Okay, good evening and welcome to a plan and zoning board meeting for March the 24th 2026.

Please silence all electronic devices while attending the planning zone board meeting.

And if you will please stand as two pledges of allegiance.

Okay, for the record, I will take a roll call by calling each plan zoning board members' name, please and knowledge.

Your presence was stand present.

Kevin Culture.

Present.

Robert Gabadon.

Present.

Andrew Hankins.

Present.

Lisa Hardesty.

Present.

Sao Totichi.

So Totoricci.

Okay.

All right.

Uh cover housekeeping items before we move forward.

In person attendees, please fill out a speaker form.

If you wish to speak, only individuals who have signed up would be permitted to speak.

If you have yet to fill out the form, now it's a time to do so and provided to record to my left.

Virtual attendees, please sign a chat and please send a chat message to the host or use a raise hand feature if you want to provide public comment.

Okay, moving on to the agenda.

Um sent calendar.

Uh motion to approve the consent calendar.

Motion to approve consent calendar for March 10th.

Okay, I'm gonna get a second.

And Gabbledon second.

Roll call.

Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Commissioner Coffer?

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabblet.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesy.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Thank you.

Okay, moving on to stab presentation reports and comments.

Item number two.

I'm just gonna acknowledge these.

Number two and number three.

Number two is planning and zoning monthly summary plat report, dated February 26.

I'm 2026.

Item number three, Plan and Zoning Board Monthly Building Activity Report, dated February 2026.

Okay, moving on to public hearing.

Um item number four is preliminary plat extension.

Staff cont contact is Liz Ruhe's Carlos and Staff recommends approval with findings and conditions.

Uh the item before you is a request for a preliminary plat extension for high range five.

Uh the applicant LGI Holmes, New Mexico LLC, through their agent Cohen Van Lu Consultants Incorporated, uh, is requesting this approval.

Uh the high range five subdivision is boarded by Excalibur Street to the west, Inca Road to the south, Guinevere Street to the east, and Montezuba Boulevard to the north.

Uh the subject property was formerly legally described as high range five tracks one and two.

And the original preliminary plot was heard and approved by the planning and zoning board at their June 14th, 2022 meeting.

Uh the plot has subsequently, or the plot was subsequently extended at the May 23rd, 2023 meeting again at the April 23rd, 2024 meeting.

And the pat was the plot was further amended uh at the September 10th, 2024 meeting to incorporate a previous holdout law and to modify rear lot lines to account for rear yard slopes.

Uh the plat was amended again at the March 11, 2025 planning and zoning board meeting uh to realign northern sky drive with the existing timber line road.

Uh per the conditions of approval of the previous preliminary plot from 2022.

Uh last the final plot for phase one was approved at the December 17th, 2024 planning and zoning board meeting.

Uh the properties are currently zoned R for single family residential, total approximately 75.2046 acres, and would be platted into 340 single family resident residential lots, 166 lots of which are included in phase one.

The property is under the high range five master plan adopted May 27, 2021, uh as well as under the Lomus Negative specific area plan.

Uh the applicant has provided a justification letter as to why they need the additional time for review.

Uh there have been no significant revisions to the subdivision code, zoning code, or infrastructure design standards since the plat's approval date that would necessitate a second review and reapproval for the high range five subdivision.

Uh development services finds it is in the public interest to grant the preliminary plat extension as the extension provides the applicant with additional time to address any issues or outstanding items for subdivision construction.

We'll see the plat here.

And with that, staff recommends approval findings and conditions, and I will stand for any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Is the applicant present?

Is the applicant present?

Okay, I'm sorry.

Okay.

Um we'll put up the oath.

If you can uh read that and fill in the blanks.

There it is.

Can you see the oath?

Yes, sir.

Okay, and can you speak up?

I was just waiting to make sure that y'all saw I had the handout.

Um sure.

I Douglas Chubin.

Place of business, 4550 North Twelfth Street, Phoenix, Arizona, 85014, representing Cohen Van Lu, to solemnly declare and affirm that testimony I give in reference to high range five phase two, item 22-210-0002 uh shall be the truth, and I do under be the truth, and I do this under the penalties per jury.

Okay, for the record as item number four.

Uh go ahead and with your presentation.

Yeah.

Um you would ask if there was someone representing the uh uh the case that that would be me.

And I am the project manager for Cohen Van Loop.

Um LGI Homes is very much ready to move forward on this phase.

Uh they did have a couple of elements that they needed to deal with.

They have now done so within the next 10 business days.

We will be resubmitting, we believe, improvement plans for phase two for final approval of the uh of the city, following which once we're confirmed that we don't have any further revisions, we'll work with our surveyor, then we will be getting the final plat submitted by June.

Okay, thank you.

Is anyone present who wish to speak for or against item number four?

Come forth.

State your name and your address.

Uh my name is Howard Birdsong.

