41:45] all the parties having a legal interest

[1:41:46] in the matter. It's about a pending or

[1:41:49] an upcoming matter in front of the

[1:41:50] commission and it's made to or initiated

[1:41:53] by a commission member having

[1:41:55] jurisdiction over the matter. Again,

[1:41:57] you're acting as judges, so you want to

[1:41:58] avoid any discussions outside the public

[1:42:01] hearing.

[1:42:03] Examples include uh having

[1:42:05] communications with people involved or

[1:42:06] not involved in the subject matter uh

[1:42:09] pending before the hearing body,

[1:42:11] independent investigations. We talked

[1:42:12] about site visits just a few minutes

[1:42:14] ago. even communications that are made

[1:42:16] with the best of intentions. I'm just

[1:42:18] trying to help. My advice is don't be

[1:42:22] unhelpful. Uh but make sure you qualify

[1:42:25] that you can't help in that situation

[1:42:27] because again your role is to be a

[1:42:29] judge. And you want to make sure that

[1:42:31] there's a very clear delineation between

[1:42:34] acting as a judge, acting as a hearing

[1:42:36] officer, acting as a commission member

[1:42:38] and quote unquote helping in the

[1:42:40] situation.

[1:42:42] Exparte includes uh discussions, phone

[1:42:45] calls, emails, text messages,

[1:42:47] independent internet research, uh

[1:42:50] pictures, uh site visits. Now, again,

[1:42:52] things that don't come up during the

[1:42:54] hearing

[1:42:56] or outside the public hearing fall into

[1:42:58] the into the category of exploit.

[1:43:01] Really, the key point is that as I

[1:43:03] mentioned earlier, all factf finding

[1:43:05] should be done during the hearing. It's

[1:43:07] the applicant's responsibility to

[1:43:10] communicate to you to your satisfaction

[1:43:13] that their proposal meets the criteria.

[1:43:15] If you feel that [clears throat]

[1:43:17] uh an aerial photograph of the property

[1:43:20] is important, uh the applicant is the

[1:43:22] one that bears the responsibility to do

[1:43:24] that. And it's absolutely acceptable for

[1:43:26] this commission to say, "Mr. Williams,

[1:43:28] we need to see an aerial photograph."

[1:43:30] And you keep talking about how the

[1:43:31] topography on your lot is much different

[1:43:34] than than surrounding lots. give me

[1:43:36] something that I can, you know, roll up

[1:43:39] my sleeves and look into. Uh I need more

[1:43:42] than than you simply just testifying to

[1:43:44] the fact that that's absolutely

[1:43:45] appropriate uh to come from the

[1:43:47] commission.

[1:43:51] Why prohibit export communications? It's

[1:43:53] not fair. That that's in a nutshell. The

[1:43:56] decision maker can be accur inaccurately

[1:43:58] informed. They can be improperly

[1:44:00] influenced. Uh it only gives one side of

[1:44:02] the story. if we're having a

[1:44:04] conversation about my project uh while

[1:44:07] we wait for our prescriptions to get

[1:44:09] filled at Walgreens, right?

[1:44:12] Even if there's an absence of actual

[1:44:15] influence or misinformation, other

[1:44:17] parties may feel that they've been

[1:44:19] cheated and and believe that the the

[1:44:21] process has been tainted and we don't

[1:44:23] want to do that. Again, you want to hold

[1:44:25] on and retain community trust.

[1:44:29] Uh it's possible for a commission

[1:44:30] engaged in exartic communication,

[1:44:32] particularly of an ongoing or recurring

[1:44:34] nature to develop a reputation for being

[1:44:37] susceptible to improper influence. Uh

[1:44:39] and again that diminishes community

[1:44:41] trust. Uh and the big one uh expparte

[1:44:45] communications can invalidate the

[1:44:46] actions of the hearing body should an

[1:44:48] appeal be filed uh and it gets to the

[1:44:51] court or it even gets to the governing

[1:44:53] body and the governing body determines

[1:44:54] that some sort of exparte communication

[1:44:57] has taken place. It is not uncommon for

[1:44:59] courts to say, "We're saying you

[1:45:02] shouldn't have done that." So, you get

[1:45:03] dinged for doing something you shouldn't

[1:45:05] have done. Uh, and then they make you do

[1:45:08] it all over again. Uh, and that

[1:45:10] essentially is waste of time, effort,

[1:45:13] and resources because you have to do it

[1:45:15] again because you didn't do it right the

[1:45:16] first time.

[1:45:19] I am a a baseball fan. Uh, not because

[1:45:21] I'm a retired old man, but I just I've

[1:45:24] always loved baseball. But in the last

[1:45:26] couple years, I have the striking

[1:45:28] similarities between baseball and

[1:45:31] planning and zoning. Think about it.

[1:45:34] Baseball is established on the seven

[1:45:36] rules and when it's appropriate,

[1:45:39] those rules can be changed. Those rules

[1:45:42] provide predictability.

[1:45:45] If my good buddy uh Mr. Show Atani hits

[1:45:48] a sharp drive to right center field,

[1:45:52] what's he going to do?

[1:45:54] You guys know this, right? He hits the

[1:45:56] ball. Where's he gonna run?

[1:45:58] >> First base.

[1:45:59] What if he said, "Well, in

[1:46:02] Japan, we always run to third base. We

[1:46:04] I've never been taught to run to first

[1:46:06] base. Does that matter?" No. We would

[1:46:09] say it's the rules of the game.

[1:46:13] Um, so it provides a level of

[1:46:17] predictability. There's a large focus uh

[1:46:20] on the fans in baseball. I love going to

[1:46:23] the Isotopes game because it's it's very

[1:46:25] familyoriented. They want people engaged

[1:46:28] and having fun. That's part of it. So

[1:46:31] they remember who their who their

[1:46:33] audience is, right? Cheating is

[1:46:36] condemned.

[1:46:37] I won't say to you US. Uh and finally,

[1:46:42] the contest is determined based on the

[1:46:44] culmination of events. It doesn't matter

[1:46:46] how many runs are scored uh you know in

[1:46:49] the first inning. I could score 12 runs

[1:46:51] and doesn't mean that the game is is

[1:46:53] locked up. We we wait till we get to the

[1:46:55] end of the game and it's a culmination

[1:46:57] of everything that's occurred. Uh it

[1:47:00] renders the result as to who won and and

[1:47:03] who didn't. Planning and zoning stuff

[1:47:07] is very simple. There's a set of

[1:47:09] established rules that we have to play

[1:47:11] by. There's a level of predictability

[1:47:14] that should be part of the process. If

[1:47:16] it's necessary to modify, to change, or

[1:47:19] to tweak a rule, there's a process to do

[1:47:21] that. There's a large focus on the

[1:47:24] public. Maybe they're fans, maybe

[1:47:26] they're not, but again, who are we here

[1:47:28] to serve? It's it's a public process uh

[1:47:30] meant to engage the public. So, we need

[1:47:33] to stay focused on the public. In this

[1:47:36] P&Z process, much like baseball,

[1:47:38] cheating is a no-go. You cannot cheat.

