All right, let's get started.

It's three PM.

Mr.

Uh Howalt, can you please do the roll call?

Uh Chairman Klein.

Here.

Vice Chair Martin.

Member Moore.

Here.

Member Gurke.

Here.

Commissioner Garza.

Here.

Member Sol.

Here.

Member London.

We have a corn.

All right.

Next order is the uh approval of the agenda.

We have the agenda in front of us.

Does anybody have any deletions, additions, changes?

Move to approve.

Second.

Motion for approval by Commissioner Moore, second by Commissioner Garza.

All those in favor?

Post?

Motion passes.

Next order of business approval of minutes from April eighth, two thousand twenty-six.

Request for approval for zone changes from residential single family to residential multifamily of West Clovis Block Eleven lot six.

No, come up podium.

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

Uh do you swear affirm that your testimony will be truthful?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Um, I guess the only questions that we have was um that my my mother and I had was um just about the apartments in the back, um, whether they were um single story, double, uh you know, double, and really just how what the process and the time was on the whole project, I guess you could say.

Um because my mother was worried um, because I guess some of her neighbors down the street said that some of I guess they thought they had more property, I guess, than they than they initially did.

So she's worried that somebody's gonna come take her property.

As I explained to her mom, they can't do that to you, you know what I mean.

Just come take your property off of Grand Street.

That's where hers is at.

Um, but um that was the only question I really necessarily had, you know.

Um more concerns about what the apartment, I don't know if you guys even have those answers of what that would look like, and then um what does what the process was on start to kind of end that?

Uh the whole completion of the whole subdivision that they're trying to do.

Sir Mr.

Wilt.

Yes.

Uh what we have here is they're wanting to change the zone because it's a single family zone right now.

Change it to a multifamily zone, and they're proposing to put a duplex.

So it's going to be two single apartments.

Two single apartments, yes, sir.

And that doesn't change any zoning on on our property, right?

Correct, on Grant Street.

That's still considered commercial.

Correct.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

And I guess that's the only really necessary question that I had, sir.

Okay.

Just on that part.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That being said, I'll entertain a motion.

I'll move for approval.

Second.

Motion for approval by Commissioner Garzas, second by Commissioner Gherkey.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Post.

Motion passes.

Next item of business, request for approval for conditional use of 2604 Gidding Street as a group child care home.

Mr.

Wolf.

Thank you, sir.

Uh this property is already operating as a family child care home.

They are allowed up to six children presently.

And they would like to increase it to 12 children.

So that's what they're trying to do right now.

And like we've discussed before, I believe after whether this motion passes or not, but if it does pass, someone the state comes in, they inspect everything again and make sure it's adequate for this is this is the first stage of the process.

Okay.

And Mr.

Chairman, members of the commission, just to remind uh you that come July uh 1st, uh the state actually uh passed uh uh statute that will prohibit us from uh having any zoning requirements for uh child care facilities, and so we won't be able to regulate this at all in the future.

Any questions?

Hearing none, or entertain a motion.

Make a motion to pass.

Second.

I motion for approval by Commissioner Gherkey, a second by Commissioner Moore.

All those in favor?

Post.

Number three, requests for approval for the replat of Wheeler Height, P O N T N two of tract 11 of Hilltop Plaza, less a point one six one acre track eight.

Addressed is 2200 Mitchell Street, Clovis, New Mexico.

Mr.

Wilt.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Uh what we have here is the owner of this tract.

You can see on page 19.

What they do own that is their property, and their plan is on page 20.

The uh the survey that you have there, you're wanted to add a portion of it.

But I believe the lending institute is making them separate that off so that they can uh so it's not encumbered in with the uh the present building right now.

So that's the only reason that they're doing that.

This replat is to separate it off.

Okay, also stand for any questions.

Is there anybody from the audience would like to talk about this item?

Any questions from the commissioners?

Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion.

So moved.

Second.

Um motion for approval by Commissioner Sol, second by Commissioner London.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Post motion passes.