I reside at 3506, Covert Wagon Road, Northeast, uh Sunreal Rancho.

It's 87144.

Okay.

Okay, um, I just have a I'd like you to uh delay that extension by uh LGI homes, and the reason is because um in the zone one, they didn't properly put up the barrier to prevent sand from getting into the uh and try at high range neighborhood.

So everyone in that district or in that uh subdivision has dirt mixed in their uh landscaping, and one of our rules of the uh community is to have that landscaping property properly landscaped.

Now we have all this mud and dirt from the sand, and um we've already asked LGI to they could do something about that.

Our park we have in the adjacent park and the park is nothing but sand anymore.

And if they're gonna do this, I mean the city is growing.

We would agree with no them continuing on, but not until they uh put up proper barriers to keep the sand from coming over.

When we discussed it when they were doing uh part one, uh they said it was an act of nature, an act of God.

Well, when we had the all the uh the tumbleweeds and stuff there before, act of God, the wind never blew the wind blew, but we didn't catch all the sand and uh landscapement didn't get all muddy.

So we'd like them to stop for a minute and for you to reconsider approving that until they get that fixed, then they can continue.

Okay, thank you.

Is there anyone else who would like to speak for or against item number four?

Anyone present?

Anyone virtual who would like to speak for or against item number four?

Anyone virtual who wish to speak for or against item number four?

Okay, item number four now closed for public comments.

Motion to approve item number four, Mr.

Chair motion to approve item four is presented.

Second, second.

Okay, and a discussion from the board.

Any discussion from the board.

I see nine.

Call to roll.

Vice Chair Gabbledon.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins.

Yes.

Commissioner Ferr.

Yes.

Chairman Richardson.

Before vote, I have something that came.

Is it too allowing me to comment on that, Amy?

We're in the home.

A vote.

Okay.

I have something I want to talk about.

But it anyway.

Yes.

Commissioner Hardesty.

Yes.

Okay.

Moving on to item number five, which is a variance.

Staff contact with Tim De Bork and staff recommends denial with findings.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

Tim Deborek, planner with the city of Rio Rancho.

This item before you this evening is a variance request to the C2 commercial front setback for constructed CMU wall at the property of 1522 Stephanie Road Southeast.

The wall was approved to measure eight feet in height and was located 10 feet from the front property line.

The wall was actually built to be six feet in height and was located only four feet from the front property line, resulting in a six-foot encroachment.

As I said, the subject property is 1522 Stephanie Road Southeast at the intersection of Stephanie Road Southeast and Eileen Road Southeast, both residential roads.

The property itself is zone C2 wholesale and warehousing, commercial district with C2 commercial to the south and to the west.

Also R4 single family to the north and R6 multifamily to the east.

Additionally, a conditional use permit to allow for the property to be used as a contractor's yard was approved by the board June 25th, 2024 under case number 24-120-9.

City DSD planning staff conducted a preliminary inspection on the property after the wall was constructed on September 19, 2025, and determined that the subject wall was encroaching within the C2 wholesale and warehousing commercial front setback.

As such, code enforcement case number 25-6131 was initiated.

Originally, the applicant applied for both this subject CMU wall as well as an additional eight-foot chain length fence with privacy slats with that original fence permit.

However, per building code, a commercial building permit would be required for the wall, and the fence as submitted as they exceed seven feet in height.

As the applicant has not yet submitted a commercial permit for this, development services has created a building permit number 26-2239.

This will be the number for that commercial submission in the future.

And a condition of approval is that the applicant completes this process.

Additionally, per section 154.25 C1.

Um, it is required for contractor's yard walls to be eight feet in height.

So if this variance request is approved, the applicant would need to raise the six-foot CMU wall to eight feet in height.

Um, additionally, we have three different uh different easements in this area.

So we have 10 foot public utility easements adjacent to right-of-way, a 15-foot PNM easement in the front of the property, as well as a 25-foot drainage easement for Skafka to the north.

Um, as such, a condition of approval would be that the applicant obtain encroachment agreements from all of these utilities to uh ensure they uh have permission to encroach.

Additionally, um, another condition of approval would be that clear site triangle compliance be adhered to as um the wall currently is uh would either need to be removed, modified, or um materials changed so that it complies with code, and these are actual site pictures of the constructed wall.

As uh the lot is not irregular in shape, narrow, shallow shallow or steep, and does not have an exceptional physical condition that prevents the applicant from complying with the zoning code.

Staff finds that the applicant has not adequately addressed the criteria for granting of a variance and recommends uh denial with findings, and with that I will stand for any questions.

Okay, thank you, Tim.

Is able to present please come forth, state your name, me address.

Yeah, my name's Adam Bangeter.

Our business address is 8019 Edith Boulevard in Albuquerque.

Uh that's our for our business.

I live in Corrales.

I'm Daniel Reeves.