[1:47:42] You have to play by the rules. You can't

[1:47:43] bend them. You can't tweak them.

[1:47:46] There is a process if they're not

[1:47:47] working you you can go through but

[1:47:50] making up your own rules is not allowed

[1:47:52] in planning and zoning matters. Finally,

[1:47:54] a decision is based on the culmination

[1:47:56] of the evidence that's presented to the

[1:47:59] decision.

[1:48:02] Here are the rules of the game. All

[1:48:04] witnesses have to be sworn in and all

[1:48:06] testimony has to be provided under oath.

[1:48:09] You've got to provide an opportunity for

[1:48:10] cross-examination of witnesses.

[1:48:13] expert and communications must be

[1:48:15] avoided.

[1:48:17] All the evidence in the record has to be

[1:48:19] considered in the decision. And again,

[1:48:20] as I mentioned earlier, some evidence

[1:48:22] can carry greater weight than others,

[1:48:24] but everything that's presented has to

[1:48:26] be considered.

[1:48:28] You've got to provide a written decision

[1:48:30] which outlines the facts that support

[1:48:32] your determination. And last but not

[1:48:35] least, all involved or interested

[1:48:36] parties are entitled uh to notice. They

[1:48:39] get a copy of the decision that's made.

[1:48:42] They get a copy of announcement about

[1:48:44] where the hearing will be held, things

[1:48:46] of that nature.

[1:48:50] Last time I'll ask this questions.

[1:48:54] >> Yes,

[1:48:54] >> this is I think similar to the question

[1:48:57] I asked you

[1:49:01] almost a year ago.

[1:49:03] >> Um,

[1:49:03] >> seems to get the same answer, right?

[1:49:05] >> I hope so. Um,

[1:49:08] so if uh In the example you gave, uh,

[1:49:15] the commission says, "We can we don't

[1:49:19] have a real sense of what you're saying

[1:49:21] about the contour of your land."

[1:49:24] Um,

[1:49:27] and we need more information. What do we

[1:49:30] do with the application? Do we

[1:49:34] hold it over to the next meeting? Is

[1:49:37] there a technical word for that?

[1:49:40] Sometimes people

[1:49:42] I need you to decide one way or another.

[1:49:45] I've got all this money put into it.

[1:49:49] >> Um well, you could I mean I've heard it

[1:49:53] referred to as a deferral. We're going

[1:49:54] to take item 5G and we're going to defer

[1:49:57] it to the August 12th meeting. Uh you

[1:50:00] could also continue and again the

[1:50:02] distinction is really not important uh

[1:50:06] for our purposes today but you could

[1:50:08] continue the matter meaning you're going

[1:50:11] to pause it and you're going to pick up

[1:50:12] later when it's rescheduled. Uh but if

[1:50:15] you've got and I've been there uh you've

[1:50:18] got you know give me some give me

[1:50:21] something to sink my teeth into help me

[1:50:23] help you kind of thing and you've got

[1:50:25] people that say I don't know what to do

[1:50:26] or I've already been doing this months

[1:50:29] and I don't want to spend another $3,000

[1:50:31] as my engineer.

[1:50:33] Um, you've kind of painted yourself in a

[1:50:35] corner as an applicant. Uh, if the

[1:50:37] commission doesn't have enough

[1:50:39] information to make a favorable

[1:50:42] decision, you're left with one choice.

[1:50:45] Well, really two. You could you can

[1:50:46] continue it and ask them to give you

[1:50:48] that additional information. But if an

[1:50:50] applicant won't or can't uh get to you

[1:50:54] what you need, then I would argue that

[1:50:58] they're not meeting the criteria. You've

[1:51:00] still got questions. You're not

[1:51:01] convinced that uh that the applicant's

[1:51:03] argument meets the the criteria for

[1:51:06] approval by default. You're denying the

[1:51:09] request.

[1:51:11] >> So, with a denial, uh they can obviously

[1:51:14] come back at a later date, but they have

[1:51:17] to go through the whole start all over

[1:51:19] again.

[1:51:20] >> Sure. Or they could uh they could appeal

[1:51:23] that denial uh to the governing body,

[1:51:26] >> right? who again in my scenario here in

[1:51:30] our little scenario here I would hope

[1:51:32] the governing body would say well the

[1:51:34] planning and zoning commission asked you

[1:51:36] Mr. Williams to provide uh topographic

[1:51:39] survey and you said that costs too much

[1:51:41] money.

[1:51:43] What's changed? Well, nothing. I just

[1:51:44] don't want to do it. Well, again, now at

[1:51:46] the governing body level, we're unable

[1:51:49] to make a decision because we need this

[1:51:51] evidence or we need this information as

[1:51:53] well,

[1:51:54] >> right?

[1:51:55] >> But if you

[1:51:57] defer or continue,

[1:52:01] uh does notice have to be reposted? Uh

[1:52:05] well, it's possible. I mean, it would

[1:52:06] depend on on what your what your code,

[1:52:09] your local code requires, some

[1:52:11] jurisdiction and your rules of

[1:52:12] procedure. Uh some communities require

[1:52:16] notice all over again. Some don't. Uh

[1:52:19] sometimes that's an argument that

[1:52:20] applicants will make to avoid uh that if

[1:52:24] there's a requirement for me to pay for

[1:52:26] signs and repost and pay for the legal

[1:52:29] ad that's going to be run in the

[1:52:30] newspaper again, pay for mail out. Uh

[1:52:34] have that kind of money. Um, you

[1:52:36] [snorts] know, it's not meant to be

[1:52:37] punitive in nature. Uh, but we it's a

[1:52:40] public process. So, we've got to make

[1:52:41] sure we meet all those public

[1:52:42] notification requirements and they come

[1:52:44] with a cost.

[1:52:46] >> I I can answer part of that if if you if

[1:52:48] allowed. So, this has happened a couple

[1:52:50] of times where something had to come

[1:52:52] back as long as during the actual

[1:52:55] meeting we say this matter will be

[1:52:57] deferred to a date certain, which is

[1:53:00] potentially the next meeting. You know,

[1:53:01] we've asked the applicant, can you have

[1:53:03] what what we need you to have by the

[1:53:06] next meeting or should we make it two

[1:53:08] meetings out? Then the presumption is

[1:53:09] that everyone in the room or on the Zoom

[1:53:11] who's interested in that matter will

[1:53:14] hear, oh, now it's going to be heard in

[1:53:16] September on this date and then it will

[1:53:18] show up on that meeting notice and and

[1:53:19] agenda and that's sufficient. But if it

[1:53:23] just if it just takes them six months,

[1:53:24] then we just they they're going to pay

[1:53:26] for certified letters again and etc,

[1:53:29] >> And that's a very common

[1:53:31] approach is to you know it

[1:53:33] [clears throat] can there's no hard and

[1:53:35] fast rule on that other than uh notice

[1:53:38] has to be uh initially provided but some

[1:53:40] commissions may choose to not have to

[1:53:44] renotice or not send mail outs or things

[1:53:47] of that nature and some commissions may

[1:53:49] choose to

[1:53:52] may opt to to require

[1:53:53] >> and I want to clarify the distinction

[1:53:56] between your 15 days and our 20 days.