Number four request for approval for the replat of Rearson Block 3 lot 14, address 1200 Rearson Street, Clovis, New Mexico.

Mr.

Wilt.

Thank you.

Uh this is a replant uh the Ryerson edition.

Uh right now he has two residents on one lot, and he's wanting to split it up so he can sell it off, sell them off individually, and it meets all the standards of the UDO.

So with that, I'll stand for any questions.

Like to talk about this.

Seems straightforward.

Do I have any questions from the commissioners?

Second.

Got a motion for approval by Commissioner Garza and a second by Commissioner Moore.

All those in favor.

I post.

Number five, requests for approval for the replot of rain tree unit 15, block 14, lot three and four, address 3708, Ethan Street, Clovis, New Mexico.

Mr.

Wilt.

Thank you.

This request is for replant of Ring Creek Unit 15.

The owner owns two separate lots, and he would like to combine those into one lot for a veteran tax benefit.

So with that, I'll stand for any questions.

Can you repeat that better on what?

Tax benefit.

Oh, tax benefit.

I don't blame them.

Any questions?

Is there a motion on the floor?

So moved.

Got a motion for approval at Commissioner Morris, second by Commissioner London.

Sir.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Post.

Motion passes.

Lastly, number six.

Requests for approval of ratification of the building safety department's unified development of ordinance interpretation.

Mr.

Wilt.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr.

Morris.

Sorry.

Sorry.

Yeah, Mr.

Perkins is I guess out of town, so I'm gonna take this one if that's okay.

Perfect.

Uh this is sort of a new one.

I haven't seen one of these in the seven years I've been here, but the UDO says that if uh the building safety department or the city's official interpretation of a UDO provision is questioned, then an aggrieved party can appeal that interpretation to the planning and zoning commission, which is what you're here for today.

Um actually the decision making authority, and this is important, stops with you.

So I think it's important that we get this correct today.

Uh there is an appeal process to a district judge if somebody's unhappy with the decision, but it if the buck stops here.

And the interpretation, I sorry to summarize it, but I'll go through it again in the background.

It revolves around the word disabilities.

So the UDO allows group homes in residential areas sort of as a matter of right.

Um, and it defines group home as a community-based group living use for up to eight elderly persons, not counting staff, or eight persons with disabilities, not counting staff, that allows independent living and that provides communal room and board personal care and habilitation services in a household-like environment.

The issue is with uh property on 1820 Colonial Parkway.

It's being rented by Pecos Valley Counseling.

Um I believe myself and Mr.

Perkins have talked to Raymond Lindsay from Pecos Valley Counseling and got some information that I put in your packet for you today.

But basically it's it's a sober living facility for people that are in treatment for drugs or alcohol.

They're not currently using their drug tested.

It's not court ordered, so they're not under order from a judge or on probation or parole, at least to Mr.

Lindsay's knowledge, any of the individuals.

Right now there's five individuals there, so it's within the eight threshold, but there's no live-in sponsors or treatment providers.

They get, I believe it's daily outpatient treatment.

They have a facility here in Clovis that they're shuttled back and forth to.

Um and then someone comes and checks on them and checks on the house, I think daily, if not close to that.

Um the program depends on the resident, and some it's between six months and eighteen months, uh, depending on the individual's needs and where they are in their I guess their treatment journey.

Um and so Mr.

Perkins had looked at that.

There was a I believe it's a next door neighbor that had was unhappy with the the group home and unhappy with the city's allowance of the group home.

They questioned Mr.

Perkins' interpretation of the group home.

Um and so I I did put a couple of relevant definitions for you on the next page.

Uh one is group home that I just read.

The other one is protective care facility, uh, which is like a group home in in a way, in but it also accommodates individuals or it specifically accommodates individuals under jurisdiction of the court or released from jurisdiction of a court or a jail, including people on probation or parole.

Um something to keep in mind.

