[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:47] Commission zoning meeting for Tuesday, October 7, will now come to order. We'll begin with a silent invocation
[0:55] and pledge of allegiance led by our county manager, Tom Sedott.
[1:41] Okay, so we have, are there any additions
[1:44] or changes to the consent agenda of NELCHA? Madam Trick, missioners, there are no changes to the agenda.
[1:52] Also on a note that Commissioner Wayne Johnson is excused, so we'll go to item two, which is the approval of the minutes.
[2:03] I move to approve the September 2nd, zoning meeting minutes.
[2:08] The motion in the second to approve the minutes, all those in favor say aye.
[2:12] Aye, aye.
[2:12] I'll oppose say no.
[2:13] The motion carries.
[2:14] Go next to the consent agenda.
[2:17] And we will approve a lot of the consent agenda.
[2:21] This motion in a second, like Mr. Delacruz.
[2:24] It's simple to move the consent agenda.
[2:26] All those in favor say aye.
[2:28] I also say no, the motion carries.
[2:31] OK.
[2:32] This is next item.
[2:33] Four appeals.
[2:34] So I need to read this item.
[2:40] Mr. Audio.
[2:41] So this is just that section we discussed before the appeals
[2:44] or is it the entire, but not the appeals procedures are read then before, correct?
[2:50] Well, the, whoa, sorry about that.
[2:53] At the bottom of the, so it's either louder or quiet.
[2:57] I'm sorry.
[2:59] Okay.
[2:59] The, at the bottom of the page, read about what was I,
[3:05] Okay.
[3:07] Okay.
[3:08] Okay.
[3:08] Well, it's all.
[3:10] Okay, so I'm going to read this for all the appeals,
[3:13] because we're going to begin with a PLAC-0202014-0013 CSU-2014-0020.
[3:25] This is the PLA process, is a judicial proceeding.
[3:30] The Commission is to add, as judges of the particular facts
[3:35] concerning the parties before applying existing laws to the facts.
[3:40] The Commission is to basis decision only on the facts presented to it by the parties, and not on any facts
[3:47] supposed by it that makes this outside the proceedings.
[3:51] The Commission is to act with impartiality toward each party, applying the logic of facts without
[3:57] favoritism or bias for the mere desirability of a given result.
[4:03] A commissioner with a financial or family interest in the outcome of a quasi-judicial
[4:09] for sitting should disclose any potential conflict
[4:12] in accordance with these rules.
[4:14] And should, if necessary, recuse himself
[4:16] for herself from the proceedings.
[4:18] The Commission in rendering its decision
[4:20] should make a clear statement of what it believes
[4:23] to be relevant facts, and why those facts
[4:26] led to its decision.
[4:28] It's Commissioner Shalavoid,
[4:29] X-par, take communications with parties bringing cases
[4:32] before the Commission, however, such communications
[4:35] may occur.
[4:36] That occur, maybe cured by the
[4:38] possezer's, stated in rule number four.
[4:42] We'll begin with the staff's presentation.
[5:08] Good afternoon, Madam Chair, and members of the Commission.
[5:14] This is CO2, my name is Catherine Vorek, and I'm with
[5:21] Burnley O'County Planning, and this is CO2-014-0013,
[5:28] and CSU 201402020, Gordon H. Rowe, the third agent for Henry C. Doe III, appealed the
[5:40] County Planning Commission's recommendation of approval of the request for a special
[5:45] use permit for a specific use for an amusement enterprise event center and a private
[5:52] recreation area on track C, nature point community located at 30 nature point drive zone A2 with
[6:02] the conditional use for a private recreation area and containing 3.94 acres. Under the request,
[6:10] the applicant has been seeking to hold events for nonmembers, particularly weddings on
[6:16] property within the nature point community in the East Mountains and you may be able to
[6:24] see it on the screen. The parcel is outlined in red. Recreational and social events
[6:34] have been permitted for residents in the community's clubhouse and recreational area that
[6:40] was approved under the conditional use permit in 2004.
[6:46] The special use permit request poses continuation of the use in the existing facilities
[6:53] on the property with specific conditions that seek to limit the use and the impact on nearby
[7:01] and neighboring properties, such as limiting the number of weddings and the days and the
[7:07] hours of operation and limiting noise.
[7:11] Justification for the request has included ensuring stability and viability of the community
[7:17] in difficult economic times where many of the lots in the community have yet to be developed.
[7:24] since the request was first submitted in April of 2018.
[7:30] In 2014, there have been a number of discussions and meetings within the nature point community and with nearby residents and also with county staff.
[7:42] Efforts remain to try to reach an agreement about proposed conditions of approval that would make the use acceptable and quite a few letters of support and of opposition have been submitted for the record for the request and these are in your packet.
[7:58] At the August 6 hearing, the County Planning Commission concluded that the request is consistent
[8:06] with resolution 11686, and the rural area designation of the site, and also that there is
[8:13] substantial neighborhood support for the request as required by the county's own ordinance,
[8:20] and they recommended approval for a term of 15 years.
[8:24] However, a neighboring property owner has appealed a decision of the CPC.
[8:30] The appeal argues that the request is not consistent with resolution 11686, including
[8:36] that it seeks to generate revenue, and it is contrary to the residential character
[8:42] of the neighborhood, and also argues that it has negatively impacted adjacent properties.
[8:49] The applicant's agent has responded to the appeal and has stated that the appeal is not
[8:56] justified and the decision of the CPC should be upheld.
[9:01] Staff concludes by noting that the CPC recommended approval with 10 findings and 16 conditions
[9:08] as stated in the notice of decision, including that the request had substantial neighborhood
[9:13] support and is consistent with resolution on 1686 and with that commissioners I stand for questions.
[9:24] Thank you. I'm going to read the appeals procedures. We just have the staff presentation five minutes. Again,
[9:32] it's an appeal based on the evidence of record, ordinary note, new evidence will be accepted before the
[9:37] on a commission. However, in the event that new evidence or testimony is accepted, the
[9:43] clerks shall swear any witnesses who may testify concerning it. So we begin with staff
[9:48] presentation. Second, a Pellon's presentation, 10 minutes, a Pellon's presentation, 15 minutes,
[9:56] a Pellon's summation of rebuttal, five minutes, staff closure, two minutes, ward and discussion,
[10:02] board discussion and questions and an action. Please be aware that the time limits for each
[10:07] A balanced and opponents is a total time allowed regardless of the number of persons signed up to speak.
[10:14] So each side will need to decide how to divide the total minutes among the speakers.
[10:19] Maybe again, next is the Pellence presentation, 10 minutes.
[10:27] So we have
[10:32] several people signed up to see their students.
[10:36] Do you state your name please?
[10:36] Yes, Gordon Roe, agent for Octoia and his wife, Dr. Catherine Heinz.
[10:43] Okay, there's also a Jarvis Garrett also signed up to speak as well.
[10:48] Do we, okay.
[10:51] Thank you.
[10:52] Thank you, Chairman O'Malley, members of the Commission.
[10:58] There are four important issues that I think that I will try to quickly cover that really
[11:04] to facilitate in favor of this decision being reversed.
[11:10] The first part of that this board wants to look at is this is a 224-acre private residential
[11:20] community out in the East Mountains.
[11:23] It was created as private home sites and the thought of ever doing weddings was never part
[11:30] of the inception plan of this place.
[11:33] Unfortunately, my client lives directly adjacent to the clubhouse, which is the site of 54 weddings and 12 corporate events according to the decision below. That's what's been authorized.
[11:48] We're not here today to complain about being unreasonable or about being not being a good neighbor,
[11:58] but the bottom line is, is that my clients and their two twin sons, who are 12 years old up there,
[12:06] claimed Donald, have had repeated intrusions in noise, in vagrancy, in trespassing,
[12:17] in
[12:17] mechanism that was implemented to create revenue. And I know this commission is aware of
[12:26] the fact that economic factors cannot be a determining factor, but in this case, the only reason
[12:31] they're doing weddings out there is because they've got to raise money to solve the budget.
[12:37] That is not a proper way to do this. The other issue is, is that when they do have these weddings,
[12:45] There is a disparate impact on people that live by them.
[12:50] So certainly people come before you and say this is a great project because we live a mile down the road.
[12:57] We don't hear anything and therefore it keeps us from having to raise our dues.
[13:03] These weddings do.
[13:05] And therefore if Mr. Dewey and his wife are having some problems, that's just kind of too bad.
[13:11] And I don't think that's where we as a community and we as a commission and we as a zoning board are really, really want to be.
[13:20] The bottom line is that the conducting weddings is not necessary.
[13:28] The agreements and the way this concept was formed for this homeowner association says clearly and no one will dispute this.
[13:35] If you've got short falls and running the clubhouse, it's an assessment process.
[13:42] Everybody pays equally.
[13:44] Well, the problem with that is if we do the weddings right next to Mr. Dewey's house,
[13:50] then nobody has to pay evenly because that'll take care of things,
[13:53] but the problem is Mr. Dewey takes the fall for the other members in this community,
[13:58] and that's just simply not right.
[14:01] The other issue that I would say is that this is a dynamic issue as you, as a board, no
[14:09] working with neighborhoods and groups of people.
[14:13] We have had an opportunity and have had an arbitrator and a mediator.
[14:17] That's Chuck Fiverr, a local lawyer.
[14:20] The attorney for the Homeland Association and I have agreed that we could go to mediation with
[14:24] him quickly.
[14:25] We have dates in this month.
[14:27] This would be a situation to have a negotiated settlement where all people could get involved
[14:34] and have an accountability in the process.
[14:38] I requested staff of the opportunity to do contingencies.
[14:42] It was informed that from time to time you will continue to consider contingencies.
[14:47] I realize this is a bit unusual, but we're not just talking about some pipe-green of
[14:53] mediation we have a mediator and we have two dates in October that are available and we have a commitment from the homeowner's
[15:00] Association, and my clients to mediate this. This is really the best way to work this out. There's certainly
[15:07] does need to be a middle ground. No weddings, 100%, that's very tough. 52 weddings and 12 corporate
[15:16] events, that's also very tough. There's got to be something in the middle, and therefore
[15:22] We would say that the approval of a special use permit, which would allow that many weddings,
[15:32] is in error.
[15:34] It is based solely on economic criteria.
[15:37] The neighborhood is perfectly regulated and can raise assessments to support this thing by its dues and homeowner's assessments.
[15:45] and simply this is not a wedding business. This is a private community for families.
[15:52] I'll yield the rest of my time.
[15:56] Thank you. So you have a escorted row or Jarvis Garrett?
[16:01] Not going to speak right now. Let's see how much time do we have left.
[16:06] You have five minutes if either one would like to speak.
[16:15] Madam Chair, Madam Jarvis Garrett, I live about a half a mile down the road from nature point.
[16:20] I do have a couple of images or the attachments I'd like to square it in.
[16:34] I tried to get them in, I mailed them on the 29th, but they did get them into records.
[16:41] I'm happy to present it as it's here in the low.
[16:45] In part of the County Planning Commission.
[16:48] Okay. No, that's your ma.
[16:52] Okay, so we can make a motion to consider the, to look at the images.
[16:56] Are these like satellite images?
[16:59] Well, they're, they're satellite images and, uh,
[17:04] uh, broke pretty much real conditions of the passage we're going up to make your point.
[17:09] Okay, well, I'm not telling you that's real, uh,
[17:12] well, I believe it is relevant to the safety of the picture.
[17:15] I move that we be able to view the images
[17:19] in a second to view the images, all those
[17:23] of the neighbors say, I, I'll post, you know.
[17:27] Can they be zoomed in?
[18:03] Okay, I'm writing this letter not of opposition to the
[18:06] special use permit for the weddings or to limit them
[18:09] to one per week in allowing all those who live in the area
[18:12] and along the passageways, go on to nature point,
[18:15] the freedoms to live lifestyles they choose,
[18:18] rather than the curtailing their lifestyles and denying the freedoms of choice, and I'll
[18:23] accommodate a commercial wedding business, which has no benefits, financially or otherwise
[18:28] to those who live outside of Nature Point.
[18:31] The majority of the people who choose to live in the East Mountain do so as described
[18:35] him as rural character and to avoid the city type environment with its pollution traffic noise
[18:41] crying, large-scale city type wedding commercial business would be bringing and all those
[18:46] of mental city factors in dark blood, mountains, and evade our rural lifestyles as they already
[18:52] have. This map here is the location of the clubhouse. This is the location of the clubhouse.
[19:01] We have two passageways or access going to the clubhouse either on the dirt-sidial road and
[19:10] on the paved sea deal road up to the nature pipe. All those that the red and slash marks
[19:18] still are people that have voiced percent in letters and opposition of the special use
[19:23] permit and those in the dark question marks I couldn't never contact and then we have one neutral
[19:31] party that didn't matter either way. But the majority of the people who live on the passageway
[19:38] go on to the clubhouse or in opposition of the SUP.
[19:43] I did not include a lot of owners because a lot of owners are barely there.
[19:48] They don't live there on the day-to-day basis.
[19:52] And so their lives really are unaffected by it.
[19:55] When I go to the freedoms of choice and having to change our lifestyle,
[20:02] I work Monday to Friday, nine to five, regular job on the weekends
[20:06] is when we have our chances to enjoy the mountains, you know, whether it's either taken
[20:11] a walk or riding our horses or walking the dogs or just even hanging out on our porch.
[20:20] It's pretty hard,
[20:24] I don't know if it looks like that.
[20:28] This was at the bill?
[20:30] Oh, 30 seconds.
[20:31] Oh, 30 seconds.
[20:31] You have to wrap it up in 30 seconds.
[20:33] Okay, so anyway, these passageways are very narrow and they do oppose the safety factor.
[20:40] If you look at this picture here, this is one vehicle, I'll start on the paid road section.
[20:46] This is one vehicle on the paid road section.
[20:48] There's barely enough room for a two-way traffic, let alone pedestrians, bicyclists,
[20:53] horseback or anything else, and shoulder area on the dirt part is limited.
[21:00] There's no room to pass, and recently they've been using limiting buses, which prevent
[21:07] way too late traffic? Okay, you're running. Okay, thank you. Just a real quick question.
[21:15] So you mentioned that you are not, you do not live within this subdivision, but to
[21:20] you live nearby. Yeah, I'm a majority of the people that are on this. Can I go ahead
[21:27] and submit these photos in for your interview? Well, we've already agreed to allow them
[21:33] to the record. So yes, sir. Thank you. Okay. So we go next to the opponent's presentation.
[21:41] 15 minutes. Let's see. Okay.
[22:04] Now I'm chair, commissioner. My name is Jackie Fishman. My address is 302 A Street Northwest.
[22:10] Albuquerque 8702.
[22:14] Do I need to be sworn in?
[22:18] Okay.
[22:19] I'm here on behalf of the Nature Point Board regarding its request for a special use permit
[22:24] for the Nature Point Clubhouse and in response to the appeal of the CPC's unanimity.