[1:54:00] Yes. Yes. 15 is is the legal minimum. Uh

[1:54:06] if you've got something more than that, that that's a okay. It just can't

[1:54:09] be 14 or fewer days. It's got to be at

[1:54:12] least 15.

[1:54:14] >> So Brandon, you think uh premeings would

[1:54:17] solve some of these problems?

[1:54:18] >> Oh, good point. Uh yes. I mean, that's

[1:54:21] an option that I've seen in communities.

[1:54:23] Uh some communities, Albuquerque for

[1:54:26] example, for certain requests require a

[1:54:29] pre-application.

[1:54:30] >> Yeah, I think we need to look at that

[1:54:32] >> and and that really kind of uh creates a

[1:54:35] step in the process that helps you as a

[1:54:37] commission ensure that people aren't

[1:54:40] [clears throat] just coming in blind,

[1:54:41] right?

[1:54:42] >> Because not everybody that comes before

[1:54:43] you has experience in development, land

[1:54:46] use, subdivision, things of that nature.

[1:54:48] So, uh, if you've got somebody that's

[1:54:50] relatively new, a local mom and pop come

[1:54:53] in and they want to subdivide their

[1:54:55] property, requiring them to go through a

[1:54:57] pre-application meeting ensures that

[1:55:00] staff takes time to explain to them,

[1:55:02] give them the materials that they need,

[1:55:04] outlines the criteria, tells them the

[1:55:07] process. This is step one, this is step

[1:55:08] two, this is step three. So,

[1:55:10] >> and I've been to Albuquerquey's and

[1:55:12] Santa Fe's pre meetings. They're great.

[1:55:15] They solve a lot of problems before

[1:55:18] we end up looking at things.

[1:55:20] >> Correct. And that that's the that's the

[1:55:22] benefit which is yes uh staff is

[1:55:25] identifying issues that may come up. My

[1:55:28] earlier example about the you know the

[1:55:30] fire lane had that particular developer

[1:55:33] gone through a pre-application meeting.

[1:55:35] Perhaps they could have uh they could

[1:55:36] have saved some time in their design and

[1:55:38] their layout.

[1:55:39] >> U so there there are benefits to that

[1:55:41] but again there's not a requirement. It

[1:55:43] would be something

[1:55:44] >> you as a commissioner the governing body

[1:55:46] uh could push forward.

[1:55:48] >> So, can the commission require that? Can

[1:55:52] we make that ruling or do we need to go

[1:55:54] before the council?

[1:55:56] >> Well, you got you got to have to make it

[1:55:57] a require has to be adopted, codified,

[1:55:59] and finally [clears throat] adopted

[1:56:00] through through the legislative process

[1:56:02] to do that.

[1:56:03] >> Okay.

[1:56:04] >> Uh just requiring it uh not spec if it's

[1:56:08] not called out in the ordinance, you're

[1:56:10] you've got some legal liability in

[1:56:13] requiring people to do that if if the

[1:56:15] code doesn't specifically they have to

[1:56:17] do.

[1:56:17] >> It's definitely a positive thing to do.

[1:56:20] >> Sure. And and I've also seen communities

[1:56:22] that uh strongly recommend it. They

[1:56:24] don't require somebody to go through it.

[1:56:26] Uh but they will say something along the

[1:56:28] lines of all applicants are strongly

[1:56:31] recommend to meet with the planning and

[1:56:33] zoning director prior to filing an

[1:56:34] application so that you understand the

[1:56:36] process, the steps, the costs, things of

[1:56:38] that nature.

[1:56:39] >> And you got it. I was going to say I do

[1:56:41] that already. You're talking about

[1:56:42] having an extra commission meeting

[1:56:44] because all applicants do meet with me

[1:56:46] prior to

[1:56:47] >> Yes, it's a premeating where commission

[1:56:50] are present

[1:56:52] but we're not making a decision. We're

[1:56:55] listening to and the applicants are also

[1:56:58] present too to listening to the

[1:57:01] discussion and we're taking in that

[1:57:03] information and we're not making a

[1:57:05] decision at a premeating

[1:57:07] >> and I

[1:57:09] >> am I accurate on my description

[1:57:11] >> very common do you all have a a sketch

[1:57:13] plat process here as it relates to your

[1:57:15] subdivision application so that's what a

[1:57:17] sketch plat meeting is is that it's it's

[1:57:19] informal a decision is not made but it

[1:57:22] allowsbody

[1:57:24] everybody everybody to get in the same

[1:57:25] room and kind of look at the map or roll

[1:57:28] out the map and and say this is what I'm

[1:57:30] proposing and there may be some

[1:57:32] suggestions or there may be some

[1:57:34] cautions uh that are that are expressed

[1:57:36] to an applicant but it's really just to

[1:57:38] kind of get everybody familiar uh in

[1:57:42] this scenario with a subdivision

[1:57:43] application get folks familiar with

[1:57:45] what's coming what what's going to be

[1:57:47] coming formally before the commission.

[1:57:50] >> Yeah. But not everything we see goes

[1:57:52] through a sketch plot. Correct.

[1:57:55] Everything we can

[1:57:56] >> correct. If it's a if it's a summary

[1:57:58] plat, you know, one lot into two,

[1:58:00] something like that, I I don't require a

[1:58:02] sketch, but if it's one of those pretty

[1:58:03] good size subdivisions, we absolutely do

[1:58:06] so that you can see it and, you know, we

[1:58:08] can thrash out things like fire

[1:58:10] suppression and etc. You know, just

[1:58:13] something of a large nature.

[1:58:18] would change

[1:58:34] the actual

[1:58:38] » um if I'm understanding it would depend

[1:58:41] upon what what your rules require.

[1:58:45] So if if you have adopted

[1:58:49] on the books rules that that don't

[1:58:52] require a second round of notice after

[1:58:54] the initial,

[1:58:56] then you wouldn't have to worry. You

[1:58:58] know, the time periods wouldn't really

[1:59:00] come to effect. However, if if you don't

[1:59:02] have some exclusion or something that

[1:59:05] allows you to kind of deviate from the

[1:59:08] normal process,

[1:59:10] it it may bump when your hearing can be

[1:59:12] heard because you got to backdate it in

[1:59:14] order to meet all your public notice

[1:59:16] requirements. And so, uh you know, I

[1:59:18] need I want to come back in August. I

[1:59:19] want to come back in August. Well, we

[1:59:21] don't have enough time to advertise and

[1:59:23] send notice and do all that sort of

[1:59:24] thing. The earliest we can get you in

[1:59:26] would be September. And that's just

[1:59:28] because the rules are written that way.

