Village of Los Lunas Planning & Zoning Agendas

MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING MEETING March 6, 2013 The Village of Los Lunas Planning & Zoning Commission met in their regular session on Wednesday, March 6, 2013 at 6:00 pm in the Village Council Chambers. Members present were as follows: Commissioners Stephanie Williams, Frank Vigil & Walter Baca. Commissioner Phillip Jaramillo & Terry Ulibarri were absent. Staff members present were Christina Ainsworth, Community Development Director, Diana Crowson Planning Technician, and Marie Marquez, Recording Secretary, also present were Adrian Nance, legal counsel for the Village. Members of the public present were as follows: J. Bradley, Ralph Villegas, Robert Snider, Fred Sichler, Scott Sichier, Tessa Davidson, Donna Stromei, Antoine Pirard & Matthew Craig. 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 W. Baca made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. Commissioner F. Vigil seconded the motion. Everyone voted yes, motion carried. SWEARING IN OF PARTICIPANTS AGENDA ITEMS: SPECIAL USE AMENDMENT - VILLEGAS APPEAL STROMEI - ITEM 1- SPECIAL USE AMENDMENT VILLEGAS - Chairman S. Williams introduced Item I a Special Use Amendment Application submitted by Ralph , Villegas. The action requested of this commission is to have a public hearing and send recommendation to Council. Chairman S. Williams stated that Mr. Ralph Villegas is applying for a special use amendment for Tract 97A, MRGCD Map 70 located at 3485 Hwy 47, for the purpose of a sand and gravel lot. Diana Crowson was called to present the application submitted by Mr. Ralph Villegas. She stated sometime back the towing company came in for a special use for the back side of this property and was granted for a towing yard, but since this is a different business and this is a sand & gravel business and not a towing company a special use amendment is required. Notice of the public hearing was mailed out on February 15th, and no correspondence for or against this request have been received. Community Development Department finds that this property is in a transitional area where there is still agricultural activity and residential use but most of Hwy 47 is commercial. This should not be a high traffic business and should not interfere with the flow of traffic very much. There may be some truck traffic but not a high volume of traffic. Mr. Ralph Villegas was called to the podium to give a brief detail of his proposed plan. He said, they already have Sand & Gravel yards in Albuquerque but not in Los Lunas. If approved this yard will only have a loader and small amounts of sand & gravel for customers to pick up. They will be delivering as well but it will be mostly customer pick up. The property is about I Vz acre in size and is fully fenced. He will have approximately 5 employees. He has a yard in Peralta and has been there about 6 months, but his lease is already up so that business will be moved to this location. Commissioner W. Baca asked if he didn’t foresee getting a contract from ex: the State Highway Department? Mr. Villegas said, no, not from there since it is so small, but they already have a pit in El Cerro and they would haul out of there if needed. Chairman S. Williams asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor or against this business? Mr. Antoine Pirard, resident came up and spoke in favor of any business, but his only concern would be traffic that may build up in the street such vehicles and large trucks. Commissioner F. Vigil also had a question about the heavy traffic having an impact on the roads? Diana said, since this roadcut is on the State Highway, that would have to be approved by the Department of Transportation, but since this was previously a towing company and landscape company the roadcut is sufficient, and will not need to be larger. Commissioner F. Vigil also asked if there would be a concern from the Village perspective regarding the impact of traffic? Christina Ainsworth answered that question. She said, this was not an establishment where the Village would require an impact study. Usually, those are large establishments such as doctor’s offices, clinics that have traffic coming and going constantly. Commissioner W. Baca also had a question regarding the covering of trucks & vehicles when hauling sand & gravel, he also asked if this business had to be approved on a yearly basis,? Christina said, no unless there are complaints. Mr. Villegas said, his trucks have adequate covering and as for individual vehicles, the customer would have that responsibility of making sure sand and gravel doesn’t fly out into the street. He also said, he will have water trucks there to water down the dust. Christina said, if we start seeing complaints we will have to deal with that issue later. We will just have to monitor this. There were no more questions. Chairman S. Williams called for a motion. Commissioner W. Baca made a motion to recommend approval to Council for this Special Use on Tract 97A, MRGCD Map 70 located at 3485 Hwy 47, for the purpose of a sand and gravel lot. It meets the staff comments and compliances and comprehensive plans. Commissioner F. Vigil seconded the motion. All voted yes, motion carried for recommendation to Council. ITEM 