Village of Los Lunas Planning & Zoning Agendas

MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING MEETING December 5, 2012 The Village of Los Lunas Planning & Zoning Commission met in their regular session on Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 6:00 pm in the Village Council Chambers. Members present were as follows: Commissioners Phillip Jaramillo, Terry Ulibarri, Stephanie Williams, Frank Vigil & Walter Baca. Staff members present were Christina Ainsworth, Community Development Director, Diana Crowson Planning Technician, and Marie Marquez, Recording Secretary. Members of the public present were as follows: Tessa Davidson, Donna Stromei, Robert & Joan Marsh, Alan Bradley, Tom D. Stromei, Howard & Debra Curry, Victor B. Otero, Jim Rickey & Fred Sichler The Meeting was called to order by: Chairman Stephanie Williams APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman S. Williams called for a motion to approve the agenda. Commissioner T. Ulibarri made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. Commissioner P. Jaramillo seconded the motion. Everyone voted yes, motion carried. SWEARING IN OF PARTICIPANTS AGENDA ITEMS: APPEAL STROMEI - ITEM 1- APPEAL STROMEI - Chairman S. Williams introduced Item I, Appeal submitted by Ms. Tessa Davidson on behalf of Ms. Donna Stromei. The action requested of this commission is to have a public hearing and hear the decision of the Community Development Director on August 14, 2012 for Tract A-I, Land of Ernest F. Sichier, Jr., MRGD, Map 73, located at 519 Sichler Rd. SW, LLNM. The property is zoned AR. Chairman S. Williams called on Christina Ainsworth to present the item to the Planning & Zoning Commissioners.. Christina Ainsworth, Director for Community Development presented the item submitted by Ms. Donna Stromei. She said, this is an appeal to a zoning determination that was made in the Community Development Department. She gave a little bit of background before going into the specifics of the appeal. Ms. Ainsworth said, this began as a code enforcement case what is being looked as the interpretation itself and not deciding whether or not there is a violation on the property. This has been generated by complaints that were received by the department regarding violations. Some of those are still open and being resolved by code enforcement officers. Through that case, there were several communications with the appellant, there were different times when different people on staff spoke with her and tried to resolve the situation, and it resulted in an official determination being given regarding the situation that was occurring on the property. She stated in the packets, there is a copy of the letter she prepared that was in response to a request by the appellants attorney to give a final decision on whether or not the situation on that property was a violation. The subject property is 519 Sichler Road. The situation on the property is an agricultural zone, there is a farming operation on the property and what generated the complaint was farming equipment on the property, such as large vehicles, tractor trailers and various things, debris on the property and construction material on the property, and there was also a complaint regarding a business that may be operated on the property. The Code Enforcement Division did investigate and there were some that were found to be violations and some that were not, such as the operation of a business that was not part of the appeal, but Ms. Ainsworth did agree that the type of operation being complained about is not allowed. A contractor’s yard is not allowed at a residence, but an office is allowable in a home residence. Currently, there is no licensing for that, there is no record for that type of business being operated from that property. What is subject to the appeal here are with regards to large vehicles or farming equipment that are currently located on the property and construction material on the property as well. The interpretation based on the fact that it is an agricultural zone and in order to have farming related operations on that property you are going to necessitate the use of certain equipment, so in order to do your job as a farmer you need to have that equipment available. Ms. Ainsworth stated, it is my interpretation that the farming equipment that is on there, is permissible because it is in operation in which farming is conducted and those vehicles and equipment are related to that use. With regards to the construction material these were related ditch lining and those pipes are for the farming operation as well, and are also permissible because it is related to that farming operation. Those are the two things that are being appealed. The information that was provided were as follows: 1720, 010 Appeals from zoning enforcement officer and zoning commission. Appeal of any final action or decision by the zoning enforcement officer or the commission may be filed with the Village Clerk Treasurer within 30-days after the date of the determination by the zoning enforcement officer or the commission, and that was done. Ms. Ainsworth provided a letter back in August and appeal was received in a timely manner. 