[1:59:31] >> Have you ever seen

[1:59:39] » separate notice for meeting? Um,

[1:59:56] » I will say the questions to I I don't

[1:59:59] think so would be my horrible answer to

[2:00:02] that.

[2:00:03] >> Um,

[2:00:04] I mean there would be nothing wrong. Let

[2:00:06] me put it this way. You have to meet the

[2:00:10] standard. you have to meet the minimum

[2:00:12] that if you're going above and beyond

[2:00:14] that generally is not an issue. So I'm

[2:00:16] thinking of a scenario where there's a

[2:00:18] particular case in Bernalo County that

[2:00:21] was controversial

[2:00:23] and the planning department decided uh

[2:00:26] to to send a second notice even though

[2:00:28] that was not the practice at at the time

[2:00:30] but there were you know somebody above

[2:00:33] my pay grade made the decision to say I

[2:00:36] know it's going to cost an extra $200

[2:00:38] but we want to make sure that community

[2:00:40] members stay informed. So, let's send

[2:00:41] out those letters again just to remind

[2:00:44] them that this matter had been deferred

[2:00:46] until the August hearing or whatever the

[2:00:48] situation is. So, again, there wouldn't

[2:00:50] be a problem with that. The problem

[2:00:52] would be if you're required to send

[2:00:54] notice and you don't send notice.

[2:00:57] >> Okay.

[2:00:58] >> So, can a premeating be set one week

[2:01:01] before uh planning a zoning meeting?

[2:01:05] >> You have to meet the publication dead.

[2:01:07] So depending upon the action,

[2:01:11] you [clears throat] should have an

[2:01:11] established calendar that says in order

[2:01:13] to meet this meeting, whether it's a pre-application meeting or a

[2:01:18] sketch plat discussion or whatever it

[2:01:20] might be, you need a hard and fast date

[2:01:23] for the application to be submitted, the

[2:01:26] fees to be paid, the legal ad to be run,

[2:01:29] things of that nature. A week is not

[2:01:31] going to give you enough time.

[2:01:36] depend a lot on if 1% of the cases that

[2:01:42] come in front of the commission

[2:01:44] are have to have a delay because there

[2:01:47] was more information

[2:01:50] then there's

[2:01:52] probably 95% of the time you can't make

[2:01:55] a decision because

[2:01:58] >> true

[2:02:05] of

[2:02:07] you know, the nuts and bolts of things

[2:02:09] to make sure that when things come in,

[2:02:12] they're in front of the commission in a

[2:02:15] way that there's low chance of something

[2:02:18] missing.

[2:02:19] >> Yeah.

[2:02:24] » Well, I I'm trying to think this through

[2:02:25] in terms of, you know, we we have that

[2:02:27] calendar that's in your packets and and

[2:02:30] I I have the, you know, there's the date

[2:02:31] of the meeting and then we back up.

[2:02:33] Okay. We do a 30-day beating notice even

[2:02:36] though 15 is. So, I'm trying to think,

[2:02:38] okay, if if we're automatically going to

[2:02:40] hear every single thing twice,

[2:02:43] I have to make sure that all the

[2:02:45] materials are still in by a certain

[2:02:47] date. What if there's the premeating

[2:02:49] here in a public meeting and the

[2:02:51] commission asks for something else? Now,

[2:02:54] how does that jive with, you know, now

[2:02:58] there's a new notice and there's a new

[2:03:00] application because there's new

[2:03:01] information. I'm just trying to puzzle

[2:03:03] this through. And I will say that when I

[2:03:05] first started working here, I did notice

[2:03:07] that there were a lot of things that

[2:03:09] seemed to be heard over and over. Took

[2:03:11] forever to get anything decided. And I

[2:03:14] thought, well, how can that be remedied?

[2:03:16] Well, the way it can be remedied is for

[2:03:18] you to see it in its entirety. The first

[2:03:22] time you see it, you know, to the best

[2:03:24] of my ability, if something comes out in

[2:03:26] a meeting, I didn't know about it, then

[2:03:27] so be it. But um if somebody gives me

[2:03:31] half an application, you're not going to

[2:03:33] see it unless they insist. That's

[2:03:35] happened one time. I said, you know,

[2:03:38] it's your money. You're welcome to bring

[2:03:39] this half an application and and try to

[2:03:42] convince everyone, but 99.9% of the

[2:03:45] time, they know everything they need in

[2:03:47] the application, everything that the

[2:03:49] code asks for. And and I I tell them,

[2:03:52] you need to tell the planning and zoning

[2:03:55] commission what it is you want to do.

[2:03:57] you know, don't don't change your tune.

[2:03:59] This is what you're going to do. If you

[2:04:01] do a little less than that, then so be

[2:04:03] it. But they need to know what is it you

[2:04:05] want to do. Here's all your supporting

[2:04:08] documents that they will need, the

[2:04:09] commission will need.

[2:04:11] >> So, Brennan, in City of Albuquerque,

[2:04:14] what's the process for premeings? Is

[2:04:17] there 30-day notice or can it be done?

[2:04:21] >> Do you remember? Um,

[2:04:25] I I don't to be completely honest. I

[2:04:28] mean, I know that uh there are often

[2:04:33] back in the day there used to be a rush

[2:04:35] of pre-application meetings as we got

[2:04:37] closer to uh application submission

[2:04:41] deadline. So, people would uh want their

[2:04:45] premeings so that they could then turn

[2:04:46] around, you know, identify any issues or

[2:04:49] any problems and then turn around and

[2:04:51] submit their site development plan

[2:04:54] application the following week because

[2:04:55] that's

[2:04:56] Thursday at close of business,

[2:04:58] everything must be in in order to make

[2:05:00] the August hearing. Um, but very good

[2:05:03] points made here. A, is there an

[2:05:07] operational need? Are you frequently as

[2:05:09] a commission seeing stuff that you feel

[2:05:11] is incomplete?

[2:05:13] uh maybe we change the process, maybe we

[2:05:15] create a pre-application, maybe we

[2:05:17] modify uh the the standards, the

[2:05:20] application standards and so we start

[2:05:22] requiring

[2:05:24] a a topo map to be submitted or or

[2:05:26] whatever it is that you know your common

[2:05:28] issue that you see overlooked or you

[2:05:31] feel is pertinent to you making a

[2:05:33] decision that applicants a lot of times

[2:05:35] just come up shortly.

[2:05:37] >> Yeah. And it may not be every month that

[2:05:39] we need a premeating.

[2:05:40] >> Correct.

[2:05:41] >> Can I ask a clarifying question? I'm

[2:05:42] sorry. I feel like there's two separate

[2:05:44] definitions of premeings going on right

[2:05:46] now.

