Administrative Review Board

A G E N D A Administrative Review Board City Council Chambers 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, NM February 3, 2022 - 6:00 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order 2. Approval of the Agenda 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes from January 6, 2022 4. Annual election of Chair and Vice Chair 5. Petition ARB 21-79 – Continuing discussion regarding a request from Joe & Stan LLC for a variance to Section 2.8 of the Unified Development Code (UD) to reduce the 25-foot front setback to 20 feet. This item was tabled by the Board at the January 6, 2022 meeting. Located at 1021 Winter Park 6. Petition No. ARB 22- 01 - a request from Brad Gordon for a variance to the 300 foot distance requirement from a religious institution for a cannabis retail facility. Located at 3000 20th St., Ste. D2 7. Business from: Floor: Chairman: Members: Staff: 8. Adjournment Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82540314029 or by dialing 1 (253) 215-8782 Meeting ID: 825 4031 4029 Passcode: 192357 ALL DECISIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD ARE FINAL UNLESS APPEALED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK‘S OFFICE WITHIN 15 DAYS. ATTENTION PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES: The meeting room and facilities are fully accessible to persons with mobility disabilities. If you plan to attend a meeting and need an auxiliary aid or service, please contact the City Clerk's office at 599-1101 or 599-1106, prior to the meeting so arrangements can be made.  Minutes Administrative Review Board January 6, 2022 The Administrative Review Board met in regular session on Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 6:05 p.m. in the Executive Conference Room, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico. Members Present: Chair James Dennis Shorty Rogers Carl Winters Members Absent: Vice Chair Brian Erickson Staff Present: Beth Escobar Tami Spencer Andrea Jones Russel Frost Mike Safrany (Via Zoom) Others Addressing the Board: Jason Valdez Brad Gordon Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:05 p.m. by Chair James Dennis and there being a quorum present the following proceedings were duly had and taken. Approval of the Agenda A motion was made by Board Member Winters and seconded by Chair James Dennis to approve the agenda. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 3-0. Approval of the Minutes from the November 4, 2021 Regular Meetings Board Member Winters made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 7, 2021 regular meeting with noted changes. The motion was seconded by Chair Dennis and passed unanimously by a vote of 3-0. Swearing in of Witnesses Tami Spencer, Administrative Assistant swore in all parties that wished to speak. ____________________________________________________________________________ Russel Frost, Deputy City Attorney, presented the following: Administrative Review Board Jurisdiction and Guidelines Authority • UDC 7.4.4 – ARB shall act primarily as a fact-finding and adjudicative board. ARB shall have the following powers and duties: 1  • A. Appeals from administrative decisions. (decisions made by administrators and enforcement of UDC, under article 8 of UDC) • B. Variances. (pursuant to Sec. 8.12) • C. Floodplain appeals. (variances from section 5.6) UDC 8.12.1 Variances The ARB shall be authorized to grant a variance from the terms hereof if they find: • 1. that the strict enforcement of this UDC would create a substantial hardship to the applicant a. by virtue of unique special conditions not generally found within the vicinity, and b. that the granting of the variance would preserve the spirit and intent of the UDC, • 2. and would serve the general interests of the public and the applicant. Variances may be granted only when in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this UDC so that public health, safety, and welfare may be secured and substantial justice done. 8.12.3 – Variance Process • Public notice given; • Compliance with 8.12.4 is reviewed by director; Director prepares report; and Director schedules a public hearing. • Application and report shall be reviewed by the ARB at public hearing. The recommendation of the ARB shall be “based on the application’s compliance with 8.12.4”. 8.12.4 Variance criteria; Required Findings • A variance may be granted only where a literal enforcement of the Code provisions would result in unnecessary hardship for a particular property. • In order to grant a variance, the ARB must make a positive finding of fact concerning each of the following (see next 7 slide for factors) or, • if a positive finding of fact cannot be made that the ARB specifically describes the circumstance that would outweigh the strict requirement for a positive finding of fact and determine that the variance will not be a public detriment: 7 factors that must be satisfied to grant a variance:8.12.4 (A) (1) • special conditions/circumstances exist, which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district; • AND; • furthermore, that they are not self-imposed, self-created or otherwise the result of actions by the applicant; 7 factors that must be satisfied to grant a variance:8.12.4 (A) (2) • a literal interpretation of the Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district; • AND; • under the same terms of the Code; 7 factors that must be satisfied to grant a variance:8.12.4 (A) (3) • The applicant demonstrates that the request is a minimum easing of the Code requirements, making possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure; 2 7 factors that must be satisfied to grant a variance:8.12.4 (A) (4) • That the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general interest, the general purpose and intent of the Code, • AND; • is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; 7 factors that must be satisfied to grant a variance:8.12.4 (A) (5) • That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying district; • (in other words – the variance will not provide a use or variance which has been denied to other applicants.) 7 factors that must be satisfied to grant a variance:8.12.4 (A) (6) • That no nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district and no permitted use of lands, structures or buildings in other districts has been or shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance; • (in other words) the variance is not granted because the variance is found in other areas or districts) 7 factors that must be satisfied to grant a variance:8.12.4 (A) (7) • That the applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance requested were denied. 3 situations where an application MUST be denied: 8.12.4 (B) 1- 3 • (1) - The establishment of a use not otherwise permitted in the applicable zoning district; • (2) - An increase in the density of a use in excess of the density permitted by the applicable district; or • (3) - A change in the zoning district boundaries shown on the official zoning map. 8.13. Variances granted without a hearing • The Code allows for “Administrative Adjustments” – up to a maximum of 10 percent. (these adjustments are called minor variances) 8.13.1 • Minor variances may be granted by director for any numerical standard related to: height, bulk, setback, or other site plan related standards. 8.13.2 • A number of factors go into granting a variance based on an administrative adjustment: such as consistent land use; affect on adjacent land owners; effects of the use in the immediate vicinity based on lack of buffering, screening, setbacks, and other land use considerations. 8.13.4 (A & B) • Administrative adjustments must also be generally consistent with the purpose and intent of the UDC and not granted due to economic hardships. 