[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