[2:05:47] >> I feel like you're talking about a

[2:05:49] premeating being with staff and the

[2:05:51] applicant to walk through what's needed.

[2:05:53] And I feel like what's being conveyed

[2:05:55] here is about the letter that we got

[2:05:57] that you weren't privy to about Well,

[2:05:59] but you were in the room, so you got to

[2:06:00] hear it is about the commission meeting

[2:06:05] um with

[2:06:07] >> staff and potentially the applicant just

[2:06:10] to hear everything that's being Correct.

[2:06:13] >> And have the input by staff but not make

[2:06:16] a decision. So I just want to make sure

[2:06:18] that we're being really clear about the

[2:06:19] two conversations.

[2:06:21] >> I appreciate that. And you're right. I'm the way I'm thinking is it could be

[2:06:26] done.

[2:06:27] Both both paths are possible whether

[2:06:29] it's it's a meeting outside of of

[2:06:33] commission involvement that occurs prior

[2:06:35] to an application being made and it's

[2:06:37] simply uh planning staff. It may I'm

[2:06:40] just making it up here. It may include

[2:06:42] uh the public works department and it

[2:06:44] may include the fire department. Um and

[2:06:47] they're each checking for respective

[2:06:50] aspects of this conceptual development

[2:06:53] proposal. Uh and then Lori's explaining,

[2:06:56] okay, uh if you want to get on the

[2:06:58] August agenda, we need your fees and

[2:07:00] your materials submitted by such and

[2:07:02] such a date. Yeah, I think what Jod just

[2:07:04] said is she clarified what I was going

[2:07:07] for this meeting where we're all

[2:07:11] involved but no decisions are made. No,

[2:07:14] the staff presents it to us and the

[2:07:17] applicant.

[2:07:18] So, we have something to work with prior

[2:07:21] to the meeting actually coming up. We've

[2:07:25] had

[2:07:26] >> the materials. So, I don't understand

[2:07:28] what this pre [clears throat]

[2:07:29] meeting would be about. We have all the

[2:07:31] materials in our notebooks ahead of

[2:07:34] time. One of the points that was made is

[2:07:37] that you should review it ahead of time.

[2:07:39] You know, we had one meeting where we

[2:07:41] did not have sufficient quorum and we

[2:07:43] had to cancel it. People were very angry

[2:07:45] that they were here. I don't think

[2:07:47] they're going to be happy to come twice

[2:07:49] and we say the first time, oh, we just

[2:07:51] want to know what you're going to say

[2:07:52] next week, but we're not going to make a

[2:07:54] decision. So, I I am against that pre

[2:07:58] premeating meeting. It just doesn't make

[2:08:00] any sense to me,

[2:08:01] >> particularly if it involves the

[2:08:02] commission. And I apologize. I was here.

[2:08:04] I was conscious. I think uh I didn't

[2:08:08] catch all the the specifics, but I I

[2:08:11] would question

[2:08:14] back.

[2:08:19] » Hey there. I I just wanted to uh chime

[2:08:23] in with a little bit of a two cents,

[2:08:24] which is that I think that

[2:08:28] Well, the distinction that I would make

[2:08:30] is that if you feel the need,

[2:08:35] it's it's a commission decision, but if

[2:08:36] there's a need to have some sort of a a

[2:08:39] pre-application meeting, a you have to

[2:08:42] make sure that

[2:08:44] the rules allow you to do that. I would

[2:08:48] question personally,

[2:08:50] why would I need to come back twice?

[2:08:54] Um, so I'm not understanding that need

[2:08:58] or that distinction. Um, but

[2:09:02] having people meet with staff, so

[2:09:04] outside the commission would avoid

[2:09:07] notification, you know, publication

[2:09:09] fees, mail out fees,

[2:09:12] legal ad things of that nature. If it

[2:09:14] can [clears throat] be resolved at the

[2:09:15] staff level, I think from an operational

[2:09:17] standpoint, that is the mo most

[2:09:19] efficient way to do it. Now, that may

[2:09:21] not always work for every type of

[2:09:22] application. So, some sort of

[2:09:25] determination can be made if it's above

[2:09:29] 10 acres or or if it pertains to a

[2:09:32] shopping center site or or whatever the qualifier is that requires a some

[2:09:39] sort of a pre-application meeting in

[2:09:41] front of the not pre-application,

[2:09:44] well, like a sketch plat,

[2:09:46] >> uh, some sort of a a conception. We're

[2:09:47] not going to make a decision on that.

[2:09:50] Again, it's got to be you got to have it

[2:09:51] in writing. You can't just make that up

[2:09:53] on the fly, but it might be appropriate

[2:09:55] for this commission to consider certain

[2:09:58] qualifiers that would necessitate that.

[2:10:00] But you don't have to do that. I I

[2:10:02] agree. I think while the public loves

[2:10:05] government and I love planning and

[2:10:07] zoning commissions, there gets to, you

[2:10:09] know, you get to a point where you don't

[2:10:10] want to have to go to another public

[2:10:12] hearing. I I just want a decision

[2:10:13] rendered uh on this so that, you know,

[2:10:16] we can either build or

[2:10:19] try something else or whatever it is.

[2:10:21] So, you want to that you're not

[2:10:23] exhausting the public by having so many

[2:10:26] meetings without rendering a decision.

[2:10:28] When an application comes in, to some

[2:10:31] degree, it needs to be complete. What

[2:10:34] that is really depends upon

[2:10:36] you all and how you do your business.

[2:10:39] >> Corey, can you unmute?

[2:10:42] >> Uh, I should be unmuted hopefully.

[2:10:44] >> She wanted to say something.

[2:10:48] >> Go ahead.

[2:10:49] Uh, can you guys not hear me?

[2:10:51] >> We can. We can hear you.

[2:10:53] >> Oh, okay. Good. Um, so what I wanted to

[2:10:55] say, and I think we sort of steered away

[2:10:57] from it, our attorney go ahead.

[2:11:00] >> Uh, we we are veering into I think to

[2:11:05] the point of this entire training into a

[2:11:07] subject that is um not been

[2:11:10] appropriately noticed, right? we're doing a discussion about procedure

[2:11:14] um and we're treading into discussions

[2:11:16] about our actual rules of transacting

[2:11:18] business. Um so I would a I think we

[2:11:21] sort of already did but b caution that

[2:11:23] this is the kind of thing if we want to

[2:11:25] engage in this discussion in a in a

[2:11:27] further detail. We should consider

[2:11:30] adding it to a future meeting where we

[2:11:32] can get into the weeds about whether or

[2:11:34] not this is something we deem necessary

[2:11:36] here in the village. Um or I mean even

[2:11:39] another alternative is if it's a routine

[2:11:42] thing that we're finding that

[2:11:43] applications feel incomplete

[2:11:45] then it would behoove us to be

[2:11:48] requesting more out of our ordinance or

[2:11:51] application process and maybe not

[2:11:53] entertaining changing our rules of

[2:11:55] procedure. Um but that's all things sort

[2:11:58] of just to noodle with outside of this

[2:11:59] meeting. But again, we're we're veering

[2:12:01] into territory that has not been noticed

[2:12:04] um appropriately. So, I just wanted to

[2:12:07] give that word of caution.