Um I live at uh 1720 Gross Ventury Drive and business.

Our main business addresses in public.

Okay.

As we move forward, you gotta speak a little louder.

Much appreciated, and you may proceed.

Um yeah, this really just comes down to uh we are a growing business.

We needed an operation in Rio Rancho.

Uh we've really liked this location.

And as we develop the yard, unfortunately, the contractor that built it, which was our crew, uh put the wall in the wrong spot.

So we we want a variance to um a little bit of forgiveness here to avoid having to move this wall to be about a fifteen thousand dollar cost to us.

Uh we we want to operate in Rio Rancho.

This is a uh we live, we work here, we provide jobs for people and asking for some forgiveness here.

We're willing to overdo things in other areas of uh like the landscape easement, overplant, plant other places.

We're willing to do a lot of things to help beautify the city.

We would be willing to that we own Green Summit Landscape Management's our company.

Uh we want to make it a better place.

The wall unfortunately got put in the wrong spot.

We're willing to comply with whatever we would need to comply with to make it uh high enough.

Um other walls nearby, the residential walls to the north are right on the sidewalk.

Uh the residential walls to the back are also right on the sidewalk.

I know they're residential and that's different.

Um the crew unfortunately matched the height of the wall next door, uh extended to four feet, and they put it right there and matched it, and it got missed.

So that's why we're we're asking for some for some help here to be able to keep it.

We'll do a lot of we would plant a lot of trees uh in that easement or other easements that may need trees.

Uh we're willing to do things for the city to this variance approved.

Okay, would you like to speak?

Yeah, no, it was just uh an honest mistake.

Our crew shot the line from the they looked at the wall that was to the south of us, matched that one, and they shot a line to the uh residential area and just matched that line to continue the look and didn't realize that the uh setback had to be from uh measurements were from the back of the sidewalk and we did back of curb and measured them from back of curb, whatever I can't remember what it is.

It lined up with the wall for the north, and then the wall to the south.

So we thought we were in the right spot when the guys did footing in the trench.

Let us know that it's actually not you gotta be farther back, and so that's it was just an honest mistake, but we can uh put landscaping trees in the soft look.

I didn't eight foot.

I would like to we're not requesting that variance.

We'll go eight foot feet feet if needed, but that just feels awfully industrial to me.

I would like to soften the look with other barriers and whatnot, but that for your decision.

Okay, and another comment from you.

Oh, that's it.

Okay, thank you for your comment.

Is anyone present who wish to speak for or against item number five?

Is anyone present who wish to speak for or against item number five?

For against item number five.

Okay.

Motion to approve item number five.

Motion to approve item number five.

Can I go second?

Second.

Okay.

Any discussion from the board?

Mr.

Chair.

This is for for uh planner Tim Dvorak, uh, just for an opinion.

I I the thing that catches my attention the most is the is this is the site triangle for safety.

And can you can you tell me everything you can think of for that and what we should be considering for the site triangle?

Uh Mr.

Chairman, Commissioner Gabaldone.

Um, as far as that goes, um, we also did have a previous case similar to this, the 5005 industrial loop where um there were discussions that potentially they could utilize other material so that they're still meeting the site provisions and not impeding that traffic.

Where um there were discussions that potentially they could utilize other material so that they're still meeting the site provisions and not impeding that traffic.

So I I'm unfortunately not an engineer and can't uh speak to those types of things, but um the applicant would be required to meet that um those standards in order to proceed.

Okay.

Come on out.

Yeah, if you do have any comment on that.

Totally willing.

We understand uh yeah, the need for site triangles and totally willing to comply.

Anything we would need to do.

Yes.

Okay, I mean I I I'm my sense is if we leave it as it is, then it's not gonna comply with the site triangle.

Mr.

Chair, uh Commissioner Galbadone, that's correct.

So there will need to be even with any type of approval from this board, that's why uh Tim read out those conditions.

Um so they will need to work um on figuring out where that exact location of the site triangle is and how much in that corner the wall would need to be lowered.

Okay.

Um so we don't have those uh specifics.

Um so that's something that that an engineer would have to uh develop.

Um the other thing too, um, as a condition of approval that as Tim stated um is the location of the um PNM easement because there is that large, I'm gonna get it wrong, whether it's a transmission or a um what whatever the I think it's a large transmission line that goes across.

So there is a 15-foot easement for that one, and they have now walled in um that utility pole.

I cannot guarantee that PNM is gonna be happy with that when it comes to PNM's uh um when they actually uh see this.

Um so there may also have to be some movement of that wall to go around um that that specific uh that specific pole.

Yeah, um and so uh we'll have to have actually some sign offs by all of the utilities to know that there is an encroachment into those um those utilities.

Yeah, no, that I got a lot of experience with.

Uh most of the time those walls come right down, and it has nothing to do with this meeting.

They just the the utility