17.20040 Burden Approve and Appeal of Variances When an appeal is — taken to the planning commission, administrators will present the commission the order or decision appeal from the burden of presenting evidence and argument to the contrary, then shift to the opponent, who shall also have the burden of decision. The interpretation that Ms. Ainsworth made was provided to the commission that farming equipment and large vehicles related to the farming operation are permissible to be parked on a property when it relates to that farming operation on the property. Secondly, several construction materials which are also related to that farming operation are also permissible to be stored on the property for a reasonable time frame. The meeting was then turned over to the commissioners for any questions. Commissioner Frank Vigil asked, what the reasonable time frame was? Ms. Ainsworth answered that they have been in contact with the property owners and if they tell us they are going to be using it within a few months and they have a project that they’re undertaking in a mediate time frame then we will work with them. If they just have them stored there for at least a 2 V year and are not being used, then it is considered material not used within a reasonable time frame. In this case we have been told that the material is being used. Ms. Ainsworth said, I don’t know what the status is at this point, but we can have the code enforcement officer testify to that. Chairman S. Williams called on Ms. Davidson and Ms. Stromei to present their appeal. Ms Davidson requested a packet of what Ms. Ainsworth provided in support of her testimony. There were several pictures labeled as exhibits passed around to the public and posted for the commissioners to look at. Ms. Davidson told the commissioners that based on Ms. Ainsworth decision and interpretation on a zoning enforcement request made by the Stromeis. She said, in Ms. Ainsworth’s letter, she outlined the 3 issues that we’re here on appeal today and she does not agree that she cannot make a decision regarding the construction in question. She outlined those 3 issues and her letter specifically addresses those 3 issues and makes findings the fact, then she concludes of her interpretation of the law of the municipal code. I do not agree the dispute but she did not make the decision actually in Exhibit A in the commission packet, she states the village agrees that Mr. Sichler cannot operate a construction business out of his home without a home occupation permit and business license. Ms. Davidson said, we know a home occupation does not allow a construction business a construction yard nor a salvage in the AR zone. We believe that was a , , mistake in the findings and we will be prepared to offer edit on that issue today. Donna Stromei was called to the podium for questions to be asked by Ms. Davidson. Donna Stromei approached the podium, stated her name, and gave her address at 540 Don Federico. She was asked if she was the owner of this property. She said, No, my son is and he built the home for me. Exhibit B showed the home on Don Federico and the panorama view of the northside of her house and directly looking into the property that is in dispute, Mr. Sichler’s home is just to the right. Several photos were displayed which showed all the farming and construction equipment on Mr. Sichler’s property. Ms. Davidson said, prior to Ms. Stromei building her home in March of 2008 this was an active farm and now it’s being covered in salvage yard and construction area. Ms. Stomei was asked to explain how this issue came about. Ms. Stromei said, on January th 24 of this year I went in to speak to Mr. Leeder because she had concerns about all the junk and trash and things I saw coming into the property and was concerned and hoping I could get somebody to help me put a stop to it. At that point Mr. Leeder, told me Mr. Lopez, his supervisor was going to take over and handle the situation. After waiting for some time, she finally got frustrated enough that she spoke to the ex-mayor and he suggested she speak to Ms. Ainsworth. She called her and had a string of emails back and forth and was unable to get any help. At one point sometime in July a citation was issued for excessive rubbish on the property and shortly thereafter, I was notified that he had cleaned it up and were cancelling the citation. At that point it has come to my attention that Mr. Sichler was operating a construction yard out of that property. Ms. Davidson asked Ms. Stromei, if there was justification for not enforcing zoning as far as the reasonable agricultural farming equipment given to you at any time? Ms. Stromei