8.13.4 (C & D) 8.12.5 - applicant’s options after denial: • Appeals of any final decision regarding a variance shall be made to the city council within 15 days of the decision in accordance with section 8.16, appeals of ARB decisions. Non Conforming Use – 9.1 • Don’t be concerned with non – conforming uses. 9.1.1 in general if a non – conforming use comes before the board, then the status is lost. • Important things to know: non-conforming use may not be enlarged, extended, or substituted. (9.2.1) 3  • However, reasonable repairs and alterations are permissible in accordance with the provisions of 9.3.2. • If a use is destroyed (ie fire, elements, or other cause) it can and must be rebuilt in conformance with the UDC. Chair Dennis thanked Deputy City Attorney Frost for this refresher and stated it is very helpful for the new board members to hear this presentation. Petition ARB 21-79 – 1021 Winter Park Beth Escobar, Planning Manager, presented the following: Variance Request • The Petitioner is Joe & Stan, LLC - property owners and developers • Zoning is SF-7 – Single family residential • Request is for reduction of the required 25-foot front setback to 20 feet to allow for construction of a new residence with a viable backyard. • The subject property is Lot 1 of the Four Seasons Estates Subdivision Applicable Code • City of Farmington Unified Development Code Section 2.8 Density and dimensional standards provides the following setbacks for the SF:7 Zoning District: Front Setback 25 Feet Interior Side Setback 8 Feet – The interior side setback may be reduced to 5 feet for a single-story home Rear 15 feet 4  Vicinity/Zoning Map Subject property is 460.70 feet long but only 76.85 feet wide at the eastern end. Four Seasons Estates Subdivision 5  Lot 1 Aerial View 6  Adjoining Property • 1025 Winter Park, residence directly to the east of subject property. This home is 32-feet wide and has a 25-foot front setback. Variance Criteria • A variance may be granted only where a literal enforcement of the Code provisions would result in unnecessary hardship for a particular property. In order to grant a variance, the Administrative Review Board (ARB) must make a positive finding of fact concerning each of the following or, if a positive finding of fact cannot be made that the ARB specifically describes the circumstance that would outweigh the strict requirement for a positive finding of fact and determine that the variance will not be a public detriment: Staff Analysis 1. That special conditions and circumstances exist, which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district; and, furthermore, that they are not self-imposed, self-created or otherwise the result of actions by the applicant. 7 The subject property does have unique characteristics, including the unusual shape and a font and rear 10-foot utility easement. Lot 1 was platted as a single-family residential lot, with the encumbrances as noted. The plat was recorded in 2002. The housing market and housing preferences were different at this time. Even though the conditions may have been self-imposed through the plat, in the current housing market they make the lot unviable for development. This criterion IS met. 2. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Code. A literal interpretation of the code would make placement of a single-family residence very challenging and may result in a home not compatible with the rest of the residences in the neighborhood. This criterion IS met. 3. The applicant demonstrates that the request is a minimum easing of the Code requirements, making possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. This request is a minimum easing of the Unified Development Code and would allow the property owner to construct a new home on the site. This criterion IS met. 4. That the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general interest, the general purpose and intent of the Code, and is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The proposed variance is not injurious to the neighborhood. This criterion IS met. 5. That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying district. Granting of this variance would not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the SF-7 Single Family Residential Zoning District. This criterion IS met. 6. That no nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district and no permitted use of lands, structures or buildings in other districts has been or shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. No nonconforming uses, structures or buildings in the same district have been considered as grounds for this variance request. This criterion IS met. 8 7. That the applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance requested were denied. The property owner may not be able to construct and sell a new home on this lot if the variance was denied. This criterion IS met. Public Input Letters were sent out to 13 surrounding property owners within 100 feet. NAME1 ADDRESS CITYSTATEZIP ARC DGFMTNM001 LLC ATTN RYAN LLC PO BOX 460369 HOUSTON, TX 77056 FARMINGTON, NM BLUEHOUSE AARON AND YANABAH B 1020 WINTER PARK 87401-0000 CROWLEY SARAH LYNN PO BOX 1295 CORTEZ, CO 81324 GARCIA FERNANDO AND HARVEY FARMINGTON, NM VANESSA 1012 WINTER PARK 87401 GILMORE FREDERICK F AND WILMA A 4601 RANCHO DE FARMINGTON, NM TRUST ANIMAS DR 87402 GILMORE WILMA A AND FREDRICK F 15117 W CAMINO SURPRISE, AZ TRUST ESTRELLA DR 85374 FARMINGTON, NM JOE AND STAN LLC PO BOX 629 87499 JOE SAMANTHA AND HENDERSON FARMINGTON, NM BRANDON ETAL 1029 WINTER PARK 87401 FARMINGTON, NM KYLE RICKIE L 1008 WINTER PARK 874010000 FARMINGTON, NM MAGI WAYNE 1016 WINTER PARK 87401 FARMINGTON, NM RAMIREZ RAFAEL C AND SHANTLE D 1000 WINTER PARK 87401-0000 FARMINGTON, NM RODRIGUEZ CELIA 1004 WINTER PARK 87401 FARMINGTON, NM YARD PHILIP S AND DONNA L 1024 WINTER PARK 87401-0000 9 Recommendation The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition ARB 21-79 from Joe & Stan LLC., for a variance from Section 2.8 of the City of Farmington Unified Development Code to allow for a reduction of the required front setback of 25 feet to 20 feet to allow for construction of a new single-family residence with the following conditions: 1. All undeveloped area of the lot shall be landscaped or hardscaped. 2. The eastern side setback shall be 8 feet to counter balance the reduction in front yard setback. Discussion: Chair Dennis asked Planning Manager Escobar for clarification regarding placing the house five feet closer to the front of the lot to give more space for a backyard. Planning Manager Escobar answered that is correct. He also asked about the lots behind it. Ms. Escobar let him know that both spaces are zoned for industrial use, one lot is undeveloped, and the lot next to that has a warehouse on it. Chair Dennis also asked if the riprap on the back of the lot is it sloping down and that the industrial property is above that. Planning Manager Escobar answered yes, the riprap serves as detention for storm water. Chair Dennis stated, he understands the limits of the lot and supposes the lot could have been included in the original plat with the other lots, realizing it was going to be a challenging lot. Board Member Winters asked Planning Manager Escobar if the riprap was part of the industrial construction. Planning Manager Escobar responded the riprap should be in the ten-foot southern drainage easement. Mr. Winters added the riprap is a huge encumbrance on that property and the neighbors as well. Ms. Escobar stated yes it is, but it was required for the subdivision to meet the drainage requirements. Chair Dennis asked if that lot was considered a retention pond. Planning Manager Escobar answered no the riprap is slowing down the drainage and directing it to the street. Board Member Winters stated the staff recommendation is to increase the side setback by three feet. Does that make it more difficult to put a structure on this lot? Planning Manager Escobar explained she did not think it would be that big of an encumbrance because they could follow the angle of the riprap. Ms. Escobar also stated that the petitioner is not present and she does not know how they feel about the requirements. She also let Board Member Winters know that this is just a recommendation and if he feels that it is creating a problem she would have no objection getting rid of that. Board Member Winters asked Planning Manager Escobar what was the concern from the neighbor that she heard from. Planning Manager Escobar stated their house is currently on the market and they were concerned as to what might go there. She explained that the same contractor that built their house wanted to put a house there; she thinks they felt a little better about that after the discussion. Board Member Winters stated he is curious as to what kind of structure would be put on that lot considering the limitations to it. Planning Manager Escobar answered that if you look at the house to the east, it’s long and narrow unlike many of the other homes in the subdivision which are wide with deep garages, so she is assuming they would mimic it after the house next door. 10 Board Member Winters wondered if that would even fit on the lot. Planning Manager Escobar stated she thinks it would fit. She took the image of the neighbor’s house and placed it on the lot and it would fit. Chair Dennis asked Planning Manager Escobar why they are asking for this 5 foot now. Planning