Okay, just a few housekeeping things here.

Please silence all electronic devices while attending the planning and zoning meeting.

Um at this time for the record, I will call the roll by announcing or asking each planning and zoning member to please acknowledge their presence by saying present.

Kevin Kaufcher.

Present.

Uh Chairman Richardson is excused this evening.

Robert Gavaldone.

Present.

Andrea Hankins?

Present.

Lisa Hardsey.

Present.

And myself are all here.

Thank you.

In person meeting attendees, please fill out a speaker form if you wish to speak.

Only individuals who have signed up will be permitted to speak.

If you have yet to fill out the form, now is the time to do so and provide it to the recorder on my left.

Virtual attendees, please send a chat message to the host or use the raise your hand feature if you would like to provide public comment.

When I recognize you to speak, you will have the ability to enable the audio and video.

Okay, so moving on to public hearings.

So Mr.

Chair, we're gonna uh we'll start with and I um we'll start with the consent calendar.

Yeah.

Okay, so items on the consent calendar.

Can I make them can I get a motion to approve the consent calendar?

Motion to approve.

Second.

Second.

Okay, call a vote.

Commissioner Kaufcher?

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabbleton.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins?

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesy.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Okay, thank you.

Um next item on the agenda is the planning and zoning monthly summary plat report and the monthly building activity report.

Uh Amy.

Uh Commissioner Torterici, these are your um standard reports.

Um I will stand for any questions.

These are non-action items.

Thank you.

Okay, moving on to public hearings.

Item number four, the applicants Rob and Erica Speller.

Appro request approval for a variance to the minimum required R1 single family residential district, side setback of five feet for a secondary structure at the subject property of 1576 Arlene Road Southeast.

Legally described as Star Heights Unit 2, block 175, lot three.

Staff contact is Ben Isaacs, and the staff recommends denial with findings.

Benjam yes, thank you, and good evening, members of the board.

Ben Isaacs, municipal planner with the city of Rio Rancho.

The item before you is a variance request to the minimum side setback requirements in the R1 zoning district.

The applicant is seeking a variance to section 154.50 of the municipal code, which provides for a minimum side setback of five feet in the R1 single family residential zoning district.

The subject property is located at 1576 Arlene Road Southeast and is legally described as Star Heights Unit 2, block 175 lot 3.

It is zoned R1, single family residential.

This item was previously scheduled for the November 18th meeting, but was postponed to the December 16th meeting at the request of the applicant.

The board then voted to postpone the request at that meeting to the present meeting in order for the applicant to gather more neighbor support.

The applicant received a code enforcement violation following a complaint from a neighbor.

The complaint received was for a newly erected shed on the subject property.

The applicant erected the shed without prior approval from the city.

A permit for the shed was sought following the code enforcement violation, but was not approved due to the size and location of the shed.

The shed is 140 square feet, which is over the 120 square foot maximum for secondary structures to legally encroach into the setback.

The shed encroaches approximately three feet into the left side setback.

The applicant provided the site plan shown on the presentation, which shows the location of the shed and other physical conditions on the property.

Staff found that the shed could be rotated 90 degrees and moved three feet away from the left property line to come into compliance with the zoning code based on this site plan.

Staff recommend that the board deny the applicant's request based on the specified findings of fact to con and conditions, including that the lot does not contain an exceptional physical condition that would prevent them from moving the shed.

I will stand if there are any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Is the applicant present?

Please step forward to the podium, please.

And please state your name and address for the record.

Hello, my name is Rob Spella.

I live at 1576 Arlene Road, 87124 and Star Heights.

So the way Mr.

Isaacs put it at the end of his statement is that it would simply be able to be rotated, it would be easy, and there's nothing limiting me from doing this.

I in the last meeting I described that there would be a tremendous amount of dirt work, and um I guess I'd have to get a batco and uh it would be a huge expense to me to try to rotate the shed or place the shed into another spot in my yard to be up to standards.

Um Mr.

Todd was here.

He also agreed on the record that it would be a financial burden of great amount if I was required to move that shed.

Um this is a simple shed, like I argued before in the last meeting.

It um is replacing an older shed who stood in that property for 20 years.

20 years that I've owned that house.