[22:30] Recommendation for approval. Based on the substantial record for this request, it is clear the planning commission and county staff did not act arbitrarily, work appreciously in their recommendations for approval. Once our initial submittal or application was submitted in April, the CPC deferred the case for 60 days in order for us to have additional meetings with the HOA.
[22:56] and we had a number of meetings each about four hours of length.
[23:02] Numerous revisions were made both to the site plan
[23:04] and to the management and operational aspects of the clubhouse.
[23:09] These are reflected in the record as conditions of approval
[23:12] in the notice of decision.
[23:14] There's a lot of work in diligence put into the staff's review
[23:17] of both information presented by the applicant
[23:20] and other interested parties, including the talent.
[23:23] Conditions were provided then sure the use of the clubhouse for weddings and similar events would mitigate any impact to the surrounding properties and respond to concerns raised during the process.
[23:36] The CPC and staff also acknowledge the substantial support from not only the surrounding property owners within 200 feet of the clubhouse, but also throughout the subdivision and beyond.
[23:48] And Madam Chair, if I could ask the people that are here in support of the special use permit now stand up for you.
[24:05] So you can see that we have a lot of supporters here today.
[24:09] Also, is stated by Commissioner Barbara on page 705 of the record.
[24:15] And I quote, as far as justification, I find that there is a very valid justification.
[24:20] There are unique conditions and circumstances associated with this.
[24:24] I feel this use will be more advantageous to the community and this use is common to other HOA facilities and there is support within 200 feet.
[24:34] It's clearly shown in the record by the numbers of the letters of support.
[24:39] There is substantial support for the special use permit.
[24:42] Starting on page 643 of the record, there were 26 people that spoke in support of the special use permit at the CPC hearing.
[24:51] Only one lot within 200 feet of the clubhouse is opposed to the special use permit and that is the
[24:57] point.
[24:58] And I'd like to show the map that was in the record.
[25:10] These lots are the lots of the clubhouses is right here and lots in red are lots that are
[25:17] in support of the special use permit.
[25:20] The talent slot is this lot here and they're the only one within 200 feet that are
[25:26] post.
[25:32] To respond to the specific points in the appeal, the
[25:36] appellan states in the appeal that a commercial enterprise within the community is prohibited
[25:41] by the documents that created the community. The stated numerous times during the CPC hearing
[25:47] by the chairman and during the process by staff, the covenants that were created for nature
[25:52] point are not relevant to the special use permit. However, the covenants do address the use
[25:59] the cloudhouse and have, in fact, been amended by the board to clarify that the cloudhouse
[26:05] can be used for special events, including weddings, to the extent that they are permitted
[26:10] by Bernoulli County or the state of New Mexico.
[26:13] The special use permit would allow those types of events therefore there is no conflict between
[26:19] the special use permit and the covenants.
[26:21] In addition, and I said this at the CPC hearing, this uses commercial only by virtue of the
[26:28] to a charging a fee for use of the facility for these special events.
[26:33] There is no other commercial aspect to the special use permit, which is made clear by a
[26:39] condition of approval number one, page 599 of the record.
[26:45] The appellant also states several times in the appeal that having weddings at the clubhouse
[26:50] is contrary to the premise of the establishment of this master plan community.
[26:55] He states that the premise is that any shortfalls and revenues will be satisfied by
[26:59] assessments to the members. They said that also today. Unfortunately, given the number of homeowners and landowners within nature point and keep in mind, there's only 21 homes that have been built on 112 lots so far.
[27:16] Increasing the assessments to level that would support the operations and maintenance of an 18,000 square foot clubhouse, the clubhouse grounds, and all of the private roads within the subdivision,
[27:27] simply is not feasible and would lead to the failure and loss of property value for the special
[27:33] community. So I stayed in my testimony at CPC. The community is at a very tenuous point.
[27:41] With landowners, landowners holding off from building their homes and potential
[27:45] loud owners taking away and see a approach. The indisputable fact is that the majority of the home
[27:56] events. The Palin also states that the weddings create a nuisance, negatively impact property
[28:04] values in our detriment to his quality of life. The clubhouse is currently operating under a
[28:10] conditionally-use permit that was approved in 2004 before there are any residents in nature
[28:16] point. A lot of owners who bought adjacent to the clubhouse tract including Mr. Dooy and his wife
[28:21] behind signed an agreement when they bought their properties that acknowledged there would be
[28:27] additional noise, lighting, and activities stemming from the clubhouse. It should be noted
[28:32] that the neighbor closest to the clubhouse, who's here today, Mr. Ashworth, and his wife Michelle,
[28:39] with within 70 feet of the clubhouse, they are the closest property owner, and they are in
[28:46] The total support of the special use permit has stayed in the record on page 661.
[28:52] The truth is that the special use permit puts far more controls and structure into place
[28:57] than there are currently at the clubhouse.
[28:58] It is a completely developed building and site and has been for a number of years.
[29:05] There's sworn testimony on the record from several homeowners stating that noise from
[29:10] the weddings cannot be heard outside of the clubhouse building.
[29:13] The vast majority of the time the clubhouse will be used exclusively by HOA members to conclude.
[29:21] The stush use permit is beneficial not only to the nature point HOA but also to the residents of the East Mountains.
[29:28] The facility is one of a kind and provides broad community benefit to an area that currently doesn't have many opportunities for meeting space.
[29:37] In the record, there is testimony about how the space is used by the Boy Scouts, and
[29:43] for NOSA, church groups, the Forest Service, the special use permit will be a beneficial
[29:49] land use for nature point, and the community of this as a whole, and if I could just show
[29:55] one other map, now we're at God.
[30:01] And this map to have this amount of will that is in the record. The blue lots, this is the entire nature point community.
[30:11] The blue lots are the lots that are in support. The red lots are homeowner, the HOA-owned tracks, the green are lots that are in opposition, and the ones that are white, I don't think, took a position.
[30:30] With that, I urge your vote to deny the appeal and accept the CPC's recommendation for approval.
[30:36] Thank you.
[30:38] You may have the Appellants.
[30:40] The summation of remodel of five minutes.
[30:52] The critical fact is the nature and character of what this community is.
[31:00] It's 22 homes on over 200 acres.
[31:04] And there's now a unprecedented wedding program in which 10,000 cars, 10,000 people a year,
[31:15] and 5,000 cars enter into this very small, secluded neighborhood.
[31:21] What's more than that, the whole concept of the community never was for anything but it's used by the owners.
[31:29] Now, there is advertising, they're bringing in all of these outside people for weddings, there's
[31:36] vendors, there's concessionaires, the entire character of the community has been put
[31:42] in shambles by this.
[31:44] The other issue, though, is that certainly people are in favor of this because by allowing
[31:53] these weddings, it doesn't increase their homeowner's dues.
[31:56] Well, two things as we know. One, homeowners do, are to be the sole mechanism to address shortfalls with this community and this country's club.
[32:07] The second point being is that, yeah, if you live next to it, and we had six noise violations in the last two months, we also had three weddings and an outside event.
[32:22] Just last week, three weddings, plus one outside event.
[32:28] If you live there, you're entitled, I believe,
[32:32] to come in before this body and say,
[32:34] this is not the way the zoning laws in New Mexico
[32:37] are meant to be applied.
[32:39] This is a situation where the commercial use of this
[32:43] has taken away the entire benefit of this community,
[32:47] and this should be a situation where the decision should
[32:50] be reversed and or this court should defer because there was talk on opening that there
[32:57] was negotiations made and there was at one point in negotiation and acceptance made that
[33:05] satisfied both sides. That thing went away. We don't know if the staff report came out
[33:11] but all of a sudden the concessions that had been agreed to are now off the table. So we need
[33:16] get back to mediation we believe we could fix this thing and fix it in a healthy way rather
[33:22] than keeping it adversarial where unfortunately I could see a lot of people back in front of
[33:28] this board later on thank you thank you so we're going to go to staff closure I'm sorry no
[33:41] Okay,
[33:48] we've heard from already from you've given your time and I'm sorry that that wasn't
[33:53] range correctly.
[34:03] Ed.
[34:04] Okay.
[34:14] Okay.
[34:15] All right.
[34:18] I want to step in.
[34:20] Madam, you're out of order.
[34:21] Please.
[34:22] This is a formal procedure.
[34:23] So, thank you.
[34:27] I'm sorry.
[34:28] Here is, this is a very formal judicial process.
[34:31] Please respect the outcomes.
[34:33] Okay. All right. Could you hold off just a moment, please? Let's be civil. Just a moment, please.
[34:40] So,
[34:43] unfortunately, we have the appellant and they have a certain amount of time and I read the rules early on that there's a certain amount of time for the appellant.
[34:55] This isn't an open procedure, this is an appeal by an individual and they've come forward.
[35:00] So this isn't an open meeting, okay?
[35:03] So you have to understand there's rules, this is a quasi-vuditial proceeding.
[35:07] And I did spell out the rules and there was an opportunity for you to weigh it on this earlier.
[35:13] And I'm not going to make an exception,
[35:17] okay?
[35:17] So that means we go next to staff closure, that's two minutes.
[35:29] Madam Chair, commissioners, I have no further comments.
[35:33] but I stand for questions.
[35:36] I do have some questions.
[35:39] So let's just to for the record.
[35:41] My understanding is this was a club house that was built as part of a
[35:46] almost like a country club setting for over a hundred and I think that was
[35:51] about 112 lots.
[35:56] And right now it's my understanding there's 21 homes out of 112 lots.
[36:02] Or something of that?
[36:04] Madam Chair, commissioners, I believe that is correct.
[36:09] So again, here's the, if you can see the lots.
[36:15] And the subdivision is this area also extending off of the map.
[36:20] So you can see the lots that are developed and then there are many lots that have yet to be developed.
[36:27] They are either privately owned or many of them are owned by the original developer of the property.
[36:36] Okay, can you?
[36:37] So can you tell me just briefly this was a, essentially a clubhouse that was built to, this was a computer to the community.
[36:47] This is some understanding of gay to community.
[36:49] It was considered a amenity to this development and was there an understanding from the
[36:56] get-go that there would be weddings that there would be events of this nature.
[37:03] Madam Chair, Commissioners, in 2004, the developer of the property and the Homeowners
[37:13] association obtained a conditional use permit that allowed private recreational activities
[37:21] and within the scope of that was weddings but it had to be for members of the Homeowners
[37:28] Association.
[37:30] So that was back in 2004. So this special use permit expands the scope of the use so that non-members
[37:40] will be able to lease the facility in order to host events, particularly weddings. And that
[37:47] would take place in this building here.
[37:50] Okay, that was an understanding that took place in 2004. Madam Chair, that's correct.
[37:55] prior to that, though, the understanding was this courthouse, or this country, or this event
[38:02] place would be used for the exclusive use of the membership.
[38:07] Madam Chair,
[38:11] the development or the subdivision and the nature point community was approved
[38:18] to be developed in around 2000 and then in 2004 they came back to get permission for this
[38:25] facility, and it's at that point that they started having events on the site, but initially
[38:33] it was for members of the community, not for outsiders.
[38:40] Okay.
[38:44] Can we start talking?
[38:46] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[38:48] A couple was made to do what the assessment would be in quick and inclusive assessment for
[38:55] women homeless that live in the development today, if the costs of the regulations
[39:02] sooner or later passed on, even to clear about that?
[39:06] Madam Chair, Commissioner Talbert, I am aware of that that there has been a statement
[39:13] that it may be a few hundred dollars more, but I can't answer specifically, I haven't
[39:19] been involved in the finances, but I have heard that there would be a significant difference
[39:25] in the cost.
[39:26] Dr. Most likely require a majority consideration by the homeowner's association and all the
[39:32] members of it in order to increase dues that way so that at least that's how my homeowner's
[39:35] association works. So I don't know if the women by presenting the homeowner's association
[39:41] knows that information possibly or could get it at some point. The other would be if a person
[39:49] who lives in that neighborhood wants to have a wedding in the clubhouse themselves, their
[39:52] order or sons get married. Would that be allowed?
[39:57] Madam Chair, Commissioner Talvard, under the condition of existing conditional use permit
[40:02] that would be allowed already, but this special use permit allows going beyond what is currently
[40:11] allowed, meaning that it can be leased out.
[40:14] I understand, but let's say it was fully, if every house and that development was so under 12.
[40:21] Potentially, and everyone wanted to have their son or daughter married, and the clubhouse
[40:24] could be 100 dead weddings a year, potentially, which is a little crazy, because not everyone's going to have a kid that's going to be getting married.
[40:32] But the homeowners could have weddings are out of their mind, because it's theirs, correct?
[40:38] Madam Chair, Commissioner Talbert, that is correct.
[40:40] Okay, thank you.
[40:44] just one more question and I'm maybe you don't know the answer to this, but so this is a development where they started selling lots was it in 2000, do you say?
[40:54] 2001? Madam chair commissioners, I believe that approximately 2000, 2005 started selling lots.
[41:03] Let me see if I understand something correctly.
[41:06] So in 2004, what you said, that this agreement between the HOA, which doesn't sound like
[41:13] there would be one, if there's no lots that have been sold, was the agreement to allow for
[41:18] the expansion of uses here.
[41:22] Didn't you just say that?
[41:26] Madam Chair, I may be wrong in my date.
[41:30] And I think the aging can clarify that.
[41:35] So it sounds like they're saying that the clubhouse was built around the same time that
[41:41] the development was of individual parcels was beginning.
[41:48] So at the time, there was no homeowner's association, am I correct?
[41:59] Madam Chair, that they're saying that that's correct.
[42:02] So it was the developer who applied for the initial conditional use permit for the recreation facility.
[42:10] I guess what I'd like to know is when folks bought into this and purchased lots were they aware of this special use permit that this had changed and that it was not for members only.
[42:26] Madam chair and commissioners.
[42:29] So it was a conditional use permit at the time so people were buying into the lots into the development and they would have been aware that there was a clubhouse with recreational facilities.
[42:46] And the agent said that in particular the appellant in this case signed an agreement acknowledging that this conditional use permit and these conditions existed
[42:59] on the property prior to his moving, on the property.
[43:06] Thank you, thank you.
[43:06] Any other questions?
[43:13] Okay.
[43:14] There are.
[43:15] There are.
[43:15] And the questions.
[43:17] That takes us next to action.
[43:20] And there has a.
[43:23] Motion.
[43:24] One more.
[43:24] The other.
[43:29] Amjana.
[43:30] Commissioner.
[43:32] I move.
[43:33] We deny the appeal and uphold the CPC decision.
[43:36] Sorry.
[43:39] I'll post in no motion carries.
[43:44] Okay, I'll take this next to the next appeal,
[43:51] which is item B.
[43:55] This is C-0-2014-001-12.
[44:00] C-S-U-2013-0027.