Manager Escobar answered they do not want to end up with a non-backyard; they want to have some sort of outdoor living space. Chair Dennis asked who is requesting this. Ms. Escobar stated it is Joe & Stan LLC; they are also the developers of Little Creek Subdivision. Chair Dennis also stated maybe they do not get a backyard; maybe they get a side yard instead, there is space to the west that they could turn into outdoor living space. Chair Dennis also stated it is a challenging lot and he did not think it was platted correctly. Board Member Winters agrees with Chair Dennis and that the lot should have never been approved for a single-family residential home. Chair Dennis stated he would like to see a proposed design for the layout of the home on that lot. Board Member Winters stated how the concept of homes has changed over the years and how they tend to get bigger, but the opposite is also now happening where tiny homes have become the thing. Mr. Winters asked Planning Manager Escobar if a tiny home could be put on that lot. Planning Manager Escobar answered certainly, our minimum square footage for a home is 150 square feet, as long as you can meet building code with your accesses and have a kitchen area. Ms. Escobar asked the Board to consider weather putting a tiny home here is compatible with the rest of the subdivision. Chair Dennis stated no, he did not think so; you would want to build a house that is line with the rest of the houses in the subdivision. He also stated he does not know what is feasible on this piece of property. Planning Manager Escobar let the board know they do have the option to table this discussion until the February 3 meeting when they can get a drawing of the layout. Board Member Winters added that he does not see the typical regular rectangular fitting on that lot, Mr. Dennis agrees. Mr. Winters states he does not see a backyard, he sees a backyard of riprap. Mr. Winters would like to have the petitioner/developer available to answer questions. Chair Dennis call for a motion to table this discussion. Motion: Board Member Winters made a motion to table petition ARB 21-79 until the next regular scheduled board meeting with petitions on the agenda. Chair Dennis seconded the motion. . The motion passed unanimously 3-0. AYE: Chair Dennis, Board Member Winters, and Board Member Rogers, NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None APPROVED 3-0 11 Variance Request • The petitioner is Jason Valdez, potential tenant • Location: 4339 E Main • Request: Waiver of the 300-foot distance requirement from a retail cannabis establishment to a religious establishment Applicable Code City of Farmington Unified Development Code Section 2.4.41 Recreational cannabis sales: Retailers of recreational cannabis shall be licensed by the New Mexico Cannabis Control Division. Retail sales are permitted in the CB: Central Business, GC: General Commercial and I: Industrial Zoning Districts only. Such uses shall not be permitted within 300 feet of any school (public and private), religious institution, registered daycare center from another dispensary. Distance is measured by a straight line from the closest property line of the retail business to the closest property line of a religious institution, school, registered daycare or dispensary. (NMSA Chapter 60-6b-10) Zoning Map 12  Aerial View Street View Subject property 13  Staff Analysis 1. That special conditions and circumstances exist, which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district; and, furthermore, that they are not self-imposed, self-created or otherwise the result of actions by the applicant. The extended driveway for the religious institution could be classified as a special condition. The driveway intersection with Main Street is approximately 1,300 linear feet from the church parking lot. This criterion IS met. 2. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Code. A literal interpretation of the code would prohibit a retail cannabis facility from being located at 4339 E Main. This criterion IS met. 3. The applicant demonstrates that the request is a minimum easing of the Code requirements, making possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. Considering the realities of the distances, the buffer provided by the 100-foot Main Street right- of-way and the location of the religious institution being over 700 feet from the subject property, this request is a minimum easing of the Unified Development Code and would allow the property owner to have a retail cannabis sales store on the subject property. This criterion IS met. 4. That the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general interest, the general purpose and intent of the Code, and is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The proposed variance is not injurious to the neighborhood. The location is surrounded by commercial businesses and is on Farmington’s main commercial corridor. This criterion IS met. 5. That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying district. Granting of this variance would not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the GC: General Commercial Zoning District. This criterion IS met. 6. That no nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district and no permitted use of lands, structures or buildings in other districts has been or shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. 14  No nonconforming uses, structures or buildings in the same district have been considered as grounds for this variance request. This criterion IS met. 6. That the applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance requested were denied. The applicant would be prevented from opening a retail cannabis facility at the location of the subject property. The property owner would lose a potential tenant. This criterion IS met. Assistant City Attorney Comments • I oppose this variance. There is no proposed reason to grant the variance. The applicant has not stated why there is a hardship, or why this exception is particular to the Applicant. The Applicant has not addressed the fact there is another cannabis facility located in this area. I think granting the application sets a bad precedence for evaluating applications in the future. Public Notice • Letters were sent to eleven surrounding property owners. At the time of this report, no public input has been received. Staff Recommendation The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition ARB 21-80 from Jason Valdez for a variance from Section 2.4.41 of the City of Farmington Unified Development Code to allow for a waiver of the 300-foot distance requirement from a retail cannabis facility to a religious institution. 15 Discussion: Chair Dennis stated that the church has a long driveway that puts their property close to this facility. Planning Manager Escobar responded, yes and that Mr. Valdez has submitted a letter of support from a neighboring commercial property owner. Board Member Winters asked Planning Manager Escobar if she had any comments from anyone else. Planning Manager Escobar answers no, she has not received any public comments. Mr. Winters asked including the church. Mr. Escobar stated that was correct, but we do have a Member from the public that would like to speak. Petitioner Jason Valdez (3109 N. Mesa Verde) presented the following: Outline Intro Variance request - . We feel the church driveway is preventing us from “utilizing the property in a manner consistent with other similar-zoned properties in the area” Who will suffer the unnecessary hardship? 1. The current building owner. (loss of rents) 2. Lyndsie and Jason Valdez (possible risk of market saturation) 3. City of Farmington (tax revenue) Introduction Jason Valdez Born and raised in Farmington, NM FHS Graduate Bachelors in Business from University of New Mexico San Juan Pilot Development Program – Farmington, NM Airline pilot for 10 years Sierra Oilfield Services 1984 to present President of Sierra Oilfield Services Farmington, NM 2001- Present Lyndsie Valdez Raised in Farmington, NM FHS graduate Attended San Juan College Owner of Zia Delivery and Courier Services Real Estate Agent RE/MAX of Farmington Owner/Manager of 23 investment properties Variance Requested We are requesting a variance based on the driveway of the church. We are asking the driveway be excluded from the property line. 16 Property Line to Property Line 17 Distance from the church to Foutz Properties Legal 18 Possible Legal Scenario 19  Distance from the Church to Ultra Health Distance from the Church to Sears Church property line to the Mall property line 20  Similar Industry Hardship Cannabis is not legal on a federal level. $$$$$ - Banks will not lend money for any cannabis related businesses. We cannot get any type of loan to build our own storefront or grow facilities. Our only option at this current time is to lease a storefront. 