So the uh both the ADA and the Fair Housing Act are federal laws that I look to for guidance.

Um the ADA and the Federal Housing Act define disability.

The FHA uses the word handicap, but it's it's they're interchangeable as basically a physical or mental impairment with substantially limits one or more persons' major life activities, but not including current illegal use of addiction to or addiction to a controlled substance.

And so uh ADA defines it the same way.

And why that's important is because the FHA um it actually dictates how cities like Clovis can zone and the type of regulations we can impose.

And one thing the FHA says is we cannot discriminate in our zoning regulations whatsoever on the basis of race, gender, you know, uh, or disability or handicap.

And so their definition includes people that are in treatment that are not currently using, I I think we'd probably run afoul of the FHA if we were to decide that this wasn't a group home, the way I understand the facts.

Um but so I I agree with Mr.

Perkins' decision, and I think you know, changing that or overruling his decision and saying that these uh a disability does not count as sober living or addiction recovery may put us in legal jeopardy.

Um but that's just the way I'm seeing it so far.

And so I again I did a fair amount of research on it.

I I've got some more information if you have follow-up questions for me.

Um I don't know if there's anyone in the audience to speak to it.

I also, just as an aside, this isn't an issue for today, but I looked into the uh covenants of the neighborhood, so I printed those, so I'm familiar with those as well.

But uh for today's decision, it's my request that you ratify Mr.

Perkins their interpretation of group home uh the way that he has.

So I again I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Is there anybody from the audience would like to come speak on this?

I I I guess personally I I haven't ever considered uh when I think of disability, I think of a limb gone or or just something that's you know more serious um as opposed to a um I guess a mental disorder uh caused by past use um.

So it's kinda hard for me to get my head raptor on this.

Gonna say it to me it doesn't look like it meets the definition of handicap.

They're recovering from an impairment that was current or illegal use of addiction.

I mean, so they're recovering from that.

That's doesn't mean that they're handicapped because they used to do that.

I don't see that fitting the definition of that.

Yeah, I I would disagree with that where it says current, so the implication is that any past use or addiction would qualify as a disability.

Recovery is a disability without current drug use as a summary of that definition in the ADA.

So I get it.

It commonsensically it doesn't seem like a uh self-imposed condition that you caused solely would count as a disability, but that's how the Federal law prescribes it.

Mr.

Chairman, I would have to agree uh with the interpretation of the laws our council has presented it.

Um this would count as a disability.

People might have chosen it, but once your brain chemistry has been changed, the neurons actually change as well.

My background is in medical biology, and so there is an actual physical change, even though it cannot be seen with the human eyes with a microscope, you can see it.

So I think this counts as a disability.

I will also disclose that uh my sister used to be a user, and because of her heavy use, she does not use anymore, but because of her heavy use, she has a disability of schizophrenia.

So yes, it can be self-induced, but it is there.

But at the same time, should we have I mean it still comes down to you're gonna have a house with people then in the middle of a normal community that are unsupervised is what you said, they don't have a live-in sponsor or anything.

So they could fall back.

You said they're tested daily?

Correct.

Yeah, and just to reminder, this this decision isn't based on what you want or what you think or what you think about.

And it's legal parameters.

If you have an alternate definition that you think should be used or um you quibble with that definition, then I think that's fine to put on the record, but just because you don't agree with it.

I'm just asking the question because of it being in there, that's what I'm asking is just simply if they're not there aware.

Yeah, I'm sorry, can you repeat that?

A recovery center in a local community is what I'm hearing, and I I still disagree with that being uh a handicap.

Right.

Th there might be concerns over safety, I think is what Commissioner Gurke is getting.

Yes, right.

More so than the definition.

Mr.

Chairman.

Um I spoke to the people that uh have concerns about this home.

Uh thus what it they stated that if they are no supervised, then what's going to happen to the residents next door to them?

And their fear for their safety.

So uh I totally disagree with uh this uh uh definitions of physical or mental disability.

I mean uh I feel for these people.