[2:12:10] >> And if I could, as uh chair, I would

[2:12:13] agree. And uh I was going to mention

[2:12:17] that when we get to the item on the

[2:12:20] agenda called commissioner's forum, we

[2:12:23] might want to have a discussion as to

[2:12:25] whether or not this item would uh be

[2:12:30] noticed as part of our agenda for the

[2:12:33] next meeting or some future meeting. Any

[2:12:37] further questions for Mr. Williams?

[2:12:41] >> Well, I guess um tied into something

[2:12:43] that you had said earlier. Um if we feel

[2:12:46] that they're okay, it ties into all of

[2:12:48] this. If we feel that there sometimes

[2:12:51] I've I've come here and I've watched the

[2:12:52] meetings, you know, many times and

[2:12:54] sometimes it feels like a decision, you

[2:12:57] know, there's there's you're under the

[2:12:59] gun. you have to make a decision right

[2:13:01] now and maybe they're they're all the

[2:13:04] different aspects haven't really you

[2:13:07] know been considered or you know even

[2:13:08] like you said judges go to chambers they

[2:13:10] get to look at everything and figure it

[2:13:11] out so are there other grounds where

[2:13:13] sometimes like you said a pin is put in

[2:13:16] it so then it's addressed at the next

[2:13:18] meeting or also I forget if it was

[2:13:20] planning and zoning or if it was a

[2:13:22] council meeting but if there's a

[2:13:24] circumstance when legal counsel um

[2:13:27] there's a situation that comes up and

[2:13:28] then it's like, well, what do we do in

[2:13:30] this kind of situation? What's the

[2:13:31] ordinance? What? And if the council

[2:13:33] says, you know what, um, I'm not sure in

[2:13:36] this application. You know what? I think

[2:13:37] I need to look into that. Isn't that

[2:13:39] grounds right then to also say, you know

[2:13:41] what, we need to put a stop to this

[2:13:42] right now then and not make a decision

[2:13:44] on something without really knowing the

[2:13:47] legalities of it or how it's being

[2:13:48] interpreted based on the ordinances and

[2:13:50] that kind of thing.

[2:13:53] >> Yes.

[2:13:54] >> Okay. I I mean again um a lot of these

[2:13:58] are are issue specific

[2:14:01] >> but in in your example if staff or the

[2:14:04] attorney doesn't know and that answer is

[2:14:09] critical to making a decision one way or

[2:14:11] the other then it's absolutely

[2:14:14] appropriate to defer continue pause

[2:14:19] you know get an answer and then bring it

[2:14:21] up at a later time I mean that may

[2:14:23] result in somebody, you know, typing

[2:14:25] something into their computer and giving

[2:14:26] you an answer five minutes later. Uh,

[2:14:29] that may may require more research than

[2:14:31] that. So, it has to go to another

[2:14:33] hearing. Uh, but again, making a

[2:14:36] decision without all of the

[2:14:40] questions answered or the evidence

[2:14:41] clarified

[2:14:43] >> should be avoided. You want to get,

[2:14:46] >> you know, ideally the commission wants

[2:14:47] to make a decision one way or the other

[2:14:50] >> based upon the evidence compared against

[2:14:52] the criteria.

[2:14:58] Further questions if Go ahead Patrick

[2:15:02] can make one addition. My letter

[2:15:05] specifically referred not to

[2:15:09] but my experience with the environment

[2:15:11] planning commission was a meeting

[2:15:14] between the commission and staff the

[2:15:18] week before

[2:15:22] where

[2:15:23] The the issues that were brought up were

[2:15:26] discussed between staff and

[2:15:32] the commission

[2:15:35] reviewed any questions that they had

[2:15:38] regarding the ordinance

[2:15:40] questions.

[2:15:41] It was just kind of a clarification

[2:15:43] where the commission made no decisions.

[2:15:46] It was, as I recall, was a public

[2:15:48] meeting.

[2:15:49] >> Mr. Chair,

[2:15:53] » I apologize. This is treading back into

[2:15:56] territory that hasn't been appropriately

[2:15:58] noticed. We're outside of the public

[2:16:00] comment period. I I hate to do this, but

[2:16:02] I just don't think that it's appropriate

[2:16:04] to be addressing members of the public

[2:16:05] at this time.

[2:16:07] So [snorts] if we decide to further

[2:16:11] pursue this, you as a member of the

[2:16:13] public, we'd want to hear more. Okay. So

[2:16:17] should we thank our uh presenter, Mr.

[2:16:20] Williams?

[2:16:22] >> And uh

[2:16:26] that was terrific. Thank you.

[2:16:28] >> Okay. Uh let's continue with our agenda.

[2:16:32] Um and next item of course is the uh

[2:16:36] election of officers. I want to point

[2:16:38] out that uh there may be

[2:16:42] something that the secretary has to do

[2:16:45] and the secretary is no longer with us.

[2:16:48] Um so

[2:16:51] um I was able to chair because I'm here

[2:16:54] as chair and Mary is vice chair. But I'd

[2:16:58] like to open up the meeting for

[2:17:00] nominations for uh chair

[2:17:05] and then I'll open it up for vice chair

[2:17:07] and for secretary.

[2:17:10] >> I'd like to nominate Jerry Stern Sturmer

[2:17:13] for chair.

[2:17:15] >> I would.

[2:17:18] >> All right.

[2:17:20] Are there been a nomination and second?

[2:17:24] Is there um another nomination?

[2:17:30] » If not,

[2:17:33] we'll call for the vote.

[2:17:36] >> Okay, let me make sure. Uh whoops. Uh

[2:17:39] nomination was made by Commissioner

[2:17:41] Source and seconded by Commissioner

[2:17:42] Harrington. Correct. Okay. For the vote

[2:17:45] for Jerry Sturmer as chair, Solom Ward,

[2:17:48] >> I.

[2:17:49] >> Mike Source,

[2:17:50] >> I.

[2:17:50] >> Edgar BS,

[2:17:52] >> I. Jody Harrington.

[2:17:53] >> Hi.

[2:17:54] >> Mary Chappelle.

[2:17:55] >> Hi.

[2:17:55] >> And Jerry, I guess you get to vote, too.

[2:17:57] >> Okay. [laughter]

[2:17:58] >> So, thank you for uh your your

[2:18:01] confidence. Uh I very much appreciate it

[2:18:04] and will endeavor to do a good job. Uh

[2:18:08] and um

[2:18:12] I think that

[2:18:14] we've heard a lot tonight about

[2:18:18] who we serve and who we're about. and

[2:18:21] that's the members of of this community

[2:18:24] and that's what I always have in mind

[2:18:26] and I hope I'll be able to continue that

[2:18:29] working with you. Let me now open the uh

[2:18:32] floor for nominations for vice vice

[2:18:36] chair.