said, well what I’ve heard reputedly is that anything that’s over there is agriculture as far as the junk and debis, I was told that one man’s trash is another’s ones treasure and I’ve been told that since everything there has to do with farming it’s all ok. Ms. Davidson also asked Ms. Stromei her about photos taken in April 2012 that are not really relevant to this decision we are appealing but they do provide history on the issue, which she considered gave right to these complaints. She introduced a photo dated April 18, 2012? Several photos were shown that her son took. Ms. Stromei said, that shortly after she was notified that the citation was issued Mr. Sichler hauled off a trailer full of rubbish and metal scraps, but no materials about materials used to build his house. Ms. Stomei was asked if she has had an opportunity to meet with Mr. Adolph Lopez to discuss this issue at any time? She said, actually her and her son came in to talk to Mr. Lopez and that’s when he said, one’s man trash is another man’s treasure. She also spoke to him on the phone two different times asking him specific questions like what does the gravel trailer have to do with the farming operation. My neighbors and I have seen the code enforcement truck over there several times. Ms. Stromei was asked by Ms. Davidson if it was her understanding that sometime in July Mr. Lopez told you there was nothing they could do with regard to the equipment that’s on the property? Ms. Stromei said, yes, that’s right. She also asked Mr. Lopez what does the water truck and a gravel trailer have to do with agriculture? At that point, he told me that he would be in touch with the Village attorney and would get back with me. She said, she has waited awhile and has heard nothing so at that point we had no choice but to get in touch with an attorney. Ms. Stromei said, all this takes away any enjoyment out of her home, and having this thing parked where it is, she feels retaliation makes her feel threatened. She just can’t enjoy her home. Ms. Stromei was also asked what , other activities lead her to believe that a construction business is being operated out of the home? Equipment comes and goes during in the first part of the summer 3-4 people would show up with their lunch boxes, get in the vehicles take off and return in the evening obviously it is a construction company. Mr. Tom Stromei was called to the podium. His address 1292 David Place, in Los Lunas. He is the legal owner of the property. They asked him if he was also involved in communicating with the Village Staff over the last year? He said, yes, He was asked what he did? He said, he searched the PRC Webs ite and found that there was a record of Sichler Construction LLC and lists the business address as 519 Sichler Rd. and that is Mr. Sichler’s residence. Mr. Stromei also discovered that Mr. Sichler also does Construction Work, Land Leveling,, linstalls underground irrigation pipelining Concrete Ditch Lining & Earth moving. , Mr. Alan Raley was called to the podium who lives at 60 Midway Rd. He has known Mr. Sichler for a number of years and met him while Mr. Sichler was building his home and he knows he is a conctractor. He was questioned about Mr. Sichler’s background if he has seen all this equipment while Mr. Sichler is doing construction or building ditches. Ms. Davidson asked Ms. Ainsworth a final question. She asked her if she had ever been out to this property? She said, she said no, other than what’s in the photographs. She asked her if Ms. Stomei had asked her to come over to her home and show her what is taking place? She said, she did not. Ms Ainsworth was then asked by Ms. Davidson, if she goes out to do the field work before rendering decisions? Ms. Ainsworth answered that her decision is based on code interpretation alone and that what’s being appealed here, and it is her interpretation of the code, not the interpretation of whether or not there is a violation on the property. Ms. Ainsworth asked Chairman S. Williams, if she could make one clarification: She told Ms. Davidson, that she pointed out in her letter, that the construction business was permissible under home occupation. She reworded that she said, what is - permissible is an office to receive phone calls where no traffic is generated out of there other than just home traffic, and that complies with our home occupation ordinance. So a construction business per say that has just has construction equipment and construction materials is not permissible. Construction yards and salvage yards are not allowed in a home business where it’s residentially zoned. Equipment on the property must be used on the owners property there or elsewhere as long as it is owned by the same farming person. Ms. Davidson said, she sent a letter requesting zoning enforcement, and what would be the action we asked for and we asked for a final appealable decision on zoning enforcement. Ms. Ainsworth said, it was