Um had gone through some issues with uh other people they had these problems.

Uh and uh I'm all for them getting help on this, but we also have uh the responsibility of our neighbors.

I mean, who's gonna take care of them?

Uh what's going to happen if one of these people uh fall back and start doing something that is not uh safe for the neighborhoods.

I Commissioner, I share those policy concerns.

I certainly wouldn't want the place next to me.

Uh in the same way I wouldn't want a sex offender living next to me.

Correct.

But we there's certain things we can prescribe and certain things we can't.

And again, we're not debating whether it's good policy.

We're debating what the law is and whether we're going to follow that law.

And you know, I have a strong opinion about it just because I'm, you know, I'm the one that defends us when we get sued.

And so I I 100 percent think that uh we would be in violation of 42 USC 3604 F 3, which says we can't discriminate in any of our planning and zoning decisions based on a disability.

Not because I agree with their interpretation, but because I believe the way they define disability, this includes that.

Um, question on a group home.

A group home, is it defined that it's supposed to have caregivers at the group home?

Yeah, that's a that's a great question.

So I I thought of that same thing.

I don't think it's mandatory the way I'm reading that definition.

Um I think they obviously made it clear that they can have more than one staff member, right?

Because they didn't allow staff members to count towards the occupancy limit of eight.

But I didn't see anything that requires a live-in staff member.

I was actually a little surprised when they told me they don't have a live-in staff member that they someone drives there every day and I guess these some of these people work and have jobs and none of them have any cars or transportation.

And so while there is someone there every day, there is certainly not anyone that lives there as far as I know.

But I don't I don't know that that's required.

Well why do well I guess why does this need to be called a group home?

If five people are living together, what's the difference?

Is there something more by saying it's a group home?

Uh I guess why why what's the difference if this is just a normal residential neighborhood and you got five friends living together or a house?

Yeah, so why do they even have to apply for group home status?

Um I'm not sure that they do.

Yeah, I'm not sure that there's anything that would stop them from just going about they don't need a permit from us.

They don't need any special permission.

Um at least they're being a good idea.

So I I'm not sure that there is any reason why they have to ask for group home status to answer your question.

They don't.

Uh Mr.

Sherman, I got a question also.

So what if uh the neighborhood has uh uh strict covenants as to who lives there?

Yeah, and I I can't give legal advice on that, but I did print the covenants and I saw that um they're they're all you know 40, 50 years old and sometimes they're hard to interpret.

But there are provisions in those covenants that um prohibit uses of property that create an annoyance or a nuisance to the neighborhood.

And so again, this is not legal advice at all, but I do think if an aggrieved property owner took those to an attorney, there could be grounds to allege a violation of the covenants.

And of course that's a whole separate civil process we're not involved in, but uh but I did review those just to just to look at them.

And I there is a provision about nuisance use of properties that could potentially apply, but depending on what an attorney thought.

So the lesson here is to start having covenants on all the neighborhoods.

The lesson is, yeah, if there's some things that were legally not allowed to prohibit in neighborhoods, and if you want to prohibit those, you should have some covenants.

Okay.

Then on our side, if there's no reason for them to request permission from us, would it not be best that we abstain from making a decision on it to not have any legal ramifications either way?

Well, if we abstain from making the decision, then we're not ratifying our decision.

So you're I think that would be basically telling us that you disagree with our interpretation, um, in which case we would be forced to give a different interpretation, which I think could violate the law.

But this just comes down to an interpretation of the law on the law alone, correct?

Right.

Basically we're saying we don't have to do anything with you, we don't need to permit you, we don't need to kick you out, we don't need to worry about you because just like having a three-bedroom house with two kids and adult, totally fine.

This is totally fine.

So we don't have to mess with you.

That's kind of what what the interpretation is.

Okay.

Um, were you reading uh Mr.

Morris from statute?

Or what was that definition of the uh disability?