[2:18:38] >> I would nominate Mary Chappelle.

[2:18:42] >> Do we have a second?

[2:18:43] >> Okay.

[2:18:44] >> I'm sorry. Who seconded?

[2:18:46] >> Okay.

[2:18:50] Uh okay. Are there further nominations?

[2:18:53] Seeing none.

[2:18:55] >> Okay. For the vote um for Mary Chappelle

[2:18:58] as vice chair. Salomay Ward

[2:19:00] >> I.

[2:19:01] >> Mike Source

[2:19:02] >> I.

[2:19:02] >> Edgar BS

[2:19:03] >> I.

[2:19:03] >> Jody Harrington

[2:19:04] >> I.

[2:19:05] >> Mary Chappelle.

[2:19:06] >> Hi.

[2:19:07] >> And Jerry [laughter] Sturmer.

[2:19:08] >> I.

[2:19:10] >> All right. Now we would like to nominate

[2:19:14] uh someone for secretary.

[2:19:20] Uh, we have a nomination for Jodie

[2:19:22] Harington.

[2:19:23] >> I'll second.

[2:19:24] >> Second by Commissioner Shores. Um, do we

[2:19:28] have any other nominations?

[2:19:31] Seeing none.

[2:19:33] >> Um, before I call a vote, I'll I'll let

[2:19:36] you know in in the rules for transaction

[2:19:37] of business, it seems to imply that the

[2:19:40] secretary has to do the minutes. That's

[2:19:41] incorrect. We do those. Um, but you will

[2:19:44] sign off on plats that get approved, you

[2:19:46] and the chair. So for the vote for Jodie

[2:19:49] Harrington as the secretary, Salame Ward

[2:19:53] >> I.

[2:19:53] >> Mike Source

[2:19:54] >> I.

[2:19:54] >> Edgar BS

[2:19:56] >> I.

[2:19:56] >> Jodie Harrington.

[2:19:57] >> Can I abain?

[2:19:58] >> Of course.

[2:20:00] >> Mary Chappelle

[2:20:01] >> I.

[2:20:01] >> And Jerry Sturmer

[2:20:02] >> I.

[2:20:04] Okay. Thank you for being officers.

[2:20:08] And uh let us go to the planning and

[2:20:12] zoning report which we have a written

[2:20:14] version of but you may want to highlight

[2:20:17] some things and add things if you like.

[2:20:20] >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Yeah, I did have

[2:20:22] something here to add which I'll pull

[2:20:24] out so I don't forget. So for the

[2:20:26] benefit of the new commissioners, there

[2:20:28] are certain types of home occupations

[2:20:30] that I'm allowed to approve. Typically,

[2:20:32] that's something where you've got a a

[2:20:34] person um sitting at a computer in their

[2:20:37] home or they're painting or they're

[2:20:40] doing something low impact and have rare

[2:20:43] to no client visits. So, I will always

[2:20:47] list the ones that happened in the

[2:20:48] previous month. Sometimes we have four,

[2:20:50] sometimes we have one. So, I'll always

[2:20:52] list those. Um, and then I usually just

[2:20:55] give you I noticed when I started

[2:20:56] working here that someone was saying I

[2:20:58] you know I got,242 phone calls and 800

[2:21:01] people walked in. I'm like no we're not

[2:21:03] doing that. So I try to just pick out

[2:21:05] some of the highlights of the previous

[2:21:07] month of things that I've worked on. Um,

[2:21:10] one big thing that I personally do, I'm

[2:21:12] the flood plane manager also for the

[2:21:14] village. So drainage issues, storm water

[2:21:17] issues are kind of my specialty. So um,

[2:21:20] in this case I I met with Scaffa.

[2:21:22] There's some some projects within the

[2:21:24] village. This the Scaffa owns some land

[2:21:27] within the village where they operate

[2:21:28] retention ponds. And so we we

[2:21:31] collaborate with public works mainly um

[2:21:33] but but all of us on you know how how to

[2:21:36] help them help us with our um our

[2:21:39] drainage problem. We do not have storm

[2:21:41] sewers in the village. So you'll you'll

[2:21:43] see things like that occasionally.

[2:21:45] There's a clean and lean property if you

[2:21:47] weren't aware. It's 744 Old Church. I

[2:21:50] can tell you that as of today, uh

[2:21:53] actually maybe yesterday afternoon, I

[2:21:55] did uh the code enforcement officer did

[2:21:57] get um a quote that I think we're going

[2:22:00] to go with. So, we're going to we're

[2:22:01] going to move forward on that hopefully

[2:22:03] very soon. Um there's a draft noise

[2:22:05] ordinance that many of you probably

[2:22:07] already know about. Um,

[2:22:10] you know, I I just kind of gave you the

[2:22:11] highlights, but the thing that I wanted

[2:22:12] to mention and some of the current

[2:22:15] commissioners,

[2:22:16] um, there was there were questions about

[2:22:19] traffic studies actually and I became

[2:22:22] aware that NMD dot,

[2:22:24] it's not really a traffic study per se,

[2:22:26] it's a speeding study that they're doing

[2:22:28] right now along Carales Road. They're

[2:22:31] collecting data. Um they were hoping to

[2:22:34] have a draft report by early July, but

[2:22:37] we did not have a meeting with him, so

[2:22:39] it hasn't been presented yet. The final

[2:22:42] submitt should be later on this summer,

[2:22:45] early fall. So they're looking at is

[2:22:47] speeding a problem on Corales Road or

[2:22:49] not? They're also, interestingly enough,

[2:22:52] um, looking at what what they're calling

[2:22:55] a four-way stop control analysis on

[2:22:58] Corales Road for four intersections,

[2:23:01] which would be Cabazone Road, Meadowark

[2:23:03] Lane, Lantrada, and Sage Brush. So, in

[2:23:08] theory, in the future, there could be

[2:23:09] four four-way stops on Carales Road. So,

[2:23:12] that's something they're looking at. Um,

[2:23:14] and so, unless you have any questions of

[2:23:15] me, that's that's my report for tonight.

[2:23:18] I I have a couple questions. Okay. The

[2:23:22] Scaffa issues, what ponds are they

[2:23:25] concerned about? Can we get a little

[2:23:27] more detail on those?

[2:23:28] >> Yeah, one of the ones we talked about is

[2:23:30] at the bottom of

[2:23:33] I want to say Coronado Road. Um I

[2:23:37] believe it's at the bottom of Coronado

[2:23:39] Road. There's a big one at the at the

[2:23:40] bottom of Po de

[2:23:42] >> Corales.

[2:23:43] >> And you know, their concern for the

[2:23:46] village is we don't have storm sewers.

[2:23:47] So, my department constantly is asking

[2:23:51] for grading and drainage plans,

[2:23:52] engineered grading and drainage plans.