in regards to the interpretation which in my opinion farming equipment is a permissible use. Ms. Davidson quoted from her letter to Mr. Guggino, Village Attorney that if it does not suffice as a formal request for enforcement to let her know as soon as possible so we could proceed accordingly otherwise she would appreciate receiving notice from you or the village of your intended response to this request. Ms. Davidson said, she had permission to cross examine witnesses, but she had none at this time. Chairman S. Williams said, all persons within 300 ft were notified of this meeting. She asked for anyone wishing to come forward to speak for or against this action were asked to come forward. Commissioner T. Ulibarri said, there was no doubt in his mind after seeing all those pictures that a lot of , cleaning needs to be done. He said, after seeing all the exhibits of equipment pictures displayed here tonight whether it was, or could be used for farming but no longer being used for farming, and now being used for construction is not acceptable. From seeing these pictures he said, he definitely feels some stuff has to be cleaned up. What you see out of your yard is somewhat of a mess and something needs to be done. Commissioner Ulibarri asked Adolph Lopez if he had spoken to the owners, he said, yes, and he was asked, if he was satisfied with what has been cleaned up. Adolph Lopez said, they continue to work with Mr. Sichler to cleanup. He said, he is convinced with the pictures that more cleanup is in line. Commissioner P. Jaramillo stated that the commission is acting as an appeal board and not planning & zoning so the testimonies that we should be taking do not necessarily follow the planning & zoning process. Chairman S. Williams said, it was her understanding from the staff report that we can affirm, reverse or they can modify this decision that Christina sent. Commissioner P. Jaramillo said, since this is an appeal we should be acting as an appeal board and it does not follow the same procedures as we would as a P & Z Board. People are not suppose to come up and do public testimonies. Chairman S. Williams said, then why were they notified? She said, this was her first time while on board that she has been involved in an appeal. Christina Ainsworth said, the code requires that we notifly the residents that are within 300 ft and post notices on property and publish notices in the paper and a via appealant. Chairman S. Williams asked Commissioner P. Jaramillo where they go from here. Christina said, I stated my position that what the interpretation here is whether or not farming equipment can be stored on property if it’s related to their farming operation. The second question was the equipment and materials on Mr. Sichier’s property as part of that farming operation. Commissioner F. Vigil said, as per section 17.24.0 10 before making a decision on an appeal application for a variance or conditional use permit the planning & zoning shall hold a public hearing. Chairman S. Williams called for anyone else wishing to testify for or against this appeal. Mr. Sichler was called up to the podium to present his version of what was taking place. He said, everything is used for his farming operation. He has built a home since 2002 and that was an addition to his home. He still has gravel at his home. He refuses to relinguish his license because there may come a day when he will be reusing it. He was asked, if he submitted an application for a conditional use from his home? He said, no. it’s used as a business office, not as a commercial business location. He said, he will be planting trees and shrubbery to make Ms. Stromei happy, but can’t do it now until the Spring. He purchased her property not the view into my property. He said, between him and his son they farm over 600 acres. Commissioner W. Baca asked if the letter that was sent to Mr. Guggino had been replied to? Christina said, they both had input on it and she said, he apologized for not being present at tonight’s meeting. Commissioner Baca said, he would expect him to be here since it was a legal matter. Ms. Davidson was called to give her closing arguments. She went back to the municipal code. She said, Mr. Sichler’s property is zoned AR, that zone specifically is designed to provide for agricultural activities and low density residential uses. Under the AR zone you can’t even have an apartment, complex or multi family dwelling under the Villages interpretation of agricultural activities you have a John Deere Tractor business, because tractors are used for farming and if you happen to use that tractor on your farm once or twice, you’re sure homed in, but you can get a home occupancy permit for contractor’s yard or salvage yard. But for some reason AR allows contractor yards and salvage yards just because there has to be a tie to farming. It absolutely makes no sense.and she said, she doesn’t think Mrs. Stomei wants farmers