So uh disability, so I I put the Fair Housing Act definition, the ADA's definition, which is similar, that's at uh 42 USC 12114A, and it says essentially that recovery from substance abuse, both alcohol and drugs, is a disability unless you are currently using them.

Then it's not.

Um it's worded a little bit more cleanly and perhaps I should have included it in the FHA, but the FHA is the one that's controlling.

The ADA isn't necessarily controlling in this case.

Uh but it's more it's a better definition, I feel like.

And then the other site that I didn't put in here, but I I can give you is and you probably all know this already.

Uh it's 42 USC 3604 F3.

That's the section of the FHA that says all municipalities, counties, everyone across the country has to follow certain rules on discrimination when prescribing zoning and zoning regulations.

And included in those rules are you can't discriminate on these bases.

So Mr.

Sherman.

So what happens if uh one of those people staying there breaks the rule?

Can that buoy the whole thing?

Because they are using if they were currently using, then they wouldn't be considered disabled.

And so probably kicked out.

Um we would have to look at other provisions of the code to see if you can have eight people living.

You know, I don't I don't know.

That's a good question.

I'm not sure even if they were all using that that would violate any provision of our code necessarily.

There's a the reason I put the definition of protective care in there is because uh a protective care facility is not allowed as a matter of right, and that's like a halfway house or where people are on supervised release.

Um to answer your question, yeah.

If they were all using, I'm not sure I'd have to look at the UDO and see if we could find some other um you know, manner of the or uh code that they were violating.

Ultimately, I think it's doesn't matter if it's an elderly home or if it's just eight people staying there, there's nothing on our side that prevents it, correct?

Correct.

Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head.

So the health, safety, and general welfare of our residents uh is out the window because uh things like this and nothing we can do about it.

I think it's an important consideration.

Um I do think if something were to happen that there wouldn't be any liability to the city because we're following the law that we're happy we have to follow.

So I don't see, you know, we didn't make any discretionary decision where we're gonna allow this, but we don't have to.

If we did that and then something bad happened, then I think we could we could have some potential problems.

But when we're when we're pigeonholed into one decision, I don't I don't know how we could be liable for that.

I think it comes at least you've got people that are attempting to get their lives better.

It may not be the best location for some people that are there, but you've got houses where there are eight or ten people that are living there that are actively doing drugs, and uh there's nothing we can do about those either.

And I'm not uh, you know, I'm not advocating at all for this group or facility.

I don't know them other than I I would say I did some research on them, and they're a legit corporation, Pecos Valley Counseling.

They have an office, they have a number of group homes all over the state.

Um they they seem to be a reputable and you know they have a a website and contact information and doctors and therapists, so they they seem to be reputable and they he Mr.

Lindsay said something to me that uh of note, uh not really for consideration for you, but I thought it was interesting.

You said, you know, they they intentionally place these homes, not just the one in Clovis, but the other ones they have throughout the state in nice neighborhoods.

Um they don't they don't want to put this type of a home in a neighborhood where they feel like there's any kind of crime or drug activity for a lot of several reasons.

If uh if I was a drug user, I will I don't care where you live, you're still gonna go look for the fix.

Right, Clovis is small enough where I don't know that that's at least they are making an effort.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well I think when it comes down to it, we're back on definition, like you said, all other To me it's pretty clear.

Things aside.

Um approval by Commissioner Moore and a second by Commissioner Gherkey.

Uh Mr.

Holwall, can you do a roll call?

Certainly.

Chairman Klein.

Yes.

Uh Member Moore.

Yes.

Member Gherkey, yes.

Uh Commissioner Garza.

Abstain.

Commissioner Sowell.

Yes.

And uh Commissioner Lennon.

Yes.

Motion passes.

Nothing else, unless anybody has anything to add.

Next uh meeting will be June 10th, Wednesday 2026.

330 exactly.

Oh, you're not gonna bang the job?

The time's not here.

I mean uh yeah, it's clear.

A definition is a definition.

Somebody's gonna get screwed.