2-APPEAL - STROMEI Chairman S. Williams introduced the item which was the continuation of appeal of determination from a meeting held in November 7, 2012. Ms. Tessa Davidson has made an appeal on behalf of Ms. Stromei to the Planning and Zoning Commission of the decision of the Community Development Director of August 14 th for Tract Al, land of Ernest F. Sichler, MRGCD Map 73, located at 519 Sichler Rd. SW, Los Lunas, NM. Chairman S. Williams gave her decision of how this meeting should progress. She said, we don’t need to go into a great deal of testimony, calling a bunch of witnesses. She would like to hear from the appellant, update of what has happened and how things are progressing and she would like to hear from administration, their point of view, what progress has taken place and Mr. Sichler if he wishes to say something. Also, I would like to give Ms. Stromei andlor her counsel a second opportunity to rebut anything that may come up. Chairman Williams said, she is not anticipating comments from the public. She asked Counsel Nance who was representing the Village if this sounded appropriate to him. Mr. Nance said, this sounds very appropriate, you made it very clear according to the rules of the municipality 17.2.24.30. The interested parties are allowed to call relevant witnesses as you have already said. We’ve heard the testimony, prior to this, so this will just be an update. According to the rules as well as NM Supreme Court and batter shell, a cross examination is allowed and will be very informal in this sort of setting, and the parties are entitled to a closing argument. You have limited the testimony to what has taken place, since what has happened. You have already heard what was there before. Chairman S. Williams said, those are the rules and the commissioners agreed. She also said, it is our understanding that we can devote executive privilege if we feel we need to go into executive session if need be. She then called on Ms. Stromei or her counsel to give an update. Tessa Davidson counsel for Ms. Stromei approached the podium. She said, they did have a small amount of testimony that they would like to add to what was given in November, because it directly impacts one of the findings Ms. Ainsworth found in her September letter in denying her zoning request. So it will be kept very brief. She said, she was just going to ask Ms. Stromei to address some issues that she personally witnessed on January 5t 21 that does directly impact on Ms. Ainsworth’s opinion in her letter. st 21 Ms. Stromei said, the specific thing that we’re talking about on the of January which was in her letter of opinion that Ms. Ainsworth indicated that the blue irrigation pipe that was stored there was going to be st 21 used on Mr. Sichler’s property. Obviously he has had irrigation ditches there for years. On the of January that pipe was loaded up and hauled off to use one of his many other jobs. She said, Mr. Sichier and his friends are operating a construction company out of the property and there is no doubt about that, which is seriously negatively impacting the property value, my property. Commissioner F. Vigil asked Ms. Stromei if she had actually witnessed this? She said, yes, they pulled in with a trailer loaded the blue pipe up. Right now at this point there is the smallest amount of equipment there that there has ever been, since October or November, because there all out on ajob somewhere. Every morning at 7:00 o’clock people show up for work, they load up their equipment, and they go to wherever they’re working. Chairman S. Williams asked Ms. Stromei if in her opinion Mr. Sichier had made any effort towards cleaning up the property? She answered, he’s not required to, he’s been told that anything he’s doing there is ok! Chairman Williams asked if the equipment comes home each evening? She said, oh yes this huge industrial commercial equipment, but nothing to do with farming. Mr. Sichler owns 10 acres of land and the picture will indicate that what’s there is not being used on his 10-acres of land. No further questions. Chairman called on Christina Ainsworth as to what progressed. What updates can you give us. Ms. Ainsworth said, since the last time you were here, our code enforcement officers did note that he has moved some of the larger pieces of equipment. The pipe is gone, there are still some remnants there that she saw on the pictures. There has been some landscaping done and they have seen efforts to clean the property. She back tracked just so we can reiterate with that issue here, the first was whether or not Mr. Sichler is running a business out of his home, whether or not Mr. Sichler is storing construction material on his property or whether or not the large vehicles and equipment that he has are incidental to the farming. As we stated before in the prior hearing, we did not find that any of the equipment being used for anything else other than farming, and we have not found that he was actively operating a business even thou he did have a license that was found by Mrs. Stromei. There was no evidence that those things were being done. The question now is, in your interpretation, is the equipment that remains on the property incidental to his farming business? If any of the materials that remain are