Los Alamos Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting – June 24, 2026

The Los Alamos County Planning and Zoning Commission met on June 24, 2026, at 5:30 PM in Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order with a quorum present. The commission approved the minutes from the May 13, 2026 meeting and conducted a public hearing on a text amendment to the Development Code. The meeting concluded with departmental and commissioner reports, and adjournment.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of May 13, 2026 Minutes: The commission unanimously approved the minutes from the May 13, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as presented (7-0).

Public Comments & Testimony

• Phil Gerski (developer) spoke during the public hearing on the text amendment. He expressed concerns about the removal of timeframes for issuing written decisions (changing from 10–14 days to no deadline) and the removal of the ability to appeal the county engineer’s or utilities manager’s decision to require impact reports. He also noted a potential ambiguity in the cross-examination language in the quasi-judicial hearing procedures. Mr. Gerski emphasized the importance of maintaining timely processes and the potential high cost of mandatory impact reports without recourse.

Discussion Items

• Text Amendment ZCA-2026-0019 (Ordinance No. 02-371): The Community Development Department, through Planning Manager Danyelle Valdez, presented a proposed text amendment to Article V of the Development Code (Administration and Enforcement). The amendment is part of an ongoing cleanup effort to correct technical errors, omissions, and inconsistencies identified since the Code was adopted in January 2023. Key changes include:

  • Neighborhood Meetings: Shifted responsibility from the county to the applicant for noticing, conducting, and documenting neighborhood meetings. The previous provision allowing waiver if property owners declined to participate was removed.
  • Public Notice: Extended the notice period from 14 to 15 calendar days for published, posted, and mailed notices. The applicant is now responsible for posting signs on the property and submitting a signed affidavit and photograph.
  • Sketch Plats: Removed as a separate application; now incorporated into the preliminary plat process as an administrative step.
  • Decision Deadlines: Removed the 10-day deadline for issuing written findings of fact and conclusions of law after quasi-judicial hearings, and the 14-day deadline for appeal decisions. (These were later modified by the commission.)
  • Appeal of Impact Reports: Removed the ability to appeal the county engineer’s or utilities manager’s decision to require or not require impact reports.
  • Variance Applicability: Clarified that variances cannot be granted through a summary plat; they must be processed separately.
  • Site Plan Exceptions: Updated exceptions, including clarifying that accessory structures under 120 square feet do not require site plan approval.
  • Nonconformities: Refined language to allow compliant alterations (e.g., playground improvements) without increasing nonconformity.
  • Penalty Reference: Changed from referring to Section 1-8 (General Provisions) to a more explicit “general penalty provision.”

• Commission Discussion: Commissioners raised questions about several provisions:

  • Removal of Decision Deadlines: Commissioner Bruell expressed concern that removing the 10-day deadline for written decisions could reduce transparency. After discussion, the commission agreed to modify the deadline to 60 days instead of striking it entirely. This change was applied to the two instances where deadlines were struck (pages 20 and 25 of the ordinance).
  • Appeal of Impact Reports: Commissioner Bruell asked about the removal of appealability for impact report decisions. Staff explained that the county engineer’s determination is based on safety and should not be subject to appeal. The commission concurred.
  • Dust Control Language: Commissioner Bruell noted that the new language about “alternate forms” of dust control was vague. The commission directed staff to bring back clearer language.
  • Penalty Reference: Commissioner Bruell recommended using “general penalty provision” instead of the crossed-out reference to Section 1-8, to ensure clarity. The commission agreed.

• Commissioner Questions: Additional questions were answered regarding the liability for posting signs (shifted to applicant to avoid staff trespass issues), the removal of the 60-day deferral provision (unnecessary given the 21-day rescheduling rule), and the clarification of neighborhood meeting requirements.

Key Outcomes

• Vote on Text Amendment: The commission voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 02-371 to the County Council, with the following modifications to be incorporated into the final ordinance:
  1. Change the 10-day and 14-day deadlines for written decisions to 60 days (pages 20 and 25 of the ordinance).
  2. Clarify the language on dust control measures (page 80).
  3. Modify the penalty reference to “general penalty provision” (page 81).
• Next Meeting: The commission will not meet on July 8, 2026 (no cases). The next meeting is scheduled for July 22, 2026.
• Council Liaison Report: Councilor Susie Havemann provided an update on the May 12 County Council work session, including housing affordability updates, the Foxatail Flats solar project, a drone show for July 4th, and the CB Fox and White Rock revitalization projects.
• Chair’s Report: Chair Easton welcomed new Commissioner Best and noted that the annual report was presented to Council on May 12. She encouraged commissioners to take the Comprehensive Plan survey at planlosalamos.org.
• Commissioner Comments: Commissioner Hampton noted that the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee had met earlier. The meeting adjourned after public comment.