It was run down, about to collapse, and definitely not up to code.

Uh, there was no issue with it as far as the city goes until I erect a new structure and add 20 square feet to it.

Now that being said, I under I understand what the code is and that it should be accepted.

That's why I'm requesting this variance because I want to be by the by the book and by the rules.

Um it's just gonna put a lot of stress on me and my household if we have to either rotate the shed or place it in another um area of my yard.

I also at the request of the board, I got signatures from my neighbors.

Uh the very top of my signature list is the neighbor that I share the property line with, he has no issue with where the shed is.

Uh Mr.

Todd who spoke on my behalf before has no issue where it is, and then there's four other neighbors on this list who have no issue where the shed is.

Um, it's not a fixed, it has no plumbing, it has no electrical, and there's no concrete foundation.

It's going to be tied to the ground with anchors.

So if there's something emergent that happens, it could be moved or disassembled.

I just I ask respectfully that you consider this variance and um in opposition to the to Mr.

Isaac's recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, is there anybody from the audience that would like to speak for or against item number four?

Okay, seeing none, is there anybody online that would like to speak for or against item number four?

Seeing none, I will call the call for a uh motion, but before I do, I will remind everybody that we make motions in affirmative.

So a vote yes would be to approve the variance request, and a vote for no would be to deny the variance request.

Can I get a motion?

Motion to approve item number four.

Second.

Okay.

Motion.

Any comments from the board.

Uh I think just one.

So I think um, Mr.

Spella, you have a sheet with some signatures, then I'm not sure if that's I see two public comments in the packet, um, but I don't know that I see a sheet with additional signatures.

Did we get a copy of that?

I can hand it to you right now.

City is uh their process for that.

So, Commissioner Hardesty, um, so we can have you um review it.

It's not part of the packet um because it didn't come in in time for us to add it to the packet, um, which I believe was was part of the problem last time as well.

Um, but but you're welcome to um ask to see it.

Okay, yes.

Uh would like to see that.

Thank you.

Well, she's reviewing that.

Any additional comments from the board?

I I have one.

I have I have two actually.

Um for the applicant.

So do you have any photographs of the landscape and what would be the suggested um location for the rotation or relocation, if you will?

I do have to look at my phone.

I actually have a file with the shed.

Um can you have the microphone?

Can you say that on paper?

I also have pictures of the old shed.

It's um it's on my phone.

I have a file that says shed on it that I was just collecting certain just pictures of the gradient.

Maybe without the pictures, can you describe the topography of the colour?

Yeah, absolutely.

So the right side as we're looking at the diagram.

So as you as you look at it, it's you go out to my yard, and um there's a concrete block that curves, um, kind of ovular, and to either side there's flat ground, and it it the shed would fit perfectly on either side of that.

And on the left side of property line is where my old shed was.

Maybe three to four feet out, it starts a downward gradient, and it's pretty much like steep enough for me to see in the backyard of my neighbor's yards, and it would just be completely I guess off off tilt is a good way to put it if I didn't do dirt work and create a huge retaining wall.

Um it's gradual, but it would be enough to offset the structure.

Okay, so the second question that I have, you mentioned there was a previous shed there from even before you purchased the property.

Um what was the size of that shed?

I believe it was 10 by 12.

So it was underneath the um limit for it to be allowable to be encroached on if yeah, if it's 120.

It was 120 square feet.

That's correct.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Um that's all the questions that I have for thank you.

Any other comments from the board?

Call the vote.

Commissioner Hardesi?

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins?

Yes.

Commissioner Coffter?

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabblin.

Yes.

Commissioner Totorici?

Yes.

Motion pass.

Okay.

Item number five.

The applicant Southwest Block Inc.

request approval for of a variance to allow for a constructed eight foot high CMU wall within the M1 Industrial Business Park District front setback.

The subject property is legally described as industrial park east block A, lot two, and comp and comprises approximately 1.562 acres.

Staff contact is Tim Dvorak, and the staff recommends denial with findings.

Tim.

Thank you, Commissioner Tortorucci, members of the board.

Tim Dvorak, pointer with the city of Rio Rancho.

Um the item before you this evening is a variance request for an eight-foot CMU block wall within the front M1 industrial setback at the property of 5005 industrial park loop northeast.