[44:04] And
[44:26] so let me, before we begin, read this, so that folks, when folks leave will get
[44:33] an opportunity for people to hear, so there's no conversations outside.
[44:44] So this is an appeal based on the evidence in the record, no ordinarily, no new evidence
[44:51] will be accepted before the county commission.
[44:53] However, in the event that new evidence or testimonies accepted, the clerk will swear
[44:58] Any witnesses who made a
[45:00] Presentation, five minutes. Appellants, presentation, ten minutes. Appellants, presentation, fifteen minutes. Appellants, summation, a rebuttal is five minutes. Staff closure, two minutes, board discussion and questions followed by action. And this is very important. Please be aware that there are time limits for each side. Appellants and opponents.
[45:29] See a total time allowed regardless of the number of person signed up to speak.
[45:35] So each side will need to decide how to divide the total minutes among the speakers.
[45:42] So when I call for example in favor of the appeal and you have a representative or an opposition
[45:46] of the appeal and you have a representative of that person or you collectively have to decide
[45:51] how you're going to use that total time.
[45:54] Okay, I hope you understand that.
[45:56] I think there was some confusion about that.
[46:00] Okay, we begin with staff presentation.
[46:02] Thank you.
[46:08] Madam Chair, commissioners.
[46:09] My name is Catherine Varek, again with County Planning.
[46:15] And this is CSU 20130027 and CO20140012 Albert C.
[46:26] to heal appeals, the County Planning Commission's recommendation of approval of the request
[46:32] for a special use permit for a planned development area.
[46:36] On tracks ABC and D Mezzo-Am located off Daniel Road on proposed Isabella Court Northwest,
[46:46] Zoned A1 and containing approximately 27.75 acres and the property is on the map above in the blue highlighted area.
[47:01] Under the request, the applicant has been seeking to develop a large residential subdivision on the subject site,
[47:08] which previously had a lumber processing business on a portion of it under special use permit and which has been removed and the property has been vacant for a number of years.
[47:22] As you recall in 2013 and also earlier this year, the applicant requested a special use permit for a contractor's yard on approximately five acres of the subject property.
[47:36] The CPC recommended denial of the request and the applicant appeal the recommendation to the BCC to this body.
[47:46] And which in turn remanded the case to the CPC back to the CPC for consideration of residential uses.
[47:55] So, in May the applicant resubmitted an application, the amended request initially sought a special use permit for a 96-lotsupptivit residential subdivision with open space.
[48:11] But reduce the number of lots to 82.
[48:15] Now, if you recall this property is owned A1,
[48:21] which may have allowed approximately 25 lots.
[48:26] But in this request, the applicant is currently proposing 82 lots,
[48:32] which is based on residents and neighborhood association input,
[48:37] and also the guidelines for cluster housing
[48:39] in the North Valley area plan that allow higher density than the existing zoning in exchange for common open space.
[48:50] So in this current request, the density of approximately 2.95 dwelling units is proposed along with approximately 9.6 acres of open space.
[49:03] So, at the time of the CPC hearing, there was support for the request, but there were also
[49:10] some neighbors who argued that the proposed density was too high.
[49:15] So at the August 6th hearing, the CPC recommended approval of the request for 82 lots
[49:23] and open space based on 11 findings and 12 conditions.
[49:28] The findings recognized the consistency of the request with resolution 11686 and with the
[49:39] North Valley area plan cluster housing guidelines and also with the criteria of section
[49:46] 18B-23 of the county zoning code for a planned development area.
[49:52] It also included conditions that had been agreed to with some of the neighbors.
[50:01] So one of the adjacent property owners is appealing the decision.
[50:05] The appeal letter states argues that the request is not comply with resolution 1686 and
[50:12] the North Valley area plan and is concerned that the cost of the land or economic considerations
[50:19] We're taken into account in the decision and that there was neighborhood position.
[50:27] So the appeal letter seems to be recommending that the number of locks should be taken into consideration.
[50:35] There are responses to the appeal from the agent and also from neighborhood associations stating that the decision of the CPC should be upheld.
[50:47] And with that, I stand for questions.
[50:52] Okay, thank you.
[50:54] You'll next to the Appellance presentation for a total of 10 minutes and just up with a record,
[51:00] folks signed up in favor of the appeal.
[51:03] Our Linda Durks, Barbara Tahiro, and Albert Trujillo, and are you Mr. Trujillo?
[51:10] Okay, welcome.
[51:13] And she's so, you know, if these folks want to speak,
[51:15] They, you're going to have to work something out.
[51:17] You have exactly, was it 10 minutes, OK?
[51:22] OK.
[51:22] Thank you, Jeremy.
[51:25] So I am appealing to the state of New York.
[51:29] That's Albert your heel,
[51:33] OK?
[51:34] So I am appealing to the CPC past the based on not only the, they did not
[51:45] here to the North Valley area plan for one, and the other issue that I had was a safety
[51:53] regarding our neighborhood.
[51:57] Because of the narrow streets, I'm not opposed at all to the residential development,
[52:02] what I'm opposed to is the density of it on two different occasions or subject matter expert,
[52:10] Ms. Varek, Inter Staff Report, stated that they must comply with the 69 homes twice
[52:19] when they submitted for the 90s.
[52:31] And that was never at here, too. That's basically my argument is, what reason do they have to do
[52:45] what they want instead of what the county has told them to do, or must comply.
[52:55] And that's basically
[52:56] what is for the resolution and the CBC narrowly approved it, also what that means said.
[53:10] The fact is that it is a one semi-urban and the six nine homes is what was requested.
[53:17] I understand that it is a, let
[53:30] me stop there.
[53:33] The safety factor is, there's only one entrance in and out, there is a lock box on a private road, on the other side of the development.
[53:44] That one entrance leads out from a very small data road onto Los Ranchos.
[53:52] those, puppy not to eat it in the second street.
[53:55] With that being said, 82 homes would just be really too high because there is no restrictions
[54:03] allowing them to go through our neighborhoods, which are one lane, basically one lane neighborhoods.
[54:10] I think what the reduction in density, you would get a different type of development.
[54:18] you would have large lots, you would have a different set of people not a west side.
[54:26] You are a hurt and type development, which is proposed is what they want to propose.
[54:32] Just a kind of a cheap development, it doesn't that here at all with the North Valley area
[54:40] plan.
[54:44] That's all I have to say with that.
[55:00] I think that's all I have. Basically the land
[55:03] is A1, the fact is it is A1, semi every 1.5. The county staff has asked twice. They must
[55:12] reduce that density,
[55:16] and at least simply have not, that's all I have, thank you.
[55:22] Richard, how much time did six minutes did you want to?
[55:39] Hello, my name is Barbridge Hale, and I oppose the number of homes that is being submitted.
[55:46] My family is third and fourth generation, and I live right on the corner of the proposed interest
[55:51] at 101 Daniel Road.
[55:55] This entrance and these homes will affect my family the most, this project has made a big disconnect with the neighbors.
[56:05] No one has taken into consideration my family, and that we will be affected most because of the entrance going into this subdivision and exiting out of this subdivision.
[56:17] I have four small children, two of them are teenagers, and if they had children, they could
[56:25] not play out in the yards because of the danger of traffic, then it would be, they would
[56:32] be opposed to having this subdivision.
[56:38] All of our neighbors in that area with the exception
[56:40] of probably two or three are over the age of 50, so they have already raised their children.
[56:48] Again, going back to me being a third and fourth generation in that neighborhood, being from
[56:55] the North Valley, having those cookie cutter homes in that area will not only take away
[57:04] the pride that we have in our homes in our space and where we have grown up, but it's
[57:10] also going to lower our property value.
[57:14] My home will no longer be a $375,000 home.
[57:19] It will be compared to a $200,000 home,
[57:23] or a $175,000 home.
[57:26] Most of all, I just want to stress the concern of the danger
[57:30] of us being able to come out of our driveway
[57:35] and leave for our daily business.
[57:38] So I'm opposing the 82 homes.
[57:44] That's it.
[57:49] Okay,
[57:51] takes us next to the poems presentation 15 minutes.
[58:02] Good evening, Madam Chair, commissioners. Excuse me. My name is Robert Lucero. I'm an attorney that represents the applicant, Miss O. M. LLC.
[58:12] And I believe that also we have three community members who have signed up to speak in opposition.
[58:18] I'm not positioned to the appeal and in favor of the applicant, and so I would like to
[58:23] I believe we're allocated 15 minutes, is that correct?
[58:26] That is correct.
[58:28] So I would like to present for nine minutes and then reserve two minutes for each of the community members.
[58:35] Okay, and for the record, the people who were signed up in opposition to the appeal are Barbara Montano,
[58:40] J.J. Archadeta and Regina Romano.
[58:44] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[58:55] Just to orient the commission, this is just an aerial showing the site location and this is in the record.
[59:03] It was submitted to the CPC as part of our presentation there.
[59:09] And this year is most ranchos, this is second street on the west, most ranchos on the north.
[59:15] This is a railroad tracks.
[59:17] And then this highlighted in blue is the approximately 27.75 acre site that is the subject
[59:27] of this special use permit.
[59:33] What was most recently there was a molding plant.
[59:37] It was Taiwan molding, which employed, you know, dozens of people.
[59:42] It was there since the 50s.
[59:44] These are just some images of what was there until recently.
[59:48] The mislam obtained a demolition permit and has been cleaning up the site and what is
[59:55] proposed is a residential only community, a much less intense use than the fire industrial
[59:59] use.
[1:00:00] These are just some images of some possibility of a single family homes that are intended for development on the property.
[1:00:09] And in terms of the design concepts,
[1:00:14] we're really aiming to keep this in harmony with the North Valley area plan and with the existing neighborhood.
[1:00:19] It's going to be single family home only, no multi-family apartments or condos, and as you
[1:00:28] heard in the staff presentation, there's quite a bit of open space, preserved, and perpetuity,
[1:00:35] and that's for the use of the entire community, not just the residents of this development.
[1:00:41] The pedestrian trails that are proposed are likewise for the use of the entire community,
[1:00:46] as is the community garden area, and the site plan proposed was designed in such a manner
[1:00:54] so as to preserve the views of the San DS and, as you know right now, the wonderful
[1:00:59] balloons that are floating overhead. Just to a brief kind of history of the site, I know that
[1:01:07] the staff kind of summarized what came up until our January BCC hearing when we were last
[1:01:14] before you, but we've had four open community meetings
[1:01:17] at the Raymond Sanchez Community Center.
[1:01:20] These were well attended by surrounding neighbors,
[1:01:25] representatives of the Elameda North Valley Association
[1:01:29] of the recently formed Daniel Jacobson
[1:01:32] neighborhood association, and also of the North Edith
[1:01:36] corridor association.
[1:01:39] Separately I was invited and the developer was invited
[1:01:43] and did attend representatives did attend a meeting
[1:01:46] of the Edith, North Edith corridor association.
[1:01:51] And then at the July 2014 CPC hearing, it was deferred.
[1:01:57] And we went back to the community,
[1:01:59] had multiple other open and as well as we received calls
[1:02:05] and emails, a lot of correspondence with neighbors
[1:02:08] to come up with the plan that we then presented
[1:02:10] at the August 6th CPC hearing, which is now before you, and as staff indicated, the CPC recommends
[1:02:20] approval of the proposed, the appellan is stated that our proposal is not in line with
[1:02:31] a section 18 of the zoning ordinance and the special of the North Valley area plan, but the
[1:02:38] CPC found that it was and it is for these reasons, you know, the Section 18B23 is the PDA, the planned development area, section, and it has two requirements, one is that the minimum area is two acres, and clearly we're in excess of that.
[1:02:55] Secondly, that there is a need to vary the height, lot area, setback requirements, do unusual typography, lot configuration or site features in order to create cluster housing development.
[1:03:06] And that's what we seek to do here is to create a quality, cluster housing development,
[1:03:12] something that provides amenities for the community that wouldn't be there with just
[1:03:17] a simple zone change to an R1 or to another zone that would allow a higher density.
[1:03:25] So we really wanted to work in concert with the community and we really have done that to
[1:03:30] come up with a plan that provides these amenities and a really quality development that
[1:03:36] is going to maintain and increase the property values
[1:03:39] in the surrounding area.
[1:03:42] The unusual shape of the lot, if you recall,
[1:03:45] that aerial, because of the many sort of arms
[1:03:49] so to speak of the property that kind of leaked that kind
[1:03:54] of expand out, it provides some unique opportunities
[1:04:00] to provide open space, a linkage to the North Valley library,
[1:04:05] which is here on second, the community garden is proposed to be just adjacent to in a cross-Daniel circle from the library to provide a nice linkage for the community to utilize that space that will be open to the public.
[1:04:22] And then the lot configuration arises from the configuration of the property.
[1:04:29] I mean, in terms of the North Valley area plan, as the commission knows it's a ranked
[1:04:35] two plan, which means that it is a policy guideline not a like a sector development plan
[1:04:41] that has the force of law, but it does set policy that should be followed and this development
[1:04:48] does follow that. There is a guideline in the North Valley area plan with respect to cluster housing
[1:04:58] That requires landscaping and buffering measures, and here we do have those in place, there are landscape buffers between the properties to the north as well as to the west using open space.
[1:05:16] The railroads tracks are buffered from the proposed housing with a park, and then there is a policy of expanding the area zone for residential.
[1:05:24] You know, currently this is A1 with a use that was industrial and what we're looking to do is create residential.
[1:05:33] And in furtherance of the housing principles of the North Valley area plan, preserving the open space and perpetuity, providing new housing opportunities and lowering infrastructure cost for the county.
[1:05:43] You know, here the developer is going to put in all the infrastructure which will then be dedicated to the county, per the county specifications.
[1:05:50] and then also allowing for design creativity and flexibility and preserving the character
[1:05:56] of the North Valley. So what cluster housing does is it allows homes to be grouped together
[1:06:02] in a higher density, while the remaining land is reserved for open space. And that's exactly
[1:06:09] what we'll do here. Let me put up this site plan.
[1:06:19] I understand we're kind of running the long
[1:06:20] time. So I'll just keep moving forward. But it's in the record. And so essentially what
[1:06:27] What we're proposing to do is right in line with the North Valley area plan under if we're to seek a straight
[1:06:37] A1 number of dwelling units will be only 27 because it's one acre lots. There would be no requirement to put in any amenities
[1:06:44] If we proposed a zone change of R1, it would be 67 dwelling units is about what would be allowed
[1:06:51] Because of the need to put in infrastructure, which is about 2.41
[1:06:59] Billionist per acre in no requirement for any of these amenities it would essentially be like a
[1:07:04] kind of a cookie-cutter development.
[1:07:07] And then under the A1 cluster housing, that's where that 69 number comes from that the
[1:07:13] appellant was referencing, whereas under the R187 would be allowed.
[1:07:18] And so what we tried to do was find something that would be in line, this neighborhood is trending
[1:07:23] toward R1. To the north, there are non-conforming lots that are smaller than A1 allows.