21 Difficulties of Leasing a Storefront Good locations of storefronts are difficult to find. Cannabis rules – distance from schools, daycare, and churches Landlord disapproval 4339 E. Main St. Farmington, NM, Why this property? Landlord approval Owned by family Member This property has been vacant for 2 years. Location! Location! Location! Targeted clientele are already visiting the store next door How is this a hardship? We feel that if we don’t get this variance we’ll be delayed in trying to find another suitable location. We run the risk of the market being saturated by the time we find another building to lease. More than likely, by big business. Mom and Pop vs. Big Corporations New Mexico Cannabis Control Division prefers local New Mexicans to benefit from this new industry. Why does this matter????? Retain more tax dollars to Farmington. Profits from Big Corp vs. Mom and Pop. Sierra Oilfield Services Sierra Oilfield is a small mom and pop business that has been in operation for over 35 years. We purchase goods and materials as locally as we can. A to Z is an independent locally owned tire shop on San Juan Boulevard. Sierra has been doing business there for years. We can find tires cheaper, buy they’re from big business. 22  Vacation Rentals We furnished 3 houses this year. All furniture bought from Freight Direct in Farmington, NM Freight Direct is an independent locally owned business 23  Donations and Community Involvement Donations to local sports teams F.A.S.T – Farmington Area Single Track is building a bike park on College Blvd and 30th St. $25,000.00 donation from Sierra Oilfield Services last year Why does community involvement and donations matter? Mom and Pop businesses will contribute more money to San Juan County. Who Suffers the Hardship? We do as business owners in trying to find another location. The landlord of the building. The city of Farmington. Loss of tax revenue. 24  Letter of Support Discussion: Board Member Winters stated that Deputy City Attorney Russel Frost talked about self-imposed hardships earlier in his presentation, and when you, Mr. Valdez selected that location you knew about the 300-foot distance but you did not understand how it was defined. Mr. Valdez responded that was correct, he did not know it was property line to property line, and he thought the church’s driveway was an easement to get to the church. Mr. Valdez also stated that he measured from building to building; it was 700 feet so he thought he was good and did not worry about it. Mr. Winters told Mr. Valdez that he had done some of his homework, but not all of it, and he stated now you come to the Board asking us to excuse you from not doing that. Mr. Valdez stated that it is not fair because there is already a medical cannabis facility operating that is the same distance from the church. Board Member Winters stated that fair is in the eye of the beholder. 25 Board Member Winters asked Planning Manager Escobar if this was an ordinance or a UDC issue. Planning Manager Escobar stated that it was an ordinance to adopt changes to the UDC, which was adopted in October. Board Member Winters asked Ms. Escobar if this ordinance mimics the State liquor license requirements. Ms. Escobar stated that is correct, but she wanted to point out that it doesn’t state that specifically in the ordinance, so anyone that wasn’t aware of the liquor license interpretation could have made the same mistake. Planning Manager Escobar also stated for cannabis the State has decided to push all the regulation to the individual municipalities. Chair Dennis asked Planning Manager Escobar if the City crafted the 300-foot rule, Planning Manager Escobar replied yes. Mr. Valdez stated that because this is a new industry, these rules are changing by the day. Mr. Valdez also stated that they have had this location mapped out for a year, and then these rules come in after the fact and that is not only the 300-foot distance requirement, but so many different rules are coming in after the fact. The situation changes based on the rules that the State is making as they go. Planning Manager Escobar explained the difference between public road, public right of way and easements and what is excluded in the measuring of the 300-feet. Ms. Escobar thinks we need to look at the way we are interpreting these distances and she thinks this particular portion of the new cannabis act needs to be examined. Chair Dennis stated the City of Farmington adopted these distance regulations. Planning Manager Escobar stated that is correct, she also stated that when this discussion was in front of the City Council the distance requirement was really looked at as a way to control the number of facilities, and to make sure that the businesses are appropriately distributed throughout the City. Board Member Winters asked Planning Manager Escobar if she knows how many cannabis facilities are set to go into the City. Planning Manager Escobar answered we have received five requests for retail cannabis sales and four applications for Special Use Permits for cannabis facilities; cannabis facilities are for cultivation, manufacturing and production. Ms. Escobar also added if you were to look at the State website for permit applications, there are about 30 applications, but no permits had been issued yet. Planning Manager Escobar agreed with Mr. Valdez that this is a competitive business and many of the people she has talked to are from out of state. Board Member Winters asked Planning Manager Escobar if there are any cannabis facilities in this part of town. Planning Manager Escobar answered that there had been inquiries at 6601 E. Main St. which is approximately 1.5 miles from here, we had received an application for 928 E. Main St. which is at E. Main St. and Scott Ave., then we had a couple in the west part of town. Board Member Winters asks Planning Manager Escobar if there are any in that general area. Planning Manager Escobar answered no. Chair Dennis stated that if there are no further questions for Mr. Valdez, that we would entertain any public comment. Mr. Dennis thanked Mr. Valdez for his presentation. Mr. Valdez wanted to hit home the Mom & Pop businesses, because big business is coming. Phillip Morris is getting into this industry. Mr. Valdez wanted to keep as much tax dollars in town as possible. Chair Dennis asked again if there was anybody else, that wanted to speak. Brad Gordon, 3000 E. 20th Ste. D2 was sworn in by Tami Spencer Administrative Assistant. Mr. Gordon stated that 26 he was in the same situation as Mr. Valdez; he is currently leasing the old Domino’s property. Mr. Gordon explains that when he called to ask about the planning and zoning he was informed that because the church across the street by Dunkin Donuts, which is in the same strip mall as Ace Hardware, it is considered one property line. That puts the property line right across the street, even though his location is a thousand feet away from the church; he is too close to the church. Mr. Gordon stated he has already applied and paid for the license, and he is currently open and selling CBD products. He wanted to transfer into selling cannabis by April. Mr. Gordon stated when he applied for his license with the State, the State did not have anything about a requirement distance from churches, it only had a distance requirement from schools. Mr. Gordon also stated that it was the Farmington ordinance that added places of worship; he looked for other locations and ran into the same problem Mr. Valdez had, that these spaces are limited because property owners will not rent to you. Mr. Gordon already had permission from Peterson Properties to transfer into a cannabis store at his current location. He stated that he had everything ready to go, and submitted for his State license. However, he is in the same boat as Mr. Valdez. Mr. Valdez asked if there is another cannabis facility at this location, Mr. Gordon answered that yes, there is, it is by Dunkin Donuts, but is a medical dispensary and he thinks it is grandfathered in. Mr. Valdez asked if they would be impacted by the church. Planning Manager Escobar explained that existing medical marijuana facilities do not have legal nonconforming rights as of April 1 st. Their location is next to Dunkin Donuts, which is about thirty feet from the church, and they would not get approval for retail sales at