in fact construction materials or incidental to his farming business, and whether or not he is operating a business other his farming operation. She just wanted to clarify that. Chairman S. Williams said, so as she recalled, there was evidence presented that he does have a contractor’s license and the business location listed is this address. Christina said, yes. Chairman Williams said, as per our notes the Village has no documentation of him having a home occupation or business license for a home occupation. Commissioner W Baca asked Ms. Ainsworth did we not make a recommendation for a mediation? She responded yes, he then asked her, what became of that? Christina said, no mediation took place. Both parties were approached to have the mediation and they both thought nothing would come of it and that was the reason it never occurred. Commissioner F. Vigil asked Ms. Ainsworth how it was discovered that it was not a business on the property? She responded that the only way for staff to know is if staff witnessed him doing construction somewhere, if there is a project somewhere that’s occurring? She answered we only check within the Village limits and we check with the State.,and nothing showed up. Mr. Sichler was called up for an update since the last meeting. He said, his license is now registered with the State of New Mexico and is registered out of his property in San Antonio, NM. He said, the equipment he has stored there is and he knows this is one of their biggest problems which is the road grader. He said, if he had it there, he would use it for a couple of hours on his fields to build borders to prevent water from leaking out into the streets. It is used in construction business but also in the farm. The pipe has already been sold and is still waiting approval on the natural resource conservation. They still have not funded any projects with the government, so I got rid of it, but once we get approved I will be bringing in more stuff than what was there to do that project. He said, if I need to use that equipment in my farm, I will bring it in and use it. He did say, he will be putting up trees at least 10 ft tall to protect his privacy and Ms. Stromei’s privacy as well. Everything sitting out there now is being used and will be used on the farm. He said, Ms. Stromei did say, she wanted to sell her home, but I can’t quit farming for her to sell her home. Ms. Davidson had some questions to ask Mr. Sichler they both approached the podium. Ms. Davidson asked Mr. Sichler if he had been hired by Mr. Duggins to do ajob in Lemitar in February involving his road grader? He said, no, Ms Davidson had some photos of his road grader taken in July th 20 She asked if this was his road grader. Mr. Sichler said, yes it was stored on my property here and it was used on my farm to build roads to my place, but and has been moved to my other property in Socorro. The rows were built in December before planting He was asked by Ms. Davidson if he stored it there too for other jobs . that came up? Mr. Sichler requested that staff go out to his property and check out his nice barn his build to store his tools and stuff. He said, he is very tired and would like to end this. He said, he just can’t quit farming because of this situation. Mr. Sichler said, before Ms. Stromei started building they should of come to me. Mr. Nance presented some photographs taken today, which Code Enforcement Mark Aguilar took. Chairman Williams asked Mr. Sichler to point out the equipment located on the property. He said, the Village has told me that I am in compliance and now I just don’t know. I think people have just made up their minds. Chairman S. Williams requested they go into executive session to get some counsel on some issues. Ms. Davidson came up and told the commissioners this has been a difficult process. She wanted to tell Ms. Ainsworth that she understood that her letter was rendered with the evidence she had before her at the time she wrote the letter but since then, there have been quite a bit more evidence to consider. She wanted to back up a little bit because that is why they are here to appeal the decision that she made and the conclusion that she reached in her letter in response to their request for zoning enforcement. The first time there was no evidence that Mr. Sichier was operating a construction business from home, but through Mr. Sichler’s own testimony he’s admitted he runs a construction business out his home. She said, I don’t think that’s in dispute, she said, she didn’t think that’s in dispute he does not have a business license to do that. This property is not zoned commercial and he does not have a home occupancy permit to do that. She said, under the Village’s Home Occupancy Ordinance 370, it specifically provides that home occupancy permits, shall not include contractor yard or scrap in salvage yard. So it’s the use that’s prohibited by the Home Occupancy Ordinance and it’s inconceivable, that a residential zoning to argue that a residential zoning for AR would allow this kind of use of this property when your home occupancy does not allow it. You have to read those two provisions in the ordinance in conjunction it is inconceivable to say, that you can have a residential use but you couldn’t get a home occupancy permit