[1:07:29] There is R1.
[1:07:30] What we want to do is provide a higher quality residential, and essentially we're right in between the A1 and the R1 guidelines, so that we have 2.95 less than 3, and the North Valley area plan states that, you know, generally, density should not exceed 3 dwelling units per acre, and so we are in conformance with that.
[1:07:51] In terms of access to site and safety, there is only one general public access, but it is going
[1:07:58] to be improved greatly over what is there now.
[1:08:00] Further county engineering specifications, there will be curb and gutter put in, improved
[1:08:08] pavement pavement.
[1:08:10] And then the secondary access is for emergency vehicles only.
[1:08:14] And this is quite common to see where there's what's called a Knox box that emergency
[1:08:18] vehicles have the key to and can get through to access.
[1:08:21] It's also open to pedestrian access, that secondary access, which is a long Jacobson lane.
[1:08:28] We did a traffic study, which was not required, but we wanted to make sure that we weren't
[1:08:32] having a disparate impact on the neighborhood and on the residents, and what's evaluated
[1:08:39] is level of service, and it's rated from A to F. And D is the county's guideline. Developers
[1:08:44] are required to build to D. So long as you build to D, you can get your plans
[1:08:48] improved. These are the existing standards on some of the intersection. This is the intersection
[1:08:54] of Los Rantris and second. You can see that before, it's at D after our buildout, it stays
[1:09:00] at D. And these are depending on whether it's eastbound, westbound, and the AM or PM peaks.
[1:09:08] In the northbound, it stays at A, and essentially at each of the intersections evaluated,
[1:09:14] which were Los Rancers in 2nd, Los Rancers in Daniels, Los Rancers in Edith, and Daniel
[1:09:22] Road and the Mesolem access. All of these maintained the exact same level of service
[1:09:28] after development as is currently there now. So there really isn't a traffic impact that
[1:09:35] is discernible, no significant adverse, and the county accepted it with no mitigation recommended.
[1:09:42] The fire department has evaluated this application and had no comments in the staff report.
[1:09:50] This is a safe development that brings a quality residential community, not just housing.
[1:09:59] This is governed by HOA Covenants, provides amenities not only to the residents but to the public,
[1:10:04] And we would urge you to deny the appeal and to uphold the CPC's recommendation that this
[1:10:12] will be approved with that.
[1:10:13] I'll stand for any questions.
[1:10:17] I accept you have a couple of questions.
[1:10:20] So the owner who is present, I assume, this is, DR, Horton Homes keeps being mentioned.
[1:10:30] So this is something that the, the, the, the, the Horton Homes are the, they're the
[1:10:35] developer.
[1:10:37] Madam Chair commissioners, the property is owned by Miss O'am LLC and Carlos Chavez is
[1:10:43] here. He's a principal of Miss O'am and the, so he is the developer of the project.
[1:10:50] We have had discussions with DR Horton to build the homes but those have not, we have
[1:10:57] not reached a final agreement and so the developer really is Miss O'am. The home builder could
[1:11:05] be D.O. Horton, but there could be someone else.
[1:11:07] So there could be a turn key sort of development in which case they would just take over the development.
[1:11:12] Man, I'm sure that's prepared.
[1:11:13] Man, I'm sure that's prepared.
[1:11:13] The development and you'd have builders, many different builders, different ways to doing it.
[1:11:18] Man, I'm sure that's correct.
[1:11:19] Many different ways that it could go.
[1:11:21] Okay.
[1:11:21] So right now we're talking about the owner and developer at this point.
[1:11:26] Man, I'm sure that's correct.
[1:11:27] We're not discussing D.O. Horton tonight.
[1:11:29] We're just discussing Mesoam LLC.
[1:11:32] And so as part of this, you have a site development plan that was approved by the Commission.
[1:11:42] Madam Chair, that is correct with the caveat that it was approved with conditions.
[1:11:47] And those conditions were reviewed and approved by the Alameda North Valley Association,
[1:11:54] the Daniel Jacobs and Neighborhood Association and Mesoam as being very reasonable and a way to
[1:12:02] really ensure that this site plan furtheres the North Valley area plan comprehensive plan
[1:12:07] and is in furtherance of section 18 of the zoning ordinance.
[1:12:12] Okay, so if there's no other questions, we'll go to the appellant summation or rebuttal.
[1:12:20] Mr. Trujillo, if you'd like to respond or you'd like to.
[1:12:23] Madam Chair, if I may.
[1:12:24] I believe there were some folks.
[1:12:26] Oh, you haven't used your time up.
[1:12:28] Dr. Minutes.
[1:12:30] Left.
[1:12:35] This takes away the questioning park.
[1:12:38] She's so good.
[1:12:38] Good evening, Madam Chair.
[1:12:40] My name is Barbara Montanio.
[1:12:41] And I live at 113 Daniel Road.
[1:12:43] I am also President of the Daniel Jacobson Neighborhood Association.
[1:12:47] As stated in our letters previously submitted to Bernaliel County on behalf of Daniel
[1:12:52] Jacobson neighborhood association and members of our association, we are still in favor
[1:12:58] of 82 homes with amenities.
[1:13:01] Ninety-six were being proposed and we did lower the density by 13 additional homes.
[1:13:06] As a group, we reached out to many of our opposed community.
[1:13:10] We knew that we would have some unhappy neighbors, but we also knew how important it was
[1:13:14] to come to a reasonable compromise for a residential development
[1:13:19] that would be beneficial to all neighbors in close proximity.
[1:13:23] Many of us took time away from our jobs, our families,
[1:13:27] to attend every meeting year after year.
[1:13:32] Also, the last opposed circulating petition submitted many signatures
[1:13:38] of neighbors that had little or no involvement.
[1:13:41] Some never even attended a single meeting.
[1:13:44] Like Mr. and Mrs. Truhill, they attended very few meetings and here they stand before you all and say how impacted they're going to be.
[1:13:54] Well, when we came around asking them to get involved, they should have gone involved then. That's when it should have been time to be heard.
[1:14:01] I too have four five grandchildren that are small. I still take care of three. I have already raised my family, but yet I carried on with my grandchildren.
[1:14:11] And in having said that, on behalf of the Daniel Jacobs and Neighborhood Association, we will
[1:14:17] respect whatever decision commissioners come up with.
[1:14:21] Thank you.
[1:14:21] That's time up for the opposition of the appeal.
[1:14:29] So we do go next to Mr. Treveo.
[1:14:34] Thank you.
[1:14:35] We're going to the traffic study.
[1:14:36] It's for intersections, regarding the peak hours of traffic in the mornings.
[1:14:46] in the traffic study, it's stated one, one car per second for two hour.
[1:15:00] If I'm out in our Daniel Road, it's like 15, it'll occur a little bit, I don't know if you guys
[1:15:05] have been down there. It leans to me as for a safety measure that is not measured in any
[1:15:14] traffic study. We're talking about measurement of intersections getting through it. As far
[1:15:23] as the D.R. Horton, during these open community meetings, they had D.R. Horton
[1:15:28] operating around in there, they were present that, they're the ones who showed us the houses
[1:15:33] that are on the, we should do the cereals of slideshow, or the copies of the slideshow.
[1:15:40] Those are the, the same presentation that we got, for the community meetings with no real substance,
[1:15:47] no lot sizes, this and that regarding the association that is, the Jan. Jacobson neighborhood
[1:15:55] So I was ever part of it, many of the neighbors along this area were not also, we have also submitted those signatures that stated that they were never tribute to any of the associations,
[1:16:15] meetings or meetings with the developer or what they came up with in the amount of houses.
[1:16:22] I believe myself, which is, you know, I'm right there, those of all been in the contained
[1:16:34] within the reports of the staff twice or three times, and these are most of them are
[1:16:41] elderly that live just right along the edges of the development,
[1:16:49] let's see, that's all I
[1:16:51] have.
[1:16:53] Okay. Thank you. We're going to close with staff.
[1:17:05] Madam chair commissioners, I just wanted to.
[1:17:08] I don't know if it's there. It's visible because I know Mr. Lucero was looking for the site plan.
[1:17:15] So this is the site plan for the proposed development that the CPC recommended approval for.
[1:17:23] And you can see the layout, the access does come down,
[1:17:30] Daniel, into the development, and then there's
[1:17:35] around about the streets, the lots.
[1:17:37] And then these are the tracks, the main tracks of open space.
[1:17:42] Just so you could see what the proposed layout would be.
[1:17:48] OK, can we should do a quick one?
[1:17:52] Thank you, I'm sure it's staff done.
[1:17:54] Madam Chair, Commissioner and Delacruzette, that was my only comment by stand for questions.
[1:18:01] Okay, so I have some questions.
[1:18:03] So the context, unfortunately, you've just got the side plan just on its own there, and there's no context contextual relationship to see other.
[1:18:14] Okay, let's do that. That's better.
[1:18:18] Could you point out the access on that overhead?
[1:18:24] Madam chair commissioners, the access would be through Daniel Road and it's one point of access,
[1:18:37] so it would come in from Los Ranchos and then into Daniel.
[1:18:45] Okay, and then there was another emergency access point, where is that?
[1:18:52] Madam Chair commissioners there is a proposed emergency access, would be right here along
[1:19:01] Jacobson, Jacobson Lane, but it would just be for emergency purposes, would not be open
[1:19:09] for access to residents or the public.
[1:19:12] Where is that leading to what?
[1:19:15] So that that comes out to
[1:19:18] Study then you'll again Daniel Circle here and then this is second street.
[1:19:26] Okay.
[1:19:30] So staff did look at the traffic report and as a working concerns about the traffic report.
[1:19:38] Madam chair commissioners our public works staff reviewed the traffic impact study
[1:19:45] and they did not have any issues with that study.
[1:19:56] There's no doubt that the neighborhood separately participated in this planning effort.
[1:20:07] There's no doubt that there's a concern about the access and I think probably the folks who are in support of it are probably to somewhat
[1:20:14] concerned about that access point as well because Daniel wrote his sonero and quite frankly
[1:20:21] I've never seen a traffic report that was paid for a developer that said it wasn't a good
[1:20:27] idea to or didn't said that the traffic was traffic issues.
[1:20:32] That's always a concern and of course traffic is the big issue for people in the community that's generally
[1:20:40] speaking traffic concerns are a big issue.
[1:20:43] So I just wanted to get a sense of that, so are there any other comments or questions?
[1:20:51] Okay, thank you, Madam Chair.
[1:20:54] Thank you.
[1:20:56] Did you want to make a motion?
[1:20:58] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[1:21:00] I move that we uphold the CPC recommendation in the United States.
[1:21:05] Seconded out this motion in a second to uphold the CPC decision with those conditions that were applied.
[1:21:12] all those in favor say aye. I'll post a note motion carries.
[1:21:23] Okay, we'll go next to the, there's a
[1:21:29] item C.
[1:21:32] The next appeal is C-0-2014-0-0-11.
[1:21:39] C-S-U-2014-0-0-23.
[1:21:45] So let me read this again regarding our procedures.
[1:21:52] As appeal must be based on the evidence in the record.
[1:21:56] Ordinarily, no new evidence will be accepted before the county commission, however in the event that new evidence or testimony is accepted.
[1:22:04] The clerk will swear any witnesses who may testify concerning it.
[1:22:08] The order of presentation and time limits are set forth in our rules of procedure.
[1:22:12] Our as follows, staff presentation, five minutes, a
[1:22:17] Pellence presentation, ten minutes, a
[1:22:20] Pellence presentation, fifteen minutes.
[1:22:30] Followed by actions. Again, please be aware that the time limits for each side of
[1:22:35] Pellonson opponents is the total time allowed regardless of the number of person signed up
[1:22:42] to speak. So each side will need to decide how to divide the total minutes among the speakers.
[1:22:49] Again, with the staff's presentation.
[1:23:04] Good evening, Madam Chair O'Malley, and commissioners. My name is Margaret Martinez with
[1:23:11] I'm here to present item 4CKC0A2014-0011 and CSU2014-0023.
[1:23:23] This is an appeal to a condition of approval.
[1:23:25] I request for an amendment to an existing special use permit was recommended.
[1:23:31] Approval by staff and by the County Planning Commission at the August 6, 2014th public hearing, with seven findings and 14 conditions for the duration of 10 years.
[1:23:44] The special use permit amendment was requested to allow water tank storage sales and outdoor storage, beauty shop, barber shop, tattoo shop, a firewood sales yard, taxidermy landscape material sales and outdoor storage and auto sales on the site.
[1:23:58] The applicant has filed an appeal to condition number six, which is on the overhead, which requires a six foot solid wall or fence to be installed around owl outdoor storage.
[1:24:09] The site is located at 1342, New Mexico 333, Antihedas, on the south side of New Mexico 333. The property is owned A2 and contains approximately 1.9 acres.
[1:24:19] The site is located in the rural area of the Comprehensive Plan and falls within character areas
[1:24:24] See of the East Mountain area plan.
[1:24:27] The site has been operating under a special use permit for commercial activities since 1988.
[1:24:33] The amendment request does coincide with county adopted plans and with requirements as per resolution
[1:24:38] 1,1686.
[1:24:40] In addition, the varnalial county, zoning code section 15B, 2,5A,
[1:24:44] It does require that all outdoor storage being closed by six foot, solid wall or fence.
[1:24:50] With that said, I now stand for any questions.
[1:24:56] Okay.
[1:24:56] We'll go next to other questions for staff.
[1:25:00] Thank you.
[1:25:01] All right.
[1:25:01] The Pellon's presentation ten minutes,
[1:25:06] who is appealing this decision?
[1:25:15] Okay.
[1:25:16] Good afternoon, Madam Chair and the board members.
[1:25:19] My name is Richard Sanchez.
[1:25:21] I live at 16-11, Edith Boulevard, Albuquerque,
[1:25:24] due to Mexico, 8-7-102.
[1:25:29] I have, may I put the site development plan up?
[1:25:36] I don't know, it'll just, this has already been.
[1:26:06] On August 6, 2014, I was approved regarding the case number,
[1:26:14] CSU 2014-0023, I think the Board of Kind of Commission for approving this special use permit.
[1:26:23] This is some of the wording from the application.
[1:26:26] I would like to extend the special use permit to allow, as a condition of approval, the use of outdoor space for business owners to expand sales products and storage without the required six foot fence enclosure or gravel and or concrete.
[1:26:42] Some of the water tanks that this space will house exceeds six feet.
[1:26:48] The other outdoor products would be the tenant sales of firewood and landscape
[1:26:53] and materials such as trees, brushes, and rocks, a superimposed site development plan.
[1:27:00] And everything that's in dark bold is the proposed outdoor storage.
[1:27:07] We're looking at the east side there, and there's some on the west side.
[1:27:14] However, I would like to appeal condition number six that states in quote all outdoor storage areas shall be enclosed by solid wall or a six foot fence on all sides.