not to be able to have their tractors there, hay loaders on their properties. This is a case where we have a gravel truck that has not moved in months parked right outside her back door. Mr. Sichier, is there somewhere on your property where you could possibly park that truck? Mr. Sichler said, if I move that truck there will be something else to complain about. Ms. Davidson asked the Commissioners to consider any way of cleaning up the property and if there was any way they could consider Mr. Sichier parking the gravel truck elsewhere that would prevent her from any pleasant, safe environment view out of her home. She went back to residential zoning. She said, each of these residential districts listed under 17.36.020 residential districts established, each of these districts is designed and intended to secure for the person to reside there a comfortable, healthy safe and pleasant environment in which to live sheltered from incompatible and disruptive activities that properly belong in non -residential districts. She said, we heard Mr. Sichier say I have to make a living, we’ve seen Mr. Sichler make over a million dollars in construction business activities, that’s what he told the state licensing department. He makes a lot of money and he stores his equipment in the backyard where Ms. Stromei can’t even enjoy her home. Surely, he can buy a yard somewhere where he can store his equipment. Mr. Sichler just had one statement to make. He said, I am bonded for one million dollars but I do not make one million dollars. Chairman S. Williams made a motion to go into closed session for a few minutes and Commissioner P. Jaramillo seconded the motion. All voted yes, motion carried. Chairman S. Williams called meeting back to order. It was discussed Commissioner T.Ulibarri made a motion to either postpone the decision until the next meeting 30 days from now first meeting in January and would propose to insist that a mediation be conducted and people at this meeting would be our Village Staff, the Village Attorney if necessary, Ms.Stromei, her son or your representative, Mr. Sichier and see if you can have it resolved. There is a problem with the Home Occupation situation, we need that thoroughly reviewed and if Mr. Sichler needs to have a home occupation we need to deal with that issue. If we are dealing with attorney to attorney our village attorney needed to be here. This is motion of this commission. If there is a solution, all that would be needed is a report from staff, if not we will come back to see where we go from there. Commissioner W. Baca seconded the motion all voted yes, motion carried. Ms. Davidson said, in clarification she requested that whatever hearing is continued that it be subject to schedule everyone’s ability to be here. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — September 19, 2012 Chairman S. Williams made a motion called for a motion to approve the minutes for September 19, 2012. There was a small amendment with the correction of Commissioners T. Ulibarri was absent & Commissioner Frank Vigil was also absent due to a previous scheduled meeting. With that correction, Commissioner P. Jaramillo made a motion to approve the minutes for September 19, 2012. Commissioner W. Baca seconded the motion. Everyone voted yes, motion carried. ITEM 4- DISCUSSION Community Activity Report — Christina gave a brief summary of what has been taking place from Community Development Department. She commented on the joint meeting that took place with the Council. The consultant for the Comprehensive Plan presented some alternatives but she was not prepared to present them to the Commissioners but will show them at the next meeting. She said, the development was coming along very well. They have drafted the majority of the policies that are going into the plan and she continues to work with the committee to refine those and get them ready for a draft to present. Ms. Ainsworth reported that Ralph Mims was in New York trying to get big retailers to bring businesses to the Village and he has really been successful in getting the Village name out there. The hospital project is still in the works. The developer plans to reveal both the contract on the site as well as agreement with the provider. Pizza 9 Restaurant is also open. Apple Bees has changed hands but they are still interested in LL. It’s just taking a little time because of the transition. Code Enforcement Report Cleanup issues continue citations are being handed out for weeds & debris. — Many of the abandoned homes are being condemned. Tony Gomez home has been sold and being dealt with since the owner is the seller. ITEM 5- ADJOURNMENT Chairman S. Williams called for a motion to adjourn. Commissioner T.Ulibarri made a motion to adjourn. Corn •ssione F. i il seconded the motion. All voted yes, motion passed. te hanie Willias, Chairman Terry Ulibarri, Commissioner IiPJararnillojornm:one ‘Walter Baca, Commissioner [ U