that location without coming forward for a variance. Chair Dennis asked Mr. Gordon how far is this location from the church. Planning Manager Escobar replied they are about seven hundred feet, which is well over the three hundred feet distance requirement. Board Member Winters asked Mr. Gordon if he had heard the discussion with Mr. Valdez. Mr. Gordon answered that yes he had, but he did his due diligence with the State recommendations for a retail cannabis. Mr. Gordon also stated that there was nothing about being 300-feet from a church, which is a Farmington ordinance that was added. Mr. Gordon also wanted to let the Board know that he, his wife and family were longtime Farmington residents. Chair Dennis asked if there were any more comments and Deputy City Attorney Frost asked Planning Manager Escobar if she stated that there was a State law that did not count public streets in the distance requirement. Planning Manager Escobar answered no; the State says for liquor licenses the distance requirement is exclusive of public right of way. That is what we used to model our City ordinance after. What Mr. Valdez and Mr. Gordon were pointing out is that the State does not have a distance requirement from religious institutions that was a City of Farmington ordinance. Chair Dennis closed the public portion of the meeting and asked if there was any discussion from the board, Board Member Rogers stated that it should be building to building not property line to property line. Board Member Winters stated if you go back and look at the rational of first alcohol and now cannabis is not to have an influence on children from that product and he assumed they did the property line to property line is because of when the children walk home from school and now church. However, with the church being up on the hill, the children will not be walking by the cannabis facility. Chair Dennis did not think this is anywhere near the intent of the 300-foot distance requirement and Mr. Valdez’s presentation shows the hypocrisy of another legal cannabis location that is closer to the activity of the church. Mr. Dennis also stated if they grant this, it is such a minor bending of the code. He does not see that it is something they should deny, he would agree a minimum easing of the code meets the intent of the code and a waiver of the three hundred foot requirement. 27 A motion was made by Board Member Rogers to APPROVE Petition ARB 21-80, a request for a waiver of the 300-foot distance requirement from a retail cannabis establishment to a religious establishment. Board Member Winters seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously 3-0. AYE: Chair Dennis, Board Member Rogers and Board Member Winters NAY: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None APPROVED 3-0 Business from the Floor: There was no business from the Floor. Business from the Chair: There was no business from the Chair. Business from the Members: There was not business from the Board Members. Business from Staff: Planning Manager Escobar informed the Board that Tami Spencer is now the Board liaison and let the Board know that if they did not get a packet to check their spam box, and she wanted to thank the City Clerk Andrea Jones for being the Zoom pilot. Adjournment: A motion was made by Board Member Winters to adjourn the January 6, 2022 meeting of the Administrative Review Board, The motion was seconded by Chair Dennis. The meeting of January 6, 2022 was adjourned at 8:09 p.m. __________________________________ __________________________________ James Dennis Tami Spencer Chair Administrative Assistant 28  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD PETITION ARB 21- 79 Variance to Section 2.8 of the City of Farmington Unified Development Code to allow for a reduction of the required 25-foot front setback to 20-feet. DESCRIPTION OF PETITION Property owner is asking for a reduction of the required 25-foot setback to allow for construction of a single-family residence with a viable back yard. LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL NUMBER 208172047233 – Four Seasons Estates Phase 1 Replat of Lot 6 Otherwise located at 1021 Winter Park GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant Joe & Stan, LLC developers of Four Seasons Estates Property Owner Same Location of Property 1021 Winter Park Nature of Petition The petitioner is requesting a variance to the 25-foot required front setback to 20 feet. Applicable Regulations City of Farmington Unified Development Code Section 2.8 Density and dimensional standards provides the following setbacks for the SF:7 Zoning District: Front Setback: 25 feet Interior Side: 8 feet (the interior side setback may be reduced to 5 feet for a single-story home). Rear: 15 feet Zoning SF – 7 Single-family residential Existing Use Vacant Surrounding Zoning/ Land Use North: SF – 7: Four Seasons Estates South: IND – Industrial East: SF – 7: Four Seasons Estates West: IND – Industrial Public Notice Publication of Notice of this petition appeared in the Daily Times on Tuesday, December 21, 2021. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Friday, December 17 14, 2021. A sign was posted on the property on Tuesday, December 21, 2021. Staff Beth Escobar, Planning Manager 29  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park BACKGROUND The property owner is requesting a variance to reduce the required front setback of 25-feet in the SF:7 zoning district to 20-feet. Per the applicant, this will allow for construction of a single- family residential home on the property. The subject parcel is Lot 1 of the Four Seasons Estates Subdivision Phase 1. The lot is 460.70 feet long along the northern property line but only 76.85 wide at the eastern property boundary. The lot has a 10-foot utility easement in the front and rear. This reduces the buildable width to 56.85 feet. 30  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park Four Season Estates Subdivision Phase 1 31  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park Lot 1 32  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park Aerial View 33  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park 1025 Winter Park, residence directly to the east of subject property. This home is 32-feet wide and has a 25-foot front setback. 34  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park PETITIONER’S JUSTIFICATION FOR A VARIANCE The unique dimensions of the subject property would force construction of a very narrow house with a small back yard. REVIEWING AGENCIES COMMENTS Derrick Childers, Building Official: Proper drainage will need to be maintained around the building. INPUT FROM NEIGHBORS: Letters were sent out to 13 property owners within 100 feet. The property owner of 1008 Winter Park called with some questions. After receiving clarification regarding the variance request, he stated he is not opposed to the request. No other comments have been received at the time of this report. 35  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park CURRENT PHOTO OF PROPERTY – EAST END 36  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park PHOTO OF PROPERTY LOOKING WEST 37  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park PHOTO OF PROPERTY LOOKING EAST 38  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park ZONING MAP 39  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park STAFF ANALYSIS Variance Criteria – Section 8.12.4, UDC A variance may be granted only where a literal enforcement of the Code provisions would result in unnecessary hardship for a particular property. In order to grant a variance, the Administrative Review Board (ARB) must make a positive finding of fact concerning each of the following or, if a positive finding of fact cannot be made that the ARB specifically describes the circumstance that would outweigh the strict requirement for a positive finding of fact and determine that the variance will not be a public detriment: 1. That special conditions and circumstances exist, which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district; and, furthermore, that they are not self-imposed, self-created or otherwise the result of actions by the applicant. The subject property does have unique characteristics, including the unusual shape and a font and rear 10-foot utility easement. Lot 1 was platted as a single-family residential lot, with the encumbrances as noted. The plat was recorded in 2002. The housing market and housing preferences were different at this time. Even though the conditions may have been self-imposed through the plat, in the current housing market they make the lot unviable for development. This criterion IS met. 2. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Code. A literal interpretation of the code would make placement of a single-family residence very challenging and may result in a home not compatible with the rest of the residences in the neighborhood. This criterion IS met. 3. The applicant demonstrates that the request is a minimum easing of the Code requirements, making possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. This request is a minimum easing of the Unified Development Code and would allow the property owner to construct a new home on the site. This criterion IS met. 40  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park 4. That the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general interest, the general purpose and intent of the Code, and is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The proposed variance is not injurious to the neighborhood. This criterion IS met. 5. That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying district. Granting of this variance would not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the SF-7 Single Family Residential Zoning District. This criterion IS met. 6. That no nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district and no permitted use of lands, structures or buildings in other districts has been or shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. No nonconforming uses, structures or buildings in the same district have been considered as grounds for this variance request. This criterion IS met. 7. That the applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance requested were denied. The property owner may not be able to construct and sell a new home on this lot if the variance was denied. This criterion IS met. CONCLUSION The Community Works Department concludes that approval of ARB 21- 79 is a minimum easing of the code, meets the intent of the code and is a property that has characteristics unique enough to allow for waiver of the wall signage maximum. RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition ARB 21-79 from Joe & Stan LLC., for a variance from Section 2.8 of the City of Farmington Unified Development Code to allow for a reduction of the required front setback of 25 feet to 20 feet to allow for construction of a new single-family residence with the following conditions: 1. All undeveloped area of the lot shall be landscaped or hardscaped. 2. The eastern side setback shall be 8 feet to counter balance the reduction in front yard setback. 41  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park 42  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park 43  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park 44  ARB 21-79 Petition Report 1021 Winter Park NOTIFICATION LETTERS NAME1 ADDRESS CITYSTATEZIP ARC DGFMTNM001 LLC ATTN RYAN LLC PO BOX 460369 HOUSTON, TX 77056 FARMINGTON, NM BLUEHOUSE AARON AND YANABAH B 1020 WINTER PARK 87401-0000 CROWLEY SARAH LYNN PO BOX 1295 CORTEZ, CO 81324 FARMINGTON, NM GARCIA FERNANDO AND HARVEY VANESSA 1012 WINTER PARK 87401 FARMINGTON, NM GILMORE FREDERICK F AND WILMA A TRUST 4601 RANCHO DE ANIMAS DR 87402 15117 W CAMINO ESTRELLA GILMORE WILMA A AND FREDRICK F TRUST DR SURPRISE, AZ 85374 FARMINGTON, NM JOE AND STAN LLC PO BOX 629 87499 JOE SAMANTHA AND HENDERSON BRANDON FARMINGTON, NM ETAL 1029 WINTER PARK 87401 FARMINGTON, NM KYLE RICKIE L 1008 WINTER PARK 874010000 FARMINGTON, NM MAGI WAYNE 1016 WINTER PARK 87401 FARMINGTON, NM RAMIREZ RAFAEL C AND SHANTLE D 1000 WINTER PARK 87401-0000 FARMINGTON, NM RODRIGUEZ CELIA 1004 WINTER PARK 87401 FARMINGTON, NM YARD PHILIP S AND DONNA L 1024 WINTER PARK 87401-0000 45 46 47  ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD PETITION ARB 22- 01 Variance to Section 2.4.41 of the City of Farmington Unified Development Code to waive the 300-foot distance requirement from a retail cannabis facility to a religious institution. DESCRIPTION OF PETITION Property owner is asking for a variance from Section 2.4.41 of the Unified Development Code requiring a 300-foot distance from a religious institution to a cannabis retail facility. This distance is measured property line to property line exclusive of right-of-way. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Parcel ID – R0034912 Otherwise located at 3000 E. 20th St. Suite D2 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant Bradley Gordon, current tenant Property Owner Peterson Properties and Associates Location of Property 3000 E 20th Street, Suite D2 Nature of Petition The petitioner is requesting a variance to the required distance of 300 feet for a retail cannabis sales operation to a religious institution. Applicable Regulations City of Farmington Unified Development Code Section 2.4.41 Recreational cannabis sales: A. Retailers of recreational cannabis shall be licensed by the New Mexico Cannabis Control Division. B. Retail sales are permitted in the CB: Central Business, GC: General Commercial and I: Industrial Zoning Districts only. C. Such uses shall not be permitted within 300 feet of any school (public and private), religious institution, registered daycare center from another dispensary. Distance is measured by a straight line from the closest property line of the retail business to the closest property line of a religious institution, school, registered daycare or dispensary. (NMSA Chapter 60-6b-10) Zoning GC: General Commercial Existing Use Existing 9,800 square foot commercial building Surrounding Zoning/ Land Use North: GC: General Commercial – Hobby Lobby, Entertain-Mart, Large Commercial Mall South: GC: General Commercial – ACE Hardware, Shamrock Food Warehouse, Large Commercial Mall East: GC: General Commercial – Jimmy John’s, Small Commercial Mall West: GC: Citizens Bank, Empty Lot Public Notice Publication of Notice of this petition appeared in the Daily Times on Wednesday, January 12, 2022. Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on Wednesday, January 12, 2022. A sign was posted on the property on Friday, January 21, 2022. 48  ARB 22-01 Petition Report 3000 E 20th Street Staff Michael Safrany, Planning Manager BACKGROUND The property owner is requesting a variance to the 300-foot distance requirement from a retail cannabis facility to a religious institution. The new cannabis ordinance, No. 2021-1329, requires this 300-foot distance. The distance requirement is based on the current liquor license regulations for New Mexico. Measurement is property line to property line exclusive of right-of way. The subject property, 3000 E 20th St, is directly opposite the property line for the Cornerstone Apostolic Church at 3030 E Main St. Suite A5. Disregarding the right-of-way of 20th Street, the two properties are adjacent. Measuring the distance including 20th Street, the properties are approximately 80 feet apart. The distance from the subject property to the location of the religious institution is approximately 770 feet. 49  ARB 22-01 Petition Report 3000 E 20th Street ZONING MAP PROPOSED RETAIL LOCATION 50  ARB 22-01 Petition Report 3000 E 20th Street Aerial View 51  ARB 22-01 Petition Report 3000 E 20th Street PETITIONER’S JUSTIFICATION FOR A VARIANCE The 300 ft. restriction between property lines is preventing 3000 E Main from utilizing the property in a manner consistent with other similarly zoned properties in the area. Note: The facility at 3000 E 20th St. the petitioner refers to in his application is a medical marijuana facility that has not yet received a license for retail sales. REVIEWING AGENCIES COMMENTS Russel Frost, Deputy City Attorney: It is the opinion of Legal that this issue is squarely within the purview of the retailer who is has contracted with both tenants. Peterson Properties and Associates is creating this violation by allowing both parties to rent space. It does not seem appropriate for the City to determine the applicant is in violation of the ordinance, when the cannabis retail facility and the religious organization share the same address. A variance should be granted because it the religious organization has waived all rights to object by renting space from a retail/commercial owner has the exclusive right to select tenants the tenants who will occupy the remaining retail space. 20th Street is the major transportation thorough-fair that separates the properties. This separation by a major traffic artery would be a unique aspect of the property that is out control of the applicant. I recommend granting a variance. 