[1:27:25] This condition poses many problems to the merchants that are leasing space there.
[1:27:30] First, the merchant that stores water tanks on the east side of the building uses the entire east lot, which is completely enclosed by a six foot chaining fence for displaying
[1:27:41] and has only a rotating stock of tanks that cannot be stored elsewhere on the property.
[1:27:48] Also, some of the tanks in stock are greater than six feet tall, and the visibility of the tanks from the street are a form of advertisement and is a greater appeal to that merchant.
[1:27:59] Second, the feed store merchant also uses space and has been attendance is 2005 during their
[1:28:09] state they have been using the West parking lot area in one former another for their stock
[1:28:15] merchandise.
[1:28:17] Some of the merchandise is stacked bundles of firewood pellets for stove fuel, fancy material
[1:28:23] and various other feed store products requiring these items to be enclosed by a six by
[1:28:29] a solid wall or a fence, six v-high on all sites would present many problems.
[1:28:35] One, I'm not sure if there would be enough room in the yard to fence all merchandise
[1:28:40] and question.
[1:28:42] Number two, the merchant uses a large, so my trailer to load and unload and merchandise
[1:28:49] and would pose extreme difficulty in doing the day-to-day operations of this business.
[1:28:54] I have met with the Sadio Road Greater Neighborhood Association who had written a letter of opposition in the original special use permit.
[1:29:04] I believe I cleared up any misunderstandings that they had about the special use permit and believed that I did receive their support to allow the merchants to use the yard space in the manner which best suits their needs without requiring fencing around the merchandise.
[1:29:22] I hope to get a letter of support from them.
[1:29:28] I do have several letters and signatures support from the surrounding community with regard
[1:29:35] with the original special use permit.
[1:29:38] I believe requiring fancy and around the outside merchandise would only serve to hinder the merchants
[1:29:44] and not serve any real purpose to the community because a six-foot, changing the events
[1:29:50] is not hide or concerned.
[1:30:01] The east lot is fully enclosed by a six foot chain events and the west side parking area except for the driveway gate is completely enclosed by the building and a six foot fence.
[1:30:17] And I also have two letters from the merchants who couldn't make it today.
[1:30:23] And I, is that okay if I could read the letters from?
[1:30:27] It's your time.
[1:30:28] I'm sorry.
[1:30:30] Yes, you may.
[1:30:32] OK.
[1:30:33] OK, so this is the, the countryside landscape.
[1:30:36] And he's the person that has the, the east side with the tanks.
[1:30:43] Dear Commission of regarding case number, CSU 2014-9023.
[1:30:50] This letter is to pill conditions six on the special use permit grant
[1:30:55] Services are you reading over you I think from the already in the you just got those I actually
[1:31:01] These were letters that are already in the letter. Where are we in the record?
[1:31:06] I am reading the letter that I just got. Yes, man. Oh, just got. Well, I
[1:31:10] I thought it was in the record and you just wanted to read it. It's not in the record
[1:31:15] So, one way I cannot read the letters.
[1:31:17] Not a letter.
[1:31:17] Can I just request to read the letters?
[1:31:24] No.
[1:31:24] Okay.
[1:31:24] There's a motion to hear the letters.
[1:31:27] Is there a second?
[1:31:29] Motion to second to hear the letters.
[1:31:31] All those numbers?
[1:31:32] All those numbers say aye.
[1:31:34] Aye.
[1:31:35] Yes.
[1:31:36] All opposed?
[1:31:37] Say no.
[1:31:38] No.
[1:31:38] So, it fails.
[1:31:39] I mean that read the letter.
[1:31:45] That's all I have for now.
[1:31:48] Okay.
[1:31:48] take the sticks to the app. Is there any one signed up in opposition to this appeal?
[1:31:59] I have
[1:31:59] someone in favor of the bill. Jean, pain.
[1:32:04] Did you sign up in opposition? No, I didn't.
[1:32:08] I signed up in neutral. Okay. So my name is, I'm sorry, just one word. How much time do we
[1:32:14] have left? Okay, you have three minutes. I'm a board member of the Sodeo Road Greater Neighborhood
[1:32:20] Association, as was stated, my name is Jean Payne,
[1:32:24] medical commissioner, and board.
[1:32:27] I wanted to go on record as saying that our board,
[1:32:31] of our neighborhood association, is neutral.
[1:32:35] We did not act at or say that we were going to write a letter
[1:32:39] of support.
[1:32:40] We listened to everything that Mr. Sanchez said,
[1:32:44] that we want to remain neutral.
[1:32:46] whatever the commission decides is fine with us.
[1:32:50] Thank you.
[1:32:53] Okay.
[1:32:54] There's no incentive for the opposition,
[1:32:56] so we're going to probably just make sense to go to staff closure.
[1:33:05] Madam Chair O'Malley commissioners,
[1:33:07] I just wanted to add that there are several activities
[1:33:10] in operation on the site, including commercial uses,
[1:33:14] and considering the ratio of activities to the size of the site,
[1:33:17] staff believes that condition 6 is a reasonable request
[1:33:20] in order to maintain organization on the site, and that's all I have to say.
[1:33:28] I just have a time for question.
[1:33:29] Okay, this is a real question.
[1:33:31] So the requirement is a solid wall, six-foot-solve wall.
[1:33:35] Madam Chair O'Malley, that is correct.
[1:33:39] The solid six-foot wall or fence.
[1:33:43] Okay, a four-fence could be a wood fence, could be just as a chicken seat.
[1:33:48] That is correct as long as it's solid okay. All right. Thank you. I'm sorry.
[1:33:57] Slotted chain link. Yes, that is correct. Slotted chain link is considered a solid wall sort of or fence or fence. It is okay.
[1:34:09] So I'm making sure. Okay. That takes us to the board action is there a motion.
[1:34:17] Madam
[1:34:21] Chair, I move we deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the CDC.
[1:34:27] Second, the submission and the second to a hold of the decision that you've seen.
[1:34:31] Did I appeal?
[1:34:32] All those in favor say aye.
[1:34:33] I also say no motion carries.
[1:34:36] Thank you.
[1:34:36] Thank you.
[1:34:39] So we have three appeals DE and AF.
[1:34:44] We're going to hear them together.
[1:34:46] Let me list the numbers for the record.
[1:34:50] It's CO-2014-009, VA-2014-005 slash VA-2014-0032, item E-C0-2014-008 slash VA-2014-006 slash VA-2030 and
[1:35:15] FCO 2014-0010-PA 2014-0007-C82014-0029 we will hear them all at once but we will have
[1:35:29] to make individual motions for the different items. So again we're going to go ahead and
[1:35:38] the procedures. It's appealed based on the evidence in the record. Ordinary, no new evidence
[1:35:46] will be accepted before the county commission. However, in the event that new evidence
[1:35:51] or testimonies accepted, the clerk will swore any witnesses who may testify concerning it.
[1:35:58] The order of the presentation and time limits is set forth in the procedure is followed.
[1:36:02] So, staff presentation, five minutes.
[1:36:06] So, it's presentation.
[1:36:07] Ten minutes.
[1:36:08] Opponents, presentation, 15 minutes.
[1:36:11] Appellants, summation of reputal, five minutes.
[1:36:14] Staff closure, two minutes.
[1:36:16] We're discussion in questions and then vote by action.
[1:36:19] Please be aware that the time limits for each side.
[1:36:22] Appellants and opponents is the total time,
[1:36:24] allow regardless of the number of persons signed up to speak.
[1:36:29] So, each side will need to decide how to divide the total
[1:36:32] minutes among the speakers.
[1:36:39] Hello.
[1:36:40] Just a point of clarification in regards to the time limits.
[1:36:43] Since we have three appeals that we're hearing, I'm entitled to five minutes.
[1:36:48] I'm thinking I'll finish within five minutes, but didn't know if I would have 15 minutes
[1:36:53] since there are three appeals.
[1:36:58] That'd be a step presentation first.
[1:36:59] So,
[1:37:02] I guess technically you would have 15 minutes.
[1:37:07] Let's see if you can't make it in less.
[1:37:09] Thank you.
[1:37:11] Oh, Australia.
[1:37:13] I'm sure.
[1:37:17] Backfires.
[1:37:19] What?
[1:37:19] What?
[1:37:29] I'm in bed.
[1:37:30] Okay. Well, we're going to do that then. We'll add five minutes to each of the presentations.
[1:37:40] And maximum of five minutes. Thank you.
[1:37:42] Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is 20th of Garcia, and I'm the Zoning Administrator for Bernalale County with Planning and Development Services.
[1:37:51] And this is I at regarding items for D for E and for F.
[1:38:00] Agenda items for D and E are appeals of the board of adjustments decision to uphold the zoning administrators conditions of approval for a conditional use to allow a mobile home to be used as a single family dwelling.
[1:38:13] The property is owned A1, and requires a conditional user approval to allow a mobile home as a dwelling.
[1:38:21] And so to give a point of reference of the properties that we're talking or the site that we're talking about,
[1:38:27] we've got two different sites.
[1:38:33] This site here has a mobile home,
[1:38:36] and this is the conditional use for a dwelling unit that was requested by the applicant.
[1:38:44] And this is the second conditional use for a mobile home as a dwelling unit that was requested.
[1:38:57] The appellant has appealed condition number two, which reads, and I haven't identified here.
[1:39:09] The applicant will be required to obtain legal and acceptable vehicular access from the subject property to the nearest Bernalio County dedicated right away in accordance with Bernalio County standards within six months of this approval.
[1:39:22] The appellant as opposed to this request to this condition of approval and states that the condition is an abuse of discretion and also states that Burliel County should be required to provide the access.
[1:39:34] However, this access requirement is expected of all developments where development is to occur.
[1:39:40] Agenda item F is an appeal of the Board of Adjustments decision to uphold the zoning administrators decision to deny a conditional user approval to allow for a mobile home for a three year period in addition to a single family dwelling for medical hardship.
[1:39:59] So to give a point of reference in regards to that site or that request, this is the site that is also requesting a second conditional use approval for the mobile home for medical hardship.
[1:40:13] Originally, the site only had two mobile homes, the one up front, and the one in the rear.
[1:40:20] However, our office initiated action against the property owner because the property owner brought a triple-wide mobile home to the site without proper permits.
[1:40:33] And so that's what initiated this action to begin with.
[1:40:37] This mobile home had been at this location of where this triple-wide is now.
[1:40:42] And when the triple-wide was brought in, the single-wide mobile home was placed in the back.
[1:40:48] And the applicant has testified that if granted approval to allow the mobile home,
[1:40:54] for medical hardship, the triple-wide, this mobile home, the single-wide mobile home, would be removed.
[1:41:06] So the properties are located at 7665 and 7565 powers weight self-west,
[1:41:15] and are located in the areas known as Bahadi Thomezza.
[1:41:18] The subject sites are 9.64 acres and 10.11 in size, and currently contain the two mobile homes in question and which had been placed on the site back in 2002.
[1:41:33] So the two mobile homes that are being requested for approval to be used as dwelling units were placed in the site in 2002.
[1:41:43] And I have photographs showing, this is the mobile home, that is on the site that has just one mobile home.
[1:41:59] And this is also a portion, a picture of the site that shows the site and its general conditions.
[1:42:10] This is a copy or a photograph of the mobile home for the other site that is requesting for two different requests, two different conditional uses.
[1:42:22] So, this is the mobile home in question.
[1:42:24] This is the one that was placed on the site back in 2002, which has been modified since then
[1:42:30] with additions to the mobile home itself.
[1:42:41] And I apologize if pictures are sort of really reflective because of the printing.
[1:42:46] But this is the photograph of the triple wide mobile home that was brought in that initiated
[1:42:50] this action.
[1:42:51] And this is the mobile home that was placed, which currently has is being used as a dwelling
[1:42:57] in it by residents in that area.
[1:43:06] This is a close-up view of the Triple Wide Mobile Home.
[1:43:14] When we initiated action against the property owner, they had not completed the connections
[1:43:22] to the mobile homes, and so that's why they're in this condition, although they have
[1:43:26] been worked on since then, since these photographs have been taken where they've been
[1:43:33] closer together.
[1:43:38] This is a site that contains, this is a photo of the site which is
[1:43:45] this site here which is the request for the two different conditional uses. This is what's
[1:43:51] currently being used by that single-wide mobile home. It's being used for the sewer.
[1:44:15] As you
[1:44:15] movements, such as well, septic tank solar panels in order to provide utilities.
[1:44:21] All improvements made to the site have not been permitted by Burnley O'Counny.
[1:44:25] The site is located approximately over one mile from the nearest improved and dedicated
[1:44:30] road and the conditional use approval will require the applicant to acquire an access
[1:44:35] easement from the neighboring property owners and make the necessary improvements for
[1:44:39] the dedicated access easements.
[1:44:43] The applicant currently drives through the properties to reach the subject site.
[1:44:47] And so just to give a point of reference in regards to what we're talking about and how much access is required to the specific site.
[1:45:00] Right,
[1:45:02] we have the nearest approved access, being at this junction here. There would need to be access along this area, to this area, and then to these two lots, which is the location of the two subject properties, so given the measurements of this area, it's a little bit more than an acre.
[1:45:30] And, of course, they can take another route if there is a shorter distance.
[1:45:36] We are not opposed to that, just if this is just a demonstration of how much of an access
[1:45:42] movement would be required for to reach the subject site.
[1:45:47] The appellant has signed an access deficiency notice, which is a document that's been signed
[1:45:53] by property owners and instances where vehicular access does not exist.
[1:45:57] This document was intended to hold Burlio County harmless in cases where a property owner continues to develop on the property without the necessary vehicular access.
[1:46:07] When reviewing this condition, conditional use application,
[1:46:14] and this is just a copy of the notice, deficiency notice.
[1:46:21] It was determined by the VA and the VA that deficiency notice is not intended to allow for development to occur in those areas,
[1:46:29] where vehicular access is not available, therefore this notice was not considered.
[1:46:35] At the BA hearing, the applicant indicated that some signatures had been obtained from adjacent property owners to allow for an access easement to be dedicated
[1:46:44] from the nearest dedicated and improved road to the subject site.
[1:46:49] Here in this, the BA granted an extension to the condition of approval that requires the applicant to provide access to the site from six months to one year.
[1:46:58] The appellant was asked at the VA hearing if they believed if the conditional condition of approval could be met within 12 months and the appellant replied that they could.
[1:47:08] However, we are here today because the appellant is again against the condition that will require the applicant to provide the hecular access.
[1:47:18] The VA and the VA determined that the request did meet the criteria outline for the ordinance for conditional use for CO 2014-008.
[1:47:27] CO-2014-001-10 and CO-20409 in regards to the criteria that requires a site to be adequate
[1:47:41] in size and shape to accommodate such a use.
[1:47:45] The lots are obviously large enough to accommodate the mobile homes.