[2:23:54] When folks put in new infrastructure,

[2:23:56] they have to have a pond on their

[2:23:58] property. And initially, all is well. We

[2:24:01] have a a grading and drainage plan. At

[2:24:03] that point, we issue a building permit.

[2:24:05] We ask for a certified asbuilt from

[2:24:08] their engineer that this thing was

[2:24:10] constructed as designed. And that's

[2:24:12] wonderful. But what about five years

[2:24:14] from now when the thing is silted in or

[2:24:17] someone else buys the property and says,

[2:24:19] "Well, why there's a hole there? I'm

[2:24:20] going to fill that in." So, the ongoing

[2:24:22] maintenance of the retention ponds was

[2:24:25] something we talked about. Um, and and

[2:24:29] there are some some grants and some

[2:24:31] other agencies that we're going to reach

[2:24:34] out to um for maybe educational

[2:24:37] materials because we are kind of unique.

[2:24:39] you know, other other communities do

[2:24:41] have storm sewers and we don't and how

[2:24:44] do we keep these retention ponds going

[2:24:45] because ultimately all of that flow ends

[2:24:49] up in the Scaffa pond or the village

[2:24:51] owned pond which wasn't designed

[2:24:53] >> exactly

[2:24:54] >> for it. So it's it's it's an an ongoing

[2:24:57] issue.

[2:24:58] >> So the the concern are are we able to

[2:25:01] meet the 100red-year event at this

[2:25:04] point?

[2:25:04] >> The short answer is yes. Um

[2:25:07] >> maybe

[2:25:08] >> but we have historic flows. So

[2:25:11] >> correct. I understand historic flows.

[2:25:13] >> There's no statutory or ordinance

[2:25:14] requirement that anyone do anything with

[2:25:16] historic flows and that's a problem.

[2:25:18] >> Yeah. Now redirection of historic flows.

[2:25:22] Um we had talked about that and having

[2:25:25] meetings on redirection and

[2:25:29] is that going to happen anytime soon?

[2:25:32] All I can tell you from my standpoint is

[2:25:34] I recently got three easements on

[2:25:37] private properties and

[2:25:41] the property owners are allowing us to

[2:25:43] go in and do work and we're going to be

[2:25:45] addressing at least in those areas all

[2:25:47] of the flows whether it's historic or or

[2:25:50] from road or whatever. It's almost I

[2:25:54] mean think of the saly basin project

[2:25:56] which was huge and there's

[2:25:59] >> you you it's it's you almost have to

[2:26:01] look at a given area and say what can we

[2:26:04] do in this given area what is the

[2:26:05] watershed for this particular pond and

[2:26:09] then work backwards.

[2:26:10] >> Correct. There was a couple roads in the

[2:26:12] village that Scaffa is supposed to

[2:26:14] review and meet with the property

[2:26:17] owners. Is that coming up anytime soon?

[2:26:21] I I can't speak to any of their

[2:26:23] meetings, but I know that we did bring

[2:26:25] up flows coming down Coronado when when

[2:26:29] I met with them last time.

[2:26:30] >> Right.

[2:26:31] >> So, we're we my office is concentrating

[2:26:33] on the folks on Coronado Road and Mariam

[2:26:36] Acres, which also flows into it and

[2:26:39] sending a letter to all of them and and

[2:26:42] trying to gently coax them into looking

[2:26:44] at their own properties and how they

[2:26:46] might be contributing to a problem.

[2:26:48] >> Yeah. So regrading, repaving of village

[2:26:52] owned properties, is that something that

[2:26:54] the village is looking at carefully so

[2:26:57] they don't overload?

[2:26:58] >> Oh, absolutely.

[2:26:59] >> Absolutely.

[2:27:00] >> Okay. I think that's part of what the

[2:27:01] this upcoming meeting is supposed to be

[2:27:03] about. Uh do we have any idea when

[2:27:07] that's going to be set?

[2:27:08] >> I can find out for you.

[2:27:09] >> Thank you.

[2:27:13] Father questions.

[2:27:15] >> I had a question about what the quote

[2:27:17] was to do the

[2:27:19] Oh yeah.

[2:27:23] » Well, we got a quote from a company that

[2:27:25] will come in and remediate the property,

[2:27:27] but we don't have a quote yet from

[2:27:30] Sandival County Sheriff's

[2:27:34] » to watch over. So, I don't have a full

[2:27:36] quote yet,

[2:27:37] >> but what is it for the

[2:27:38] >> um it was less than $20,000, which

[2:27:40] shocked me because I But they have, you

[2:27:42] know, they have caveats in there. If

[2:27:44] they get in there and they find out that

[2:27:45] some of these materials are asbestous or

[2:27:48] hazardous, that's that quote's going to

[2:27:50] change.

[2:27:51] >> Yeah.

[2:27:53] >> One more question. Um Rachel Lane, can

[2:27:57] you give us give us some updates on

[2:27:59] that?

[2:28:00] >> Oh, that uh that was one of the two

[2:28:02] roads where I had gotten um a total of

[2:28:06] three easements. One of them is where

[2:28:08] Rachel connects to Via Vista. Mhm.

[2:28:11] >> Um that property owner actually gave us

[2:28:13] two little chunks to work on and then

[2:28:16] the the property Rachel Lane is

[2:28:18] essentially someone's driveway. It's a private driveway. Um and they

[2:28:22] gave us another big chunk. So you put it

[2:28:24] all together. It's going to be a unified

[2:28:26] design.

[2:28:27] >> Who owns these properties then or

[2:28:29] >> two property owners, three easements?

[2:28:34] They're owned by the village or owned by

[2:28:36] the

[2:28:36] >> the the easement will be still owned by

[2:28:39] the property owner, but we will have

[2:28:40] responsibility for

[2:28:42] >> Okay. Does that violate the

[2:28:44] anti-donation at all?

[2:28:45] >> No.

[2:28:46] >> Okay.

[2:28:48] I know the area because I was on P&Z

[2:28:50] when that subdivision was done.

[2:28:52] >> There's quite the ao up there on the

[2:28:54] other side.

[2:28:54] >> Historic flows that run through there.

[2:28:56] >> Yeah. Yeah. It's bad.

[2:28:59] >> Okay. Now it's time for the

[2:29:02] commissioner's forum.

[2:29:04] >> It's also time to close the meeting at

[2:29:06] 9:00.

[2:29:08] Um,

[2:29:10] shall we take a pass on the forum?

[2:29:12] >> Yes, I'm okay with that.

[2:29:14] >> Okay. And then I will uh entertain a

[2:29:17] motion to adjurnn.

[2:29:22] >> I move to adjurnn.

[2:29:23] >> Okay.

[2:29:24] >> I'll second that. And uh we won't even

[2:29:26] take a vote because it's I I declare it

[2:29:30] unanimous meeting ended and uh

July 15, 2026 P&Z Commission Meeting - Training Session

Transcript