52  ARB 22-01 Petition Report 3000 E 20th Street INPUT FROM NEIGHBORS: Letters were sent out to twenty-eight property owners within 100 feet. The comments below have been received at the time of this report from the property owner: I am the property manager for San Juan Associates and San Juan North Shopping Centers. Our office is in receipt of the Notice of Public Hearing Variance Request Petition No. ARB 22-01. Peterson Properties & Associates is the ownership entity of 3000 E. 20th St. Ste. D2. Mr. Brad Gordon has the owner's full cooperation and agreement to proceed with opening a cannabis retail location. San Juan Associates, LLC is the ownership entity for the San Juan Shopping Center and San Juan Village. This ownership entity also agrees fully to the opening of a cannabis retail location at the neighboring center. My understanding of the current zoning ordinance distances is that the property lines must be 300 feet away from a neighboring religious institution. I have attached both site plans with the locations of The Reef Joint and subsequent churches. With the properties being of the size and acreage that they are, the physical distance from the south property line of San Juan North to the church locations is well in excess of the 300 feet. Religious Organizations noted in Green and Cannabis location in Pink. Please let me know if you need any other documentation for the hearing. Thank you. Alicia Meiering Property Manager Peterson Properties, LLC 2325 San Pedro NE Suite 2-A Albuquerque, NM 87110 Phone: 505/884-3578 Fax: 505/884-6793 Email: alicia@petersonproperties.net www.PetersonProperties.net 53  ARB 22-01 Petition Report 3000 E 20th Street STAFF ANALYSIS Variance Criteria – Section 8.12.4, UDC A variance may be granted only where a literal enforcement of the Code provisions would result in unnecessary hardship for a particular property. In order to grant a variance, the Administrative Review Board (ARB) must make a positive finding of fact concerning each of the following or, if a positive finding of fact cannot be made that the ARB specifically describes the circumstance that would outweigh the strict requirement for a positive finding of fact and determine that the variance will not be a public detriment: 1. That special conditions and circumstances exist, which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district; and, furthermore, that they are not self-imposed, self-created or otherwise the result of actions by the applicant. The physical buildings are approximately 770 ft. away from each other with a minimum 9 retail businesses in between the two, including 5 major retail businesses. Also, the buildings are facing separate streets and are not visible from one another. Despite the actual distance, the property lines are considered within 300 ft. from each other. This criterion IS met. 2. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Code. A literal interpretation of the code would prohibit a retail cannabis facility from being located at 3000 E 20th St. despite the surrounding area being properly zoned General Commercial. This criterion IS met. 3. The applicant demonstrates that the request is a minimum easing of the Code requirements, making possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. Considering the realities of the distances, the retail buffers plus the 80 ft. right-of-way provided by 20th Street and the location of the religious institution being over 770 feet from the subject property, this request is a minimum easing of the Unified Development Code and would allow the property owner to have a retail cannabis sales store on the subject property. This criterion IS met. 54  ARB 22-01 Petition Report 3000 E 20th Street 4. That the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general interest, the general purpose and intent of the Code, and is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The proposed variance is not injurious to the neighborhood. The location is surrounded by commercial businesses and is on one of Farmington’s main commercial corridors. This criterion IS met. 5. That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying district. Granting of this variance would not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the GC: General Commercial Zoning District. This criterion IS met. 6. That no nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district and no permitted use of lands, structures or buildings in other districts has been or shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. No nonconforming uses, structures or buildings in the same district have been considered as grounds for this variance request. This criterion IS met. 7. That the applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance requested were denied. The applicant would be prevented from opening a retail cannabis facility at the location of the subject property. The property owner would lose a potential tenant. This criterion IS met. CONCLUSION The Community Works Department concludes that approval of ARB 22- 01 is a minimum easing of the code, meets the intent of the code and is a property that has characteristics unique enough to allow for waiver of the 300-foot distance requirement. RECOMMENDATION The Community Works Department recommends approval of Petition ARB 22-01 from Brad Gordon for a variance from Section 2.4.41 of the City of Farmington Unified Development Code to allow for a waiver of the 300-foot distance requirement from a retail cannabis facility to a religious institution. 55  ARB 22-01 Petition Report 3000 E 20th Street 56  ARB 22-01 Petition Report 3000 E 20th Street NOTIFICATION LETTERS Alvillar Rodolfo Jr. 2300 Kevin Cir Farmington, NM 87402 Dan & Stephanie Coneybeer 3119 E 22Nd St Farmington, NM 87499 Citizens Bankshares Inc Po Box 4140 Farmington, NM 87402 Clayton Richard 2102 N Lee Ave Farmington, NM 87402 Crowell Nolan M 2846 Sierra Dr Ne Albuquerque, NM 87110 Diaz Ruben & Maricruz 3011 E 22Nd St Farmington, NM 87402 Donahue Sharon Trust 1709 Winter Ct Farmington, NM 87401 Edgar Cory J 2200 Terence Ave Farmington, NM 87401 Foster George Darlene Trust 576 Road 6100 Kirtland, NM 87417 Four J Properties Llc 2400 N Hidden Glen St Farmington, NM 87401 Glass Ann M 3111 E 22Nd St Farmington, NM 87402 Gonzales Elizabeth 3110 E 22Nd St Farmington, NM 87402 Jefferson Roy & Charlotte 3035 E 22Nd St Farmington, NM 87402 Joe Philbert & Tina 2204 Terence Ave Farmington, NM 87402 Lewis Devin Reed 3023 E 22Nd St Farmington, NM 87402 Lewis Justin & Shannon 3100 Edgecliff Dr Farmington, NM 87402 Martinez Lorain M 3031 E 22Nd St Farmington, NM 87402 Mitchell Benson Jr Po Box 3692 Farmington, NM 87402 Peterson Properties & Assoc 2325 San Pedro Ne Ste 2A Albuquerque, NM 87110 Rl Morris Construction Llc Po Box 6767 Farmington, NM 87499 San Juan Associates Lp 2325 San Pedro Ne Ste 2A Farmington, NM 87110 Sandoval Stacy 3027 E 22Nd St Farmington, NM 87402 Sedillos Daniel B III 2302 Kevin Cir Farmington, NM 87402 Stevenson Erik & Viveros 2201 Terence Ave Farmington, NM 87401 Tamayo Pearl J 3103 E 22Nd St Farmington, NM 87402 Todacheeney Virgil & Candice 3107 E 22Nd St Farmington, NM 87401 Ukele Trisha L 2304 Kevin Cir Farmington, NM 87402 Vaisa Keshia L 3015 E 22Nd St Farmington, NM 87401 57  VARIANCE APPLICATION PROCESS City of Farmington Community Works Department 800 Municipal Drive. Phone: (505) 599-1317 Farmington, NM 87401 Fax: (505) 599-1299 Variance Process Information Before the Administrative Review Board can grant a variance from the zoning code, the Board must find sufficient evidence that state and city requirements have been satisfied. To assist the Board in this determination, please complete the application form and attached Justification of Variance page. Failure to provide the information requested may result in a continuance or denial of your request. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. When completing this form, keep in mind that a special circumstance or hardship, as referred to by law is not a self-created problem. For instance, if you enclose your garage and then want a variance to construct a carport that encroaches into the required front yard it is generally considered that the hardship is self-imposed and does not meet the standards for a variance. The fact it might cost less money to add an extension into a required setback than it would to construct the addition where it would be rightfully permitted is also not considered a hardship. Financial hardship alone is not sufficient to justify a variance. The need for a variance must arise from circumstances unique to the property. A variance may be justified when the shape of the lot, topography, or other physical features prevent the owner from utilizing the property in a manner consistent with other similarly-zoned properties in the area. Variance Application Process The following information is provided to assist applicants/property owners in the preparation and submission of an application for a zoning variance within the city of Farmington. Step 1. Identify Problem: If you have submitted plans to the Community Works Department for a building permit, and the proposed construction would violate a zoning requirement you will be notified of the points of conflict. If the plans cannot be adjusted to conform, and you believe you can justify a variance as outlined in this application, you may apply for a variance. Step 2. Complete Application: Application forms may be picked up at the Community Works Department on the second floor of the City Administration Annex Building, 805 Municipal Drive. The application must include the following items, or it will not be processed. Step 3. Public Notice of the Hearing: At least fifteen days prior to the scheduled hearing, the Community Works Department will publish a notice of the hearing in the newspaper. Owners of property within 100 feet of the site will be sent a written notice and a sign will be placed on the property to inform the public of the nature of the request and the date and time of the hearing. C:\Users\esandoval\Desktop\Variance Application Process.docC:\Users\esandoval\Desktop\Variance Variance Application - 1 Revised 01/2020 Application Process.doc 58 Step 4. Public Hearing: The Administrative Review Board meets at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 800 Municipal Drive, on the first Thursday following the first Tuesday of each month. Petitions will be heard on the first scheduled meeting approximately 20 days after the submission of a complete application package. Step 5. Attendance at Public Hearing: You or your representative must attend the Public Hearing or your application could be continued or denied. Step 6. Administrative Review Board: The Administrative Review Board is authorized under the City Code to approve or deny variances. The decision of the Board is based on whether the variance meets the required findings as prescribed by state statute and New Mexico case law. The Board may approve or deny the request or any portion thereof and may specify conditions deemed necessary to preserve the intent of the zoning code. The Board’s decision and a copy of its findings will be provided to you following the hearing. Step 7. Appeals: All appeals from decisions of the Board must be made within fifteen (15) days of the date in which the written findings and decision are filed with the secretary to the Board. Appeals must be filed in writing with the City Clerk and will be taken to the City Council for consideration. The Council will hold a public hearing and will either affirm or reverse the decision of the Board. Variance Application Checklist ❑ A $70.00 application fee to process the application is required. Checks should be made payable to the City of Farmington. ❑ Staff will notify the applicant if a list of property owners within 100 feet of the subject property is required. ❑ A reproducible map drawn to scale showing the size and shape of the property, including the following: o All existing and proposed buildings, fences, driveways and parking areas, easements, and utility locations on the property and measurements to property lines. o All buildings and driveways on adjacent lots that are within 20 feet of the property should also be indicated. o If the variance is for a free standing sign, the site plan should indicate the location of the sign, any proposed landscaping and an elevation of the sign showing height, dimensions, materials, copy and colors to be used. ❑ A completed Justification for a Variance form. Answer the seven questions requiring an affirmative finding by the Administrative Review Board in order to approve a variance. ❑ Items such as letters of support from adjoining property owners, photos, sketches and other information that supports the request should be included with the application. C:\Users\esandoval\Desktop\Variance Application Process.docC:\Users\esandoval\Desktop\Variance Variance Application - 2 Revised 01/2020 Application Process.doc 59  JUSTIFICATION OF VARIANCE A variance may be granted only where a literal enforcement of the Code provisions would result in unnecessary hardship for a particular property. In order to grant a variance, the ARB must make a positive finding of fact concerning each of the following or, if a positive finding of fact cannot be made that the ARB specifically describes the circumstance that would outweigh the strict requirement for a positive finding of fact and determine that the variance will not be a public detriment: 1. That special conditions and circumstances exist, which are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district; and; furthermore, that they are not self-imposed, self- created or otherwise the result of actions by the applicant. Special circumstances exist to the building and how the property lines are categorized. I am located at 3000 E 20th St. Ste D2 in San Juan North, (Peterson Properties and Associates). The place of worship (Cornerstone Apostolic Church) is approximately 900ft away to the south across 20th St. in another plaza, (San Juan Associates). I was informed that the two plazas were separate and owned by different entities. Because it is such a large commercial property, the property line measurements stated in the ordinance will inhibit certain businesses from having the same opportunities afforded others in the community. 2. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Code. I would not be able to enjoy the same rights of similar properties under different circumstances. A stand-alone building would only be required to be 300ft away from a place of worship. I am at least 900ft away from the place of worship and facing a different way. The church patrons would never be able to see my dispensary from their location. It would not be any type of influence on the church congregation or their children. 3. The applicant demonstrates that the request is a minimum easing of the Code requirements, making possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. There would be a minimum easing to code. The distances between locations well exceed the city code and also State Law regarding Cannabis licensing. The code should take into account the differences in commercial shopping centers and stand-alone property line size. C:\Users\esandoval\Desktop\Variance Application Process.docC:\Users\esandoval\Desktop\Variance Variance Application - 3 Revised 01/2020 Application Process.doc 60  JUSTIFICATION OF VARIANCE 4. That the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general interest, the general purpose and intent of the Code, and is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The variance would be in harmony with the general interest and intent of the code. The intent of the code is to have a safe distance away from places of worship so as to not influence our youth. It would not be detrimental to the public welfare because of the distance between said entities. 5. That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying district. There is no other use involved with the variance accept the use intended. Retail Cannabis Shop. The variance would allow me to compete fairly with others in the underlying district. 6. That no non-conforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district and no permitted use of lands, structures or buildings in other districts has been or shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. There is no non-conforming use for this variance. I am not using any other situation from any land, structure, or building in the application for this variance. 7. That the applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance required were denied. I would suffer an unnecessary hardship because I did my due diligence in researching this property and getting permission for this industry. My location is within the code as far as building to building. The location is in a commercial shopping center which is where the city wants the retail establishments to be. The distances are within code. Without the variance, I would not be able to pursue this business in the same way as others in the Farmington area. Signature of Petitioner: Date: 01/08/2022 Attach additional sheets if necessary or use the space below. C:\Users\esandoval\Desktop\Variance Application Process.docC:\Users\esandoval\Desktop\Variance Variance Application - 4 Revised 01/2020 Application Process.doc 61