Again, this property is legally described as induct industrial park east block A, lot two.

The subject property is zoned M1 Industrial and Business Park District, and it's located in the northwest corner of Industrial Park Loop Northeast and Enterprise Road Northeast, both residential roads.

Surrounding properties in all directions are also M1.

Per Rio Rancho Municipal Code, section 154.51, the minimum front setback for M1 industrial and business park zoning is 10 feet.

The applicant had submitted a commercial building permit for the wall under building permit number 22-1172.

This application was revised multiple times, but was ultimately given approval by planning and zoning on June twelfth, 2025.

Setbacks notated on the originally approved permit from June 2025 for the wall were 10 feet from the front setback, zero feet from the rear, 33 from the left, and six from the right.

After the wall was constructed and um upon inspection, it was determined that the subject wall was built much closer to the front setback, and now a portion of that wall impedes site at the intersection.

The um prior to applying for the variance, the applicant remeasured their setbacks and determined the subject wall is approximately one foot six inches from the front property line, resulting in an eight foot six inch encroachment.

The applicant has provided a justification narrative included with this case packet, and also has included four letters of support from neighboring properties, um, which you can see in this map here.

Staff finds that the subject property is not in a regular or narrow lot, as such, staff finds that the subject property does not have an exceptional exceptional physical condition that prevents the applicant from complying with the zoning code.

Should the board find that the subject wall does meet the criteria?

Conditions of approval are for the applicant to revise plans and provide on the plans how the site triangle requirements are met.

So that will have to be revised if this is ultimately approved.

Staff recommends denial with findings.

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

Thank you, Tim.

Is the applicant present?

Please state your name and address for the record, please.

Um bar patch, Southwest Block, 136, Real Rancho Boulevard, or 528 or frontage road, whatever you want to use the whole work.

The property hooks on to the front part.

This new property hooks onto our old property.

When I told my Mason that it was 10 feet back from the property line, he used the curb, not the property line.

So I just needed you guys to tell me what I need to do.

I don't really want to tear down my 65, 60,000 wall.

Um I have photos of it if you need them, that it's quite pretty.

And I do have another letter stating that they don't want us to tear it down because now everybody doesn't have dirt in the gutters because we walled it up and paved it.

Because it used to have a lot of dirt flying everywhere because you know it's an industrial park, so it's very dirty.

So I guess I just I don't really want to tear it down.

Plain and simple, but you guys tell me what I have to do.

Okay.

Thank you.

Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak for or against item number five on tonight's agenda?

Seeing none.

Is there anybody virtually that would like to speak for or against item number five on tonight's agenda?

Hearing none.

Can I get a motion?

Motion to approve item number five.

Second.

Motion and a second.

Any discussion from the board.

Good.

This uh is just a comment to the to the applicant.

Could we see those pictures of your wall, please?

I also took pictures of the rest of the industrial park loop just because all of them are 10 feet back from the curb, like mine.

This is my wall.

I just went all the way around the industrial park loop road.

Oh, and there's that one.

Yeah.

I understand.

And we are 10 or we are 11 feet six back from the curb.

That I take blame.

I trust in my Mason.

Okay.

Thank you.

So if the wall is measured from the curve, then you still have what about there's still substantial kind of Yeah, it's a little close to the corner.

I agree.

Um the um 90% of the traffic is semis and they look over it.

But I don't want to tear down my wall.

Um but uh I don't know.

You guys need to tell me what I need to do.

It does, it does still look like you would have to adhere to that site triangle at that corner, though.

So you you would have to make at least one adjustment.

Can I because it's eight feet, it's uh grouted.

So can I take it to how low does it have to be?

Because again, that's into my storage facility that we store all our block in, and I don't want anybody coming over, you know, at night and injuring themselves because they think it's fun to jump over into a blockyard and mess around with stuff.

Commissioner Kaufcher, uh if I can to help a little bit with the site triangle.

So um what we can do is work with our engineering division to figure out um, I believe it would need to be uh uh approximately three feet in height from uh the road surface.

Okay.

Um, and then we can figure out if there is a way to do some type of see-through material on on the interior of that section of fence, like some type of um I'm spitballing here, so bear with me.