just because it’s zoned AR. It just doesn’t work that way. The second conclusion that Ms. Ainsworth reached by Mr. Sichler’s promise that he was going to install the blue irrigation pipe on his own property and she doesn’t question Mr. Sichler, but it does question why he would tear up concrete ditches to put in irrigation pipe. She said, she is a water attorney, that has been practicing for about 20 years and doesn’t have one client that has ever torn up a concrete ditch to install pipe. She said, I ask that you consider that because that is what Ms. Ainsworth was told and she believed him and then we find out this January it was hauled off. The third conclusion she arrived at was that staff found out that the equipment stored on the property was to be used on the property. We haven’t heard much evidence from Mr. Sichier in fact you heard him say, he had to use that equipment for a number of years. There is trencher for concrete trench construction, concrete ditch forms, a road grader, a water truck and semi truck, an excavator, multiple tractors, pipe and the different implements and you have workers that come in and park their trucks and go out and do jobs everyday. This is a construction business, and is causing a lot of damage to my client’s property values. There are other yards he could rent or build some other barn to store this equipment. Mr. Sichler came up and said, he’s not running a business out of his home. I am going to run my farming operation out there. I can move the trencher out but I am bringing the excavator back cause I will use it on my farm. I would like to invite all of you so you can see that I am using all this equipment on my farm. Chairman S. Williams suggested to go into executive session to get guidance from counsel on some legal matters.. Mr. Nance requested that the commission make a motion and pursue it to NM Statues 10.151H3 that the only thing to be discussed will be the matter that’s currently pending on the agenda which is the administrative a judicatory appeal and that no final action will taken. Chairman S. Williams called for a motion pursuant to rule 10.15 1H3 we adjourn into executive session to hear nothing other, but to get guidance on this issue that is before us and that no decision is made. Commissioner F. Vigil made the motion. Commissioner W. Baca seconded the motion all voted to briefly adjourn to return shortly. Motion carried. Chairman S. Williams called for a motion to go back to the regular session. Commissioner F. Vigil made a motion Commissioner W. Baca seconded the motion to return to regular session, all voted yes, motion , carried. Chairman S. Williams made a motion on the item that was discussed in executive session which were limited to items specified in the motion for closure and that no final action was taken so moved Commissioner F. Vigil seconded it, all voted yes, motion carried. Commissioner W. Baca then made a motion to the decision that this board has made here to verity’ that there is substantial evidence that Mr. Sichler had a registered construction business on the property but has moved his business registration according to testimony tonight. We find that materials currently on the property are for use on the property, and should be allowed to remain on the property for a reasonable period of time to complete the landscaping project. We find that farming equipment incidental of farming may be kept on the property which from the testimony would include tractor, baylor, bail wagon, etc. however, we find that other equipment on the property is not generally incidental to farming and thus code enforcement has direction to enforce the zoning codes to insure that commercial contracting equipment is removed including the trencher machine, excavator, gravel truck etc. and such equipment that is not generally incidental to the property may be on the property for a reasonable period of time for use on the property. Code enforcement is flilly directed to use it’s discretion and determining what equipment is incidental to farming and what is generally used for commercial contracting. To include that the findings of fact in conclusions of law are prepared by Council reflecting that decision will be approved by this body. Commissioner F. Vigil seconded. Everyone voted yes, motion carried. Chairman S. Williams we now have the conclusions of law which we will sign and make copies available. ITEM 3- APPROVAL OF MINUTES — February 6,2013 Chairman S. Williams called for a motion to approve the minutes for February 6, 2013. Commissioner W. Baca made a motion to approve the minutes for February 6, 2013 as presented. Commissioner F. Vigil seconded the motion. Everyone voted yes, motion carried. ITEM 4- DISCUSSION Community Activity Report—No report as this time due to the lateness of the hour Code Enforcement Issues--Commissioner F. Vigil thanked staff for having the dept of transportation clear all the tumbleweeds along the wall in the interstate. ITEM 5- ADJOURNMENT Chairman S. Williams called for a motion to adjourn. Commissioner F. Vigil made a motion to adjourn. missi er seconded the motion. All voted yes, motion carried. — Absent eph Willia s, lTairman Terry Ulibarri, Commissioner Absent Phillip Jarai11-C alter Baca, Commissioner Frank Vigil, C rss r