[1:47:50] The placement of the mobile home on the subject site would not have an adverse effect
[1:47:55] on the neighborhood, or seriously conflict with the character of the area, since there are other mobile
[1:48:00] homes that lead to the subject property.
[1:48:04] In regards to the conditional uses to allow the mobile home as dwelling units, the condition
[1:48:09] of approval that requires the applicant to provide the particular access to the site will allow
[1:48:14] the site to meet the criteria which requires uses to be developed in such a manner that
[1:48:19] undue traffic congestion or hazards will not be created.
[1:48:22] The construction of a road will allow for a guaranteed access to the site that cannot be affected by weather or the prohibition from other property owners.
[1:48:32] However, the application did not meet the condition, conditional use criterion that requires proposed uses to be developed in such a manner that undue traffic congestion or hazards will not be created.
[1:48:43] With that, without the construction of a road, the site is not guaranteed access and the applicant's current access points cannot
[1:48:51] can be affected by weather or the prohibition from other property owners.
[1:48:55] In addition, since CO-2040-009 is related to a medical hardship, it was determined that lack of vehicular access will prevent emergency vehicles provided by Borneo County to reach the site in a timely manner.
[1:49:10] And so the BA's recommendation is to grant the appeals in part for CO-20408 and CO-204010.
[1:49:23] Thereby modifying the zoning administrators conditions of approvals number 2 and 3 in order to allow the applicant time to fulfill the legal vehicular access requirement.
[1:49:33] Both the B.A. and the Z.A. recommends the NIO CO 2014-0009, which is a conditional use to allow a mobile home for medical hardship.
[1:49:44] And so with that I stand with for any questions.
[1:49:50] Thank you.
[1:49:52] Moving on to the appellate,
[1:50:03] you have 10 minutes.
[1:50:06] And that's for all three cases.
[1:50:09] You will have 10 minutes at this point.
[1:50:11] You can share it with others if you want.
[1:50:13] So it's only 10 for all three cases.
[1:50:16] You have 10 minutes at this point. You will have a rebuttal of five minutes after the little later.
[1:50:22] Okay, all righty. Okay, so starting with we have resinated in Pacharito Meso for over 10 years.
[1:50:29] Pacharito Meso has existed over 30 years and there are no services.
[1:50:35] We have you purchased the land. We were not told that we could not move live or build there in the property.
[1:50:41] We went ahead and purchased the land with the intention to use it for the residential purposes.
[1:50:46] After we purchased the land, the first thing we did was build a fence around it.
[1:50:51] We went to the Bernolio County Department's zoning building planning office to obtain the permit.
[1:50:56] At the same time, we asked what were the requirements for the permit needed to move a mobile home or building in the property we had purchased.
[1:51:05] We were told that we did not need any type of permit since the county did not have any plans
[1:51:12] or was dealing with Mahaito Mesa and that there were no services in that area.
[1:51:17] We purchased a mobile home at the same time and the same company where we purchased
[1:51:23] the mobile home to our land and they also told us it was not necessary for us to obtain any type
[1:51:28] of permit at the time that we moved to Mahaito Mesa.
[1:51:32] There were only few houses and mobile homes in the area where people were living.
[1:51:37] As time passed, we started to notice that more people were moving to live in the area.
[1:51:42] Nobody was being asked for any permits. It was until around 2009 when Bernal York County
[1:51:48] started getting involved. And it was in 2009 when the community got together to support the
[1:51:54] water association to build a water welfare party domestic community. The county helped with the
[1:51:59] building in the road to where the well was established.
[1:52:02] The county also helped with bringing a portable roof
[1:52:04] for the children Pachari Domessa,
[1:52:06] who had to wait for the school bus during the cold winter
[1:52:09] in the hot summers outside,
[1:52:11] where the Pachari Tolrodans.
[1:52:12] Since the county was supporting the community
[1:52:15] in some way, Pachari Domessa residents have confidence
[1:52:18] that the county is really interested in helping the community.
[1:52:21] It was until when the county assigned Mr. Gallegos
[1:52:23] to ask and help Pachari Domessa residents
[1:52:26] to obtain permits for their houses.
[1:52:28] So we're solar systems and
[1:52:30] Now, the permits required by the county. First, we were told that we needed to obtain the original title for the first owner of our property in order to put the property into existence in the map.
[1:52:41] Then we were asked to do a survey and give easement 25 feet all around the ten acres property and sign an access deficiency notice letter stating that the legal access does not exist from our property to the nearest Bernolio kinding maintenance row.
[1:52:56] We were told that if we met this requirement, the county was going to start giving us permits.
[1:53:02] I have spent over $900 doing this process without being able to get any permits since the county is not willing to come to an agreement to help the Pachari documentary.
[1:53:12] Now the county is telling us that we cannot obtain permits until we obtain legal access.
[1:53:18] Vehicle access in accordance with Bernaleo County standards with 12 months.
[1:53:22] And that is not a reasonable amount time and it is not an easy task.
[1:53:28] From where Pahaito Road ends to where my properties located, I have the task to investigate who the owners of the properties are and ask them to give easement in order to establish roads there is land.
[1:53:42] That is not occupied and some owners even live out of state.
[1:53:45] I am not sure if every owner is willing to give
[1:53:48] easement and pay a related cost and I do not have the authority
[1:53:52] to enforce something like that.
[1:53:56] The community of Pahaito Mesa is willing to work with accounting.
[1:54:01] And then this is the Mac similar to what she used.
[1:54:07] But this is more specifying which land owners are to
[1:54:14] that we have to contact to get the 25 feet of easing. What do you guys like to see that?
[1:54:22] Has it been entered into the record already?
[1:54:24] It's been in record, but it's basically the same thing. We just have the information of the owners.
[1:54:29] Oh, kind of make a motion.
[1:54:36] We have a motion a second.
[1:54:41] On to the side.
[1:54:43] Post motion carries. Go ahead.
[1:54:44] So,
[1:54:48] this is the map, this is where Pahari Toro ends and all these right here are the people that we need to ask that are willing to give those 25 feet.
[1:55:00] We started already asking those property owners to give those 25 feet.
[1:55:06] Some are compliance and some other we have the ones that have question mark are either in another state, so we have to contact them by now.
[1:55:15] So, so far we've been working to get this road here, the 25 feet all around for our property to get access vehicle.
[1:55:28] So, I have communicated with many owners that are currently living in Pahaito regarding giving me an order for the roads to be established.
[1:55:36] And most of them are willing to do it. However, we need the county support. It appears that every time you ask for something,
[1:55:41] and we ask you to do just keep giving us new conditions without getting anything resolved.
[1:55:47] We need to know exactly what the county wants and stop making us waste our time and resources
[1:55:52] if they are not willing to come to an agreement and to let us live in peace in Pacharito.
[1:55:58] We need to support the support of the county.
[1:56:02] We are almost 100% sure positive that the county gets some funding from the Pacharito Mesa community.
[1:56:08] And we would like to use those funders to work for our community, also as taxpayers.
[1:56:16] We have the right and we have the right to be treated fairly.
[1:56:20] We are conscious that every owner, Pacharito, messa, pays different amounts of taxes.
[1:56:24] Some pay nothing and some pay over a thousand dollars, however, the county is responsible
[1:56:29] for establishing a special district for a regulation and collection of taxes for Pacharito messa.
[1:56:35] and utilizes these funds in support,
[1:56:37] the communities such as helping us now
[1:56:39] with the project of construction roads.
[1:56:42] The county allowed us to move and establish
[1:56:44] our homes in Pacharit Domessa a year ago
[1:56:46] and what the county is trying to enforce now
[1:56:48] should have been done when the family started to move
[1:56:51] and live in Pacharit.
[1:56:52] Now the county is giving us conditions
[1:56:54] after condition to obtain permits
[1:56:56] as if they want us to give up and move out of our properties.
[1:57:00] All the residents that have lived and established
[1:57:02] the residents of Pacharit Domessa
[1:57:04] for the past year, deserve the right to stay in Pachai.
[1:57:07] Don't mess up and should be grandfathered in.
[1:57:10] So now I would like to use the rest of the time to have...
[1:57:17] How much time is left?
[1:57:19] How much time?
[1:57:21] We have three minutes.
[1:57:28] Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, my name is Craig A. Corn and I'm a attorney who's
[1:57:33] been working with the residents of Pachai to Mesa for some years now.
[1:57:37] First thing I want to say is that the time limit that you've imposed Mr. Chair is not what the Chair originally said and what I believe the clerk of this body has said, which is that given that there's three matters being heard that at least five minutes extra would be added on to each of the time.
[1:57:57] So I'm going to ask, Randy, can you clarify that I wasn't paying close enough attention to whether Chair was going over the time allocation?
[1:58:04] I guess on this question, Chair, I think it is appropriate, since there are three of
[1:58:10] deals to add.
[1:58:16] That's fine.
[1:58:17] Go ahead and proceed the other extra time.
[1:58:18] I appreciate that, Mr. Chair, and what I want to do is give a little context because this
[1:58:25] is a planning commission matter.
[1:58:29] We've been talking about context in all of the other matters, and so it's not limited to,
[1:58:35] specifically this, this lot and the problems associated with it, this is kind of in the context
[1:58:45] of the development on Pahaditamesa over the years.
[1:58:50] And I think you just sort of brilliant presentation by the custom yet us about what has
[1:58:56] gone on with their property.
[1:58:59] You saw from the county planning, some troubling pictures, I think that we're intended
[1:59:05] to make it look like this is an awful kind of place when these folks, I've been to their
[1:59:11] residents and they've done a lot to make sure that their residents is one that anybody
[1:59:17] would be proud of, and they've done that with very little resources.
[1:59:21] So what I want to say is that this is not a typical housing development, even though it's
[1:59:26] been allowed to develop that way. Typically, housing development would have to be planned
[1:59:32] been plated by the developers, and roads would go in, and infrastructure would go in.
[1:59:38] That is not what happened on Pahari Thomesa.
[1:59:40] There's no water.
[1:59:41] There's no roads.
[1:59:42] There's no sewers.
[1:59:43] There's no electricity.
[1:59:46] And the folks who lived out there are pioneers who really attempted to carve out a piece of the American
[1:59:51] Dream for themselves.
[1:59:52] Like the customers have done, and they've done that for many years.
[1:59:56] And they've done that with full knowledge of the county.
[1:59:58] end end.
[2:00:00] Agreed from time to time about some of the issues here. And specifically about what the county's obligations
[2:00:07] are to the people who live there. And people who live in a residential community have the right to,
[2:00:16] I think, expect that they have some level of support from the county, from their government, to have a safe
[2:00:23] community. And when you saw a picture of an open hole where sewage is being put in, that is
[2:00:31] not of something that the customers have welcomed. They've, in fact, made every effort
[2:00:36] to make a healthy environment for living. And they haven't been able to be granted permits
[2:00:44] on that. The main issue here, of course, is that these parcels were served, willy,
[2:00:53] as if they were agriculture parcels, and they've been sold for many years on
[2:00:58] parties, I may say, in just that way.
[2:01:00] And that's, that's, you know, didn't happen in the dark.
[2:01:03] I mean, county knows that big landowners have been selling large parcels of property
[2:01:09] out there to poor people, intended for use for residential use.
[2:01:14] And people have been moving their trailers out there, and they've, and they've
[2:01:17] pioneered out there, and they've persevered out there.
[2:01:20] And they've built their own roads, essentially, and while those aren't legal roads, there's certainly legal access.
[2:01:28] And so the technical requirement that access be along legally defined easements is a very high bar to place on people with very few resources.
[2:01:42] especially when many of these parcels that stand between where the
[2:01:47] costinators are and where the legal right of way are is it's not even known
[2:01:53] who owns those places it's very difficult to track that because some of
[2:01:57] those some of the land sales out there have just not been recorded by the county
[2:02:01] so it's very difficult for someone who isn't isn't a lawyer who doesn't have a
[2:02:05] lot of resources to be able to track who has the title to those properties and
[2:02:09] grant an easement, let alone get that person to agree to provide that easement, and then build
[2:02:17] a road.
[2:02:18] You're asking some of the poorest people in the state, some of the poorest people in this
[2:02:21] county to do what the county is not, maybe not those, and have the resources to do.
[2:02:27] And you're asking them to do it in a very short time limit.
[2:02:30] And again, these are people who have pioneered out their, who have persevered out there.
[2:02:34] And they've done everything they could to meet the requirements.
[2:02:37] And so it strikes me as somewhat disingenuous to now impose this kind of requirement, particularly
[2:02:48] disingenuous as the one that says in order to grant a conditional use for a medical variance.
[2:02:57] The problem is there's no access and so emergency services can't get out there.
[2:03:01] Now, Commissioner Delacruz, I know, has worked with residents out there on providing better
[2:03:08] community access to emergency services.
[2:03:11] This is a better problem out there.
[2:03:12] It's not something that's new, and it's not something specific to the customers, where
[2:03:18] they should have all of the onus of getting that access on them.
[2:03:25] Nobody else in this county.
[2:03:27] Nobody else in this room, I suspect, lives in a place where they have to worry about whether
[2:03:31] There's legal access and whether an ambulance can get to them, whether the police can get
[2:03:35] to them.
[2:03:35] People on Pahari, they'll miss a have that problem and they have that problem because
[2:03:40] this development was allowed to go forward and with county acquiescence and that happened.
[2:03:48] We can't go backwards in time but we can't go forward in a more just way and say, the county
[2:03:55] It has some responsibility to work with these folks in more ways than just providing them with
[2:04:03] requirements that it's almost impossible for them to meet.
[2:04:06] There has to be some given on the part of the county and there has to be some assistance
[2:04:13] on the part of the county to identify people and to help build those roads if that's really
[2:04:17] the requirement.
[2:04:18] If that's really what's at stake here and I know and I think other members of the commission
[2:04:24] and certainly members of the planning department know that there are many other residents
[2:04:31] on Paharito who are going to be facing this exact same issue.
[2:04:36] This is the beginning of almost everybody who lives out there needing to have legal access
[2:04:41] and going to have the same difficulty.
[2:04:44] And so the customers are here as the first wave of people who are facing this problem and
[2:04:53] that have been working hard,
[2:04:55] been working with the neighborhood association,
[2:04:57] with other residents working with advocates like myself,
[2:05:02] working with the commission to try and solve this problem
[2:05:06] that has been a very difficult problem.
[2:05:10] And it requires more than simply setting a requirement
[2:05:16] up that is really difficult for these folks to meet.
[2:05:21] So I'm going to ask you to grant this appeal and to order the planning department to work with.
[2:05:29] The residents of Pahari Thamesa to get access to be able to legalize their properties.
[2:05:38] Because this has been something that the county has known about for a long time has actually
[2:05:43] and this development has never, never stopped people from selling land.
[2:05:49] There's a sign out there that says, buying land might be illegal.