Um, like a line or iron or something like that, so that you still have that protection, but then people can still see through that that corner.

So um I think uh a big concern on the city's uh point of view was was the site triangle on that corner because we're already getting beer bottles thrown over it, it's super fun.

And how long has your wall been?

Uh about four months since August?

Okay.

Since August?

Okay.

Six months.

What is the length of the section that's in question?

Just that one second.

About 50 feet.

Okay.

And it's angled so it's not straight, it's kind of like it goes to this way and then like this, so it's angled around the corner.

He didn't curve it, he angled it.

Okay, thank you.

And it's right next to the pond that's on the inside of it.

So and it's already and it's asphalted up, so I don't know if I'm gonna if I have to move it back.

The pond might have to be deeper.

That's another thing we'd have to go with the engineers on.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

I have a few.

So and my first question is for you, Tim.

So when the variance was originally approved in June of last year.

What was the variance approval and what was the setback when that variance was approved?

And uh, if I'm summarizing it right.

Uh thank you, Commissioner Torterici.

So this was actually the building permit for the fence.

So um, when that was approved in June, um, we have the approved setbacks here on um the slide.

So it was approved for 10 feet from the front property line.

Um the other setbacks are not an issue for this request, it is solely the front setback which is being encroached on.

So I was mistaken, it wasn't a separate variance request, it was just the original submittal, and then that's correct.

There was an error in construction, what it sounds like, and that that created a I mean it's a uh okay.

So my this is a thought more than a question because I I do think the site triangle is problematic, even though as I look at the photographs, the stock block behind it could be just as problematic, but I guess that's not for us to decide.

Um that's the that's the front that where the corner is, that's where the pond is, so we can't stack anything there.

So there's a there's a there's a setback there, it's just not visible.

Okay, I see it's a setback.

I think it's so I mean feet front, or I'm sorry, I don't remember, and then the wall, and then the pond is right behind it, so we can't we'll never have stack block that close to that area.

Okay, so I would I would be more inclined to see if we could get a postponement of this to maybe go back and re-engineer that corner with some some engineering help from the city to come up with an acceptable plan that would, you know.

I I worry about a few things, right?

I worry about the liability of somebody, I mean if it wasn't a semi and somebody did get there and they get struck, and then we end up with you know, we should have never approved that, and then just simply the safety of it and and the compliance of it.

If it was just if it was just being set on the curb versus on the property line, I don't know that I have that big of a heartburn with it, but um so that would be my recommendation, but not my call, it would have to be whoever made the motion.

And also the way the angle of that street comes up, it's kind of it's not an actual mindy, it's more of a like this because of the way dust part loop loops all the way around.

So I guess the question would be then I mean, if if you were working with the city to make that corner adjustment, how much time would be needed to come back with a solution?

But I don't know if that would it's that's a two-week process.

Uh Commissioner Kofcher, um, so we actually put into um as in the findings of fact one of the conditions of approval to work with the city on that site triangle to find some type of solution to that, whether it's lowering the wall, putting moving it back, doing something with it.

So that was was part of uh the uh the conditions.

So if it is approved tonight, um the city will work with them to to get that put in place um as necessary.

If for some reason we can't find a solution, um then we would probably come back in front of the board or or pursue other options.

Um but we think that there's ways to move forward without necessarily having to bring um something engineered back because it may take us a little bit of time.

Okay, okay.

So and um I'm assuming you would be okay with that.

Okay, yes, sir.

All right, so any other comments from the board.

We have a motion to approve.

We have a second call to vote.

Commissioner Tortericci.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesy, yes.

Commissioner Hankins, yes.

Vice Chair Gabbleton, yes.

Commissioner Coulter, yes.

Motion pass.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Okay.

Item number six on our agenda for the evening is a preliminary plat.

The applicant Zuma Ranch LLC through their agent Isaacson and Arfman.

Request approval for preliminary plat for phase two at the Zuma Ranch soup subdivision.

The plat would create a 114 single family residential lots and 15 tracks on 59.63 acres for the property legally described as unit 13, blocks 35 and 36.

Staff contact is Ben Isaacs, and the staff recommends approval with findings and conditions.

Benjamin Thank you, Ben Isaacs, municipal planner with the city of Rio Rancho.

The item before you is a preliminary plat for phase two of the Zuma Ranch subdivision.

The applicant Zuma Ranch LLC through their agent Isaacson and Arfman is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for phase two of the Zuma Ranch subdivision.

The subject property is legally described as Unit 13, blocks 35 and 36, and is located between Guinevere and Lionel Streets, south of Kaiser Road and north of Montezuma Boulevard.

The preliminary plat proposes 114 residential lots and 15 tracks zoned R4 single family residential.

The preliminary plat comes as the second subdivision of the Zuma Ranch Master Plan, which was adopted in 2023 under resolution 93 enactment 23 and 94.

Here you can see an overview of phase two of the Zuma Ranch subdivision and the proposed lot and road layout.

Access to the subdivision is to be provided from the west via Caracas Drive off of existing Guinevere Street, from the south via Zuma Ranch Road off of Montezuma Boulevard, and from the east via Machu Drive off of Lion L Street.

Tract A will contain a centrally located park as per the Zuma Ranch Master Plan.

Tract L will contain a detention pond and tract one will be reserved for further subdivision in phase three.

All proposed lots conform with lot width and acreage standards for the R4 single family residential zoning district.

Staff recommend that the board approve the preliminary plat based on the specified findings of facts and conditions, including that additional park acreage for the centrally located park be provided in phase three as per the approved master plan.

I will stand if there are any questions.

I know I know the door is gonna open.

Yes.

Justin Simonson, Isaacson and Orfman uh addresses 128 Monroe Street, uh Northeast, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Uh stand for any questions you may have as been uh presented, um just to kind of summarize it.

We're on phase two of Zuma Ranch and we look forward to uh to bringing this community to Rio Rancho.

Great.

Thank you.

Is there anybody in the chambers that would like to speak for or against item number six on our evening's agenda?

Seeing none, is there anybody online that would like to speak for or against item number six on this evening's agenda?

Hearing none, I will ask for a motion to ask for a motion.

Motion to approve item number six.

Second motion and a second.

Is there any comments from the board?

See none, call the vote.

Commissioner Kaufcher, yes.

Vice Chair Gabbledon.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins, yes.

Commissioner Tortoricie?

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesty.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Okay, thank you.

Item number seven, preliminary plat.

The applicant high range six development LLC through their aid agents Isaacson and Afferman request AFMAN.

ARFMAN.

Sorry if I'm botching that so badly.

Request approval for preliminary platform for the high range six phase one A subdivision.

The subject property is legally described as Unit 13, block 69's lots 19, 88, and 89.

Block 70, lots 1 through 29, 70 through 72, 74 through 96.

Block 71, lots 3 through 13, 34, 35, 37 through 45.

And a portion of the vacated Camelot Street Northeast.

Staff contact is Liz Luis Carlos, and the staff recommends approval with findings and conditions, Liz.

And these subject properties are bound by Inca Road Northeast, a residential road to the south, Xcaliber Street Northeast, a residential road to the east, Montezuma Boulevard Northeast, a future minor arterial road to the north, as well as Bedevere Street Northeast, a residential road, and Broadmore Boulevard Northeast, a minor material road to the west.

And it was amended at December 16th.

Um 2025 under resolution number 141, enactment number 25-140.

Here you'll see an overview of the plat.

And all proposed lots conform with lot width and acreage standards for the R5 single family residential zoning district.

Subject to the following conditions of approval and findings of fact.

Is the applicant here?

Same as last case.

We're here for any questions you may have.

This is a similar type subdivision that we're looking to bring to Rear Rancho.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, anybody in chambers like to speak for against item number seven on this evening's agenda.

Seeing none, anybody online like to speak for or against item number seven on this evening's agenda.

Hearing none, can I get a motion, please?

Motion to approve.

Item number seven.

Second.

Motion and a second.

Any comments from the board.

Seeing none, call the vote.

Vice Chair Gabbleton.

Yes.

Commissioner Toltorici?

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesty.

Yes.

Commissioner Klcher.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Okay, thank you.

Good luck.

All right.

Um any comments from board members.

Since I do not believe anybody was signed up for a public forum, can I get a motion for adjournment?

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.