[2:05:54] But the sellers are property out there who sell to people who are vulnerable,
[2:06:00] making promises about infrastructure that has never developed,
[2:06:04] making promises that this is land that can be used for residential purposes,
[2:06:07] those people. There's been no action that to my knowledge has ever been taken against those folks.
[2:06:14] All of the burden has been placed on the poorest people who have bought their in good faith,
[2:06:19] and are just trying to make it make their way.
[2:06:23] And so with that, I'll stand aside. Thank you.
[2:06:29] How much time was it left so far?
[2:06:32] 17 minutes.
[2:06:34] I will allow a few more minutes if you have another person to speak.
[2:06:37] Good
[2:06:44] evening, Chairman De La Cruz and members of the Commission.
[2:06:48] My name is Reed Cole-Facts on Fair Housing Lawyer from Santa Fe.
[2:06:52] And I have been asked by the residents to look at the situation that they're facing
[2:06:57] on Paharita Mesa in doing analysis of whether there are fair housing concerns
[2:07:04] in terms of the land sellers of Paharita Mesa's actions as well as the county's actions.
[2:07:12] I'm at the beginning stages of that process, but what I want to focus on here are really
[2:07:19] two points and understand how 17 minutes I don't.
[2:07:30] And to speak and taking anywhere near that. The two points that I want to emphasize a sitting here and
[2:07:36] listening to this is one, you're talking about people's homes here. And by imposing this strict technical
[2:07:46] requirement, that may apply in a plan development in the developments that we would normally see if
[2:07:54] They go through an appropriate planning process, may make sense, but make no sense out in
[2:08:00] Palharita, Mesa, and really are creating a situation that's impossible for the residents
[2:08:06] to be able to meet that technical requirement, and because it's their homes, what happens
[2:08:12] if they can't meet that technical requirement, they lose their homes.
[2:08:17] And so I think they have to understand the consequence of the decision that is made here
[2:08:24] tonight. And I know you all, you know, study these matters beforehand before you come here
[2:08:31] and you look through them. But I want you to listen to what the Constantators say,
[2:08:38] listen to what Mr. Acorn has said, and really consider what is the consequence of what
[2:08:47] you do here tonight in the fact that you've made potentially make a decision, a decision
[2:08:53] where people lose their home and when these people are doing every the
[2:08:57] cost and eat is another resident some poverty to make so they're doing
[2:09:00] everything they can to meet your requirements and right now they're simply
[2:09:06] asking for more time and denying that request may lead them to lose their homes that's
[2:09:13] why I want you to first consider and then second I want you to consider the
[2:09:18] County's role in this, in attorney acorn focused on this as well.
[2:09:23] This is not a situation where the county has had no involvement up to this point.
[2:09:29] The county is as responsible, not necessarily the three of you, but some of your predecessors
[2:09:35] is responsible as anyone else for creating what is from a property lawyer standpoint from
[2:09:43] at a zoning administrator's standpoint, a nightmare, right?
[2:09:48] Because you have all of these properties that have been sold,
[2:09:52] that don't have legal access in terms of trying to figure out who owns what?
[2:09:56] This is a quagmire that is going to be very, very difficult for anyone to sort out.
[2:10:03] But the county was here when that situation was created.
[2:10:08] the county could have stepped in a long time ago and instead of allowing these big land
[2:10:14] sellers to really exploit unsophisticated, sometimes uneducated, recent immigrants, and exploit
[2:10:22] them, get their money, sell them this land.
[2:10:26] The county stood by let that happen and now, to use this mess that has been created up there,
[2:10:33] as an excuse to be able to potentially force people off their land.
[2:10:37] So really those are the two points I really want you all to consider.
[2:10:42] One, what the request is tonight, it's pretty simple.
[2:10:45] It's not that big of a deal for the county.
[2:10:48] It's a huge deal for the casciniators.
[2:10:51] They want more time to be able to meet the requirements you have set forth.
[2:10:55] The consequence is the county pretty minimal for a number of few more years.
[2:11:01] The situation in Puerto Rico makes it goes on, which the county has allowed to go on for a long time.
[2:11:07] But for the, for the cost needas, the consequences huge they potentially lose their home and then the second thing I want you to think about is what is the county's role here?
[2:11:17] Don't you have a special obligation to give assistance to the residents of Puerto Rico, Mesa? Because maybe not solely responsible for, but certainly a tacit participation in creating the mess that leads us to where we are today. Thank you.
[2:11:46] So we have pictures of that whole that was presented by the funding and zoning.
[2:11:50] It was actually cleaned up. Mr. Guy goes took the pictures.
[2:11:54] Then he told us to clean it and then take pictures of that when it was cleaned.
[2:12:00] So we actually have the pictures of that whole cleaned.
[2:12:04] Where's your sewer going now?
[2:12:06] Into an in its proper septic tank where the sewer is supposed to go.
[2:12:11] All of these mobile has its own proper septic tink underground and the proper piping that's supposed to go to each mobile
[2:12:21] So why was it going into that hole?
[2:12:23] That was whenever they were moving that the triple
[2:12:27] Somehow it was disconnected so they had a reconnected
[2:12:31] Now that hole is actually cleaned and covered was that your property that was not our property
[2:12:37] that was actually my grandpa's, that we are, they're actually here, they're in the stands.
[2:12:44] That was actually for the medical hardship.
[2:12:47] So that was whenever we moved those three that triple wide,
[2:12:53] it was disconnected then, Mr. Guy's took those pictures,
[2:12:57] and then we asked us to clean it up,
[2:13:00] which we were more than happy to cooperate with the county,
[2:13:04] and everything was back connected to the septic tank.
[2:13:06] So each mobile has its own septic ting, the sewer is not going into the earth or
[2:13:12] polluting the groundwater because we actually have a well that gives us our drinking water.
[2:13:20] So that we get that tested every year to see if it's drinkable and it always is drinkable
[2:13:26] because there is no there's no sewer going into that well so it would make sense for us to
[2:13:33] leave and leave that set to take open dripping and then we're drinking the water, it would
[2:13:38] make sense.
[2:13:39] So that is actually cleaned and we have a picture here when it's getting cleaned.
[2:13:45] Okay, I don't think there's any opponents in this particular case, is there?
[2:13:52] There's not any.
[2:13:56] Okay.
[2:13:58] Then, not seeing any more, you have anything else you want to add to it, we'll just call it
[2:14:07] pallid summation.
[2:14:10] I guess this decision or whatever you guys deciding is not going to
[2:14:14] only affect does it probably going to affect other people that are living there in Pahari
[2:14:18] Thomasa. You guys are going to have more of these coming in with more people trying to
[2:14:23] do the right thing by gain the permits and either gain the night. You're going to see more
[2:14:28] people coming up here. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Staff closure.
[2:14:45] Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I just wanted to point out a couple of things that were mentioned
[2:14:52] by the appellants, the paths, or trails that are used by the residents there in Faheri
[2:14:59] the mister or not.
[2:15:00] Consider legal access at this point. Each of those paths or trails could be at any time locked off by the neighboring property owners, which would then prohibit access to their particular site.
[2:15:14] There is, in the record, also, a copy of a new story, a recent new story of an incident
[2:15:21] where there was some roads that had typically been used by some of the residents that
[2:15:27] were washed off with the rains that we had over the summer, leaving residents stranded
[2:15:32] there for over a week.
[2:15:35] And so it's situations like that that concern me as a zoning administrator and reviewing
[2:15:40] application and making the determination that I did. I do understand that there are lots of homes,
[2:15:47] mobile homes that have been placed in the site in the area over the years, and planning and
[2:15:53] development services is also aware of that. And so our method of enforcement action is to first
[2:16:00] deal with those property owners that are bringing mobile homes to the site recently, anything that
[2:16:09] was just recently placed on the site would be enforced upon,
[2:16:12] and that's why this situation came about,
[2:16:14] because the triple wide that is proposed
[2:16:17] for the medical hardship was just recently brought to the site,
[2:16:20] and that's what initiated our action.
[2:16:24] We also understand that there are,
[2:16:27] there is a potential for medical assistance,
[2:16:31] and I'm not saying that there will be,
[2:16:34] there's not the capability of providing
[2:16:37] any sort of medical assistance.
[2:16:38] I'm sure the fire department or the police department is not going to say that they cannot get to these folks if they need to, but the point is that it's going to take a little bit longer to get to these points.
[2:16:48] And when we are talking about a medical hardship situation, we want to try to get to them as quickly as possible.
[2:16:56] And the applicant or the appellants did mention that the county was a part of the property owner selling the properties legally to folks leading them to believe that they can continue to develop there.
[2:17:08] We have signs that have been posted in the area, and I apologize that this was not displayed earlier, but this is a copy of one of the signs that were posted in the area.
[2:17:18] alerting the residents to the to the development to the concerns that we have regarding the
[2:17:24] development there and that they should come and speak to us and regards to any
[2:17:29] placements of mobile homes, the selling of property just to ensure that they are following
[2:17:34] the particular standards. I did not deny the conditional uses. I simply applied a condition that
[2:17:40] would typically be required of any development. You see lots of special use permits that come
[2:17:46] front of you and all of the requirements are to meet all the sites are required to meet county
[2:17:53] standards and roads are is a basic standard that is required of all county development.
[2:17:58] And so my condition is to apply the same condition that that would be required of all
[2:18:04] develops like.
[2:18:05] Commissioner Telbert,
[2:18:11] Commissioner Stevens.
[2:18:15] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[2:18:17] I've got a couple questions for our legal counsel on this.
[2:18:23] What is it in county in county is it county ordinance that dictates the need for legal access or what is in our county rules and regulations ordinance resolution.
[2:18:37] Mr. Vice Chair,
[2:18:42] Commissioner, the all of the requirements that arise for development come
[2:18:50] either from zoning or planning requirements for the Public Works requirements. A requirement
[2:18:57] like a access road is an ordinance, is required through ordinance. You could ask the Public
[2:19:04] folks exactly how that works and the problem is as you know already and as these people
[2:19:12] have stated, these developments were made without any development conditions taking place
[2:19:21] that would normally be legally required.
[2:19:25] So folks bought out there from someone and placed mobile homes out there without any services
[2:19:34] without any approvals, without any permitting, and that is what we are left to deal with,
[2:19:41] and it's a very difficult problem, and that is one of the truths of this situation.
[2:19:48] Thank you.
[2:19:49] So, because this is a quasi-judicial process,
[2:20:00] yes, manager was just pointing out as part
[2:20:03] of the subdivision ordinance, it is legal access as a ordinance.
[2:20:07] Okay.
[2:20:08] Thank you.
[2:20:08] So because this is a quasi-judicial process, we are required to follow ordinance.
[2:20:16] That's correct.
[2:20:17] We cannot interject our judgment or, I guess, or our personal feelings about whether
[2:20:25] that ordinance is appropriate at this point in time.
[2:20:28] That is the laws it stands now.
[2:20:31] Okay, thank you.
[2:20:32] So the idea of it, and I have to say I'm very sympathetic to the situation that these individuals
[2:20:38] find themselves in, you know, the idea of a special obligation to help me have some
[2:20:45] residents, but it's my understanding that as I sit on this board tonight, I am obligated
[2:20:52] to follow what is written in ordinance.
[2:20:54] That's correct.
[2:20:55] And if there is a solution to be had, which has not, we have not been able to find a good
[2:21:00] solution after this point, that would be a different proceeding.
[2:21:05] Thank you.
[2:21:05] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[2:21:06] Thank you, Randy.
[2:21:10] What authority does the county have in denying people the ability to sell that land?
[2:21:16] Because it's, well, it's not subdivided any former fashion, it does meet legal requirements
[2:21:22] in the sense that they are identified, it has meets some bounds.
[2:21:26] Does the county have any ability to stop people from selling land?
[2:21:30] I'm not talking about whether they want to mislead people, but whether they have the legal
[2:21:34] like to sell those lives.
[2:21:37] Land sales themselves are private transactions that occur between the buyer and the seller.
[2:21:43] And we could not be involved in that.
[2:21:46] The situation, if you have a situation where there is a fraud being committed by the seller
[2:21:53] saying that there's something there that's not, that is an action that these folks could
[2:22:01] have these volunteer lawyers that are putting their time in for them, take up with the people
[2:22:06] that sold them the land. Obviously, the subdivision issues, none of this has been subdivided,
[2:22:12] and that is a problem of ours, but that's why we have attempted to stop further development
[2:22:19] from taking place. Thank you. I have a question for staff.
[2:22:28] There are three structures.
[2:22:30] Is this correct?
[2:22:34] Mr. Chair, yes. That is my understanding. There are three structures on the site.
[2:22:40] And do you have any idea what the timeline for the structures to have been placed there?
[2:22:52] My understanding based on aerial investigation also and based on testimony provided by the applicants.
[2:23:00] These two mobile homes were placed there back in approximately 2002.
[2:23:08] They were single-wide mobile homes.
[2:23:11] The 2002 aerial shows them to just be single-wide mobile homes.
[2:23:16] And then over the years, there have been additions made to the single-wide mobile homes.
[2:23:21] That make them now look like double-wides or a little bit wider than a single-wide.
[2:23:25] This particular mobile home back here, my understanding was placed probably in 2006 or so.
[2:23:39] So that one was placed there for one of the residents there after the initial placements
[2:23:46] of the first mobile homes.
[2:23:48] The Tribal Wide Mobile Home, my understanding was place there, I would say, the latter part of last year.
[2:23:56] When did the county put up the signs, warning people both in English and Spanish, that there were issues with land and the ability to do things there?
[2:24:06] Do you have any idea?
[2:24:08] I did ask that question and the response was in September of 2007.
[2:24:15] I was not here at that point in time, but people who have been here that long had told me that.
[2:24:20] Would you briefly encapsulate what the three issues are that we're being asked to approve or there's appeals pending at this point?
[2:24:32] Yes. So there are three appeals. The first appeal is CO 2014-008.
[2:24:44] And that is the conditional use to allow mobile home for a three-year period for a medical
[2:24:52] hardship.
[2:24:53] That case was denied by me was appealed to the B.A. the B.A. upheld that denial.
[2:25:02] And so the appellants are now appealing that conditional use.
[2:25:08] CO-20409 is a conditional use to allow a mobile home as a dwelling unit.
[2:25:14] I approve that condition.
[2:25:16] I mean that are requests with the condition that they do provide the access that is necessary,
[2:25:22] the vehicular access along with numerous other conditions that are typical of mobile home.
[2:25:28] How much time was given to the applicants?
[2:25:30] The applicants were given six months to comply with the condition to provide the access.
[2:25:38] When you say access road, what does that exactly mean?
[2:25:42] Does it mean that there is a granted easement,
[2:25:46] or are we talking some standard based on public
[2:25:48] works requirements?
[2:25:57] Mr. Chair, the way the condition is written,
[2:26:01] it's to obtain legal and acceptable the
[2:26:04] particular access from the subject property
[2:26:07] to the nearest Bernoulli County dedicated right of way
[2:26:10] in accordance with Bernoulli County standards
[2:26:13] within six months of this approval.
[2:26:19] So the third appeal is CO-204010 and that's also a conditional use to allow a mobile home
[2:26:27] as a dwelling unit that also was approved by myself with the condition that they provide
[2:26:35] the vehicular access and that was appealed to the BA, the BA approved continued to approve
[2:26:42] the conditional user approval and they gave an extension of from six months to one year for
[2:26:49] that vehicular access.
[2:26:51] Now the six month period came from language that I find in the zoning code that states
[2:26:57] that all of the conditions need to be met within six months.
[2:27:04] Commissioners, I have a problem with allowing a medical hardship.
[2:27:07] I can understand why it was likely denied.
[2:27:10] I think that's probably the worst place you'd want to have somebody with a medical hardship
[2:27:14] to reside. So I can understand how that was likely denied. I do have an issue with, and this
[2:27:21] is going to be a question for Randy, I have an issue with the idea of the easement the
[2:27:27] right way. Because I can tell you from plenty of experience when we're talking about acceptable
[2:27:31] roads, you're talking about a road that Roger Paul's going to want to accept, and we're
[2:27:35] talking about a road that is going to be built to some pretty rigid standards that's going
[2:27:41] an incredibly heavy lift for anybody. It's a heavy lift for developers much less for individual
[2:27:47] residents. So unless I'm wrong, is that something that we can work with and say that there
[2:27:54] has to be identified easement or the roadway along the path that it would need to be taken
[2:28:00] and exclude what in Roger, why don't you come down here so you can explain to the commissioners
[2:28:07] what we're talking about because I can tell you that it's going to be a heavy lift, can we exclude
[2:28:12] that if we so desire?
[2:28:15] Mr. Vice-Chair and Commissioners, it's kind of gets back to what
[2:28:21] Commissioner Hart Stevens was saying right now the legal requirements which Roger Paul will
[2:28:26] explain are what are on the books. I'm not aware of any exception process for those things,
[2:28:33] but it is part and parcel of of the problem with what exists on parietamesa, the inability
[2:28:41] to have good access for emergency vehicles, one rain and there's no road and you'd have to
[2:28:47] blade it to get an emergency vehicle through. That is part of the problem, but I understand that,
[2:28:53] but we don't have that now. Anyway, Roger, come on up. Roger Paul, Gary, is near.
[2:28:58] I'll just describe what we're talking about here, Roger.
[2:29:01] Mr. Chairman,
[2:29:04] the issue in Parnarita, Mesa,
[2:29:06] is that there are minimal county dedicated rights of way
[2:29:12] that lead up into that.
[2:29:14] Roger, that's what I would like to respect.
[2:29:16] I don't want to ask you.
[2:29:17] Describe what these folks would have to build based on what
[2:29:21] the county's asking for right now.
[2:29:24] Mr. Chairman, to reach, as I understand the condition
[2:29:28] as it has been created, in written, the intent is to provide the ability to get legal access
[2:29:36] to a county road.
[2:29:38] As I said, there are very few locations, very close to most of the houses of Barri, Tomesa.
[2:29:45] That would be typically handled through a access easement, either an access easement through
[2:29:52] specific to a single property or an access easement that is great.
[2:30:00] I'm tempted for general use. How wide is that? Typically, it would be in 25 to 40 foot range, depending
[2:30:08] on the number of people that it would serve, might be even up to 50 feet wide. The surfacing
[2:30:14] would need to be all weather surface, because that's what the fire department needs to provide
[2:30:18] for emergency services. So that's the typical surfacing requirements and all weather surface it would not
[2:30:25] need to be paved because it's not a county maintained right of way. If you're
[2:30:29] a county maintaining right of way then your statement earlier about the
[2:30:32] requirements that we would put on before the county would accept it as a
[2:30:37] county road certainly as much greater than what's needed to provide for legal
[2:30:42] access, fire access on a private access easement. So even even so even without
[2:30:49] blacktop, you're talking about base course, are you talking about a crown as it
[2:30:54] to be engineered. It would typically want to provide an all-weather surface where typically
[2:30:59] looking at probably four to six inches of a base course type surface, crowning the surface
[2:31:05] of obviously works better in a rainy situations. A lot of these paths, cross, arroyos that
[2:31:13] would typically in an almost situation require covert crossings. I don't know about specifically
[2:31:20] the access that they're trying to get for these two properties. So is that law? Yes, it is.
[2:31:28] Okay, it's a difficult situation, commissioner, because the reality is that the commission
[2:31:34] is taking some proactive steps to try to both mitigate the situation that we already have
[2:31:40] at Partito Mesa, as well as to improve at least on a humanitarian level the lives of the people
[2:31:45] that reside there. One of the things that the commission approved was to create a position
[2:31:49] which is held by Michael Gallegos, I believe, this time, and it really does
[2:31:55] several things. One, it's somewhat of a liaison between the county and the
[2:31:58] residents of Partito Mesa. In addition to that, one of the big things, one of
[2:32:03] the things that I absolutely advocated for was to get the residents of
[2:32:08] Partito Mesa a path forward to be able to at least get their their domiciles or
[2:32:14] homes within specifications that would create safety and improve the welfare.
[2:32:21] So that means that you wouldn't have electrical components that were out of compliance.
[2:32:25] So we're caught between a place where we want people to come in for permits.
[2:32:31] We want to get to a place where people can meet the conditions on a safety level when they
[2:32:36] apply for those permits and at the same time, not discourage that.
[2:32:41] Because we don't want, by the way, to make sure to continue to be the wild wild West, we want people to get their homes in a safe condition, to get their homes permitted.
[2:32:51] But if we create such a burden that that's not going to happen, that's not good. On the other hand, I don't think we should be enhancing our creating more homes there.
[2:33:00] I'll just be very frank with you.
[2:33:02] So we need to weigh those two things.
[2:33:06] Because right now, the county has approved two of the existing homes.
[2:33:12] And I think that's a good step forward.
[2:33:15] I agree with the county and this is just my opinion.
[2:33:17] We're not taking a vote that the medical hardship should be denied.
[2:33:21] So I would not approve that.
[2:33:23] But I would extend the time out.
[2:33:27] A very, somewhat lengthy time out to get people to be able to get to get those rights
[2:33:35] away permitted or approved by the neighbors, but to try to build this standard, while if we're
[2:33:42] going to have to stick to that law, then Randy, the questions for you, how far can we put
[2:33:46] it out?
[2:33:47] Right now, the county is saying six months, I believe, six months to a year.
[2:33:51] How far can this commission put it out even if it elects to can we make it 24 months can we make it 36 can we make it 48
[2:33:58] Can we make it five years?
[2:34:00] What is it that we can do?
[2:34:06] Mr. Vice Chair. The the problem is is in a typical zoning code situation
[2:34:12] We're trying to apply the zoning code conditional use process to a very
[2:34:18] Typical situation absolutely normally. It's a six-month it's a six-month period because you want someone to come
[2:34:25] These are conditions that should be precedent to it existing, so the zoning code calls out six months
[2:34:32] the Board of Appeals extended it to a year and so the, I think that is in recognition of the unique circumstances.
[2:34:45] So the, if you are following the zoning code conditionally use process, that's all that's there is six months.
[2:34:53] There's nothing, there's not a waiver process for that that is before you tonight, but it's already been extended to one year by the board of appeals because of these issues that you're dealing with.
[2:35:08] So are you saying that we can't extend it, and there's no time behind that?
[2:35:11] If you extend that, if you extend it to to recognize this unique situation, it is unique.
[2:35:20] It's not going to be, it's not going to be precedent for anything else because this is a very unique situation, but there's no.
[2:35:27] There's no we extended it.
[2:35:28] You may. You can extend it.
[2:35:29] It isn't called for in the zoning code, but I think he was the Commission tonight given these circumstances.
[2:35:35] have the authority to extend that, and then I think you and we have to come back to this
[2:35:41] issue and cope with it.
[2:35:43] Okay.
[2:35:44] I would like to move some of these items.
[2:35:47] I believe we have to move them one at a time.
[2:35:49] Is that correct?
[2:35:53] Mr. Chair, I just wanted to alert you to the conditions of approval, and I had to do this
[2:36:01] with the VA as well, that if you do decide to extend the time period, there is also a
[2:36:08] condition number three, which I had limited the approval to a five-year period. The B.A. had
[2:36:16] changed that to a one-year period. I'm talking about the roadways. I understand that. But I'm
[2:36:21] talking about the approval itself. So, just as long as they coincide, just as long as one doesn't
[2:36:29] expire before the other that they work together is all I'm wanting to alert you to. Randy, can we
[2:36:35] We use language such as, we are extending it, say, 24 months with a review after that.
[2:36:45] So that if we needed to extend it again, we could extend it again.
[2:36:53] Thank you.
[2:36:56] Okay.
[2:36:56] Okay.
[2:36:57] It's a very great note.
[2:36:59] No.
[2:37:03] Please sit down.
[2:37:05] Okay.
[2:37:07] So, I would like staff to come up and let's go through them one at a time.
[2:37:11] And I will move each one and see what the Commission says.
[2:37:26] Mr. Chair, my recommendation would be based.
[2:37:30] 18,0007, the V8,014,00029, which is the conditional use to allow mobile home for a 3-year period,
[2:37:40] in addition to a single-foundly dwelling for a medical hardship.
[2:37:44] I move that the appeal VD9, because the appeal it makes an effort to try to get that approved,
[2:37:53] So, I move that that appeal BD9, do we have a second, we have a motion a second, all in favor say aye.
[2:38:02] Opposed, motion carries enough.
[2:38:11] The next item would be CO-20408, B-20406, C-20406, C-82030, and this is a conditional use to allow a mobile
[2:38:32] home to be used as a single family dwelling.
[2:38:37] Reiterate the appeal to me so that I can make sure and try to move it appropriate.
[2:38:41] The appeal was the Board of Adjustments decision and upholding the zoning administrators
[2:38:48] conditions of approval, including legal access and conjunction with the conditional use
[2:38:53] approval.
[2:38:54] So with that approval, there were nine findings and eight conditions.
[2:39:05] Condition number three, I apologize, condition number two, gave the appellance a 12-month period in regards to the legal and acceptable vehicle or active.
[2:39:16] And condition number three, modified the five-year limitation to a one-year limitation.
[2:39:23] Randy, I'm going to need a little help with this.
[2:39:26] I want to uphold the appeal in so much as we can extend the time so that the appellants
[2:39:35] are not having to worry about the road for a little while and give them ample time to work
[2:39:39] through that process and gives us time to if we need to change the law a little bit,
[2:39:45] gives us some time to do that because being that partito is, and somewhat of an exception
[2:39:51] to our typical process, we may need to have some flexibility.
[2:39:55] So I would like to give them at least 24 months with the ability to revisit an extended
[2:40:01] necessary.
[2:40:08] Mr. Vice Chair, I believe the motion and I want you to please help me with this, but the
[2:40:13] motion would be to allow to grant the appeal and allow the conditional use to exist for
[2:40:21] 24 months, while the access is being sought, and it will be run for that 24 months, that
[2:40:33] the whole conditional use will run for the 24 months, then they're going to have to seek
[2:40:36] re-approval.
[2:40:39] And are you trying to say something here?
[2:40:44] Mr. Chair, the action that was taken by the B.A., specifies that the granted the appeal
[2:40:50] part, thereby modifying the zoning administrators conditions of approval 2 and 3 in order to allow the applicant additional time to fulfill the legal access requirements.
[2:41:03] Now, if you are wanting to extend that time limit to 24 months and have them return, we could just modify condition number 2 to read 24 months instead of 12 months.
[2:41:16] and modify condition number three to limit it to a 24- to a two-year period.
[2:41:22] Then, commissioners, that is what I move.
[2:41:25] I'm not going to restate it.
[2:41:26] I'll probably restate it wrong, but my understanding is that we will grant the appeal in part,
[2:41:33] providing with the extensive for 24 months, which allows the appellant to revisit with us,
[2:41:38] so that we can decide whether we to extend it again, is that correct?
[2:41:43] Mr. Chair, that is correct.
[2:41:45] Mr. Chair, that is my motion.
[2:41:47] Commissioner Hartstead.
[2:41:48] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[2:41:50] Just clarification if we grant the appeal, does that disallow the special use?
[2:41:58] Mr. Chair, Commissioner Hartstead.
[2:42:00] If we grant the appeal in part, that it's just modifying the decision itself
[2:42:06] to deny the conditional use altogether.
[2:42:10] Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. With that, I will second your motion.
[2:42:14] Thank you. We have a motion a second. All in favor say aye.
[2:42:18] Post, motion carries an answer. Thank you.
[2:42:20] Okay, so that was for
[2:42:25] CO 2014-008.
[2:42:29] And now we are at CO 2014-0009 B8 2014-0005 VA 2014-0032.
[2:42:42] And the recommendation would be the same to approve in part.
[2:42:49] Let me get that language.
[2:43:00] So that would be grant the appeal in part, thereby modifying the zoning administrators
[2:43:04] conditions of approval 2 and 3 in order to allow the applicant additional time to
[2:43:11] field the legal access requirements, and that would also affect condition number 2, which
[2:43:19] would be modified from 12 months to 24 months for the requirement for legal and acceptable
[2:43:25] vehicular access, and then also condition number 3, which would limit the approval period
[2:43:31] to 2 years.
[2:43:34] With the ability to revisit?
[2:43:37] Yes.
[2:43:37] So I move the same as the last motion.
[2:43:41] Do I have a second?
[2:43:43] We have a motion.
[2:43:44] A second?
[2:43:44] I can Mr. Talbert.
[2:43:46] Thank you.
[2:43:47] I just want to clarify.
[2:43:50] I want to make sure we're staff that you're comfortable with.
[2:43:56] That what we are proposing, but this motion proposes is within our ordinance.
[2:44:02] Mr. Vice Chair.
[2:44:03] Commissioner Hart Stevens, I'm not comfortable at all.
[2:44:06] I just think it's the best solution that we can come up with under these particular circumstances.
[2:44:12] I think we should revisit our ordinances, and we have to revisit that Mesa.
[2:44:19] But I do recommend approval.
[2:44:24] All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[2:44:25] Thank you, Commissioner.
[2:44:26] We have a motion in the second, all in favor say aye.
[2:44:29] Opposed, motion carries unanimously.
[2:44:31] Thank you very much.
[2:44:33] That concludes our hearing this evening. I will say to the folks that are here from Partito Mesa
[2:44:37] that you're absolutely correct that you are in a unique situation and we need to find a way
[2:44:42] to may not be exactly what you want but I believe that we can find a way. Thank you very much.
[2:45:00] Our next meeting will be on Tuesday, November 18, 2014. It will be a zoning meeting at 2 o'clock in
[2:45:05] these chambers of incidentally grago chambers. Thank you very much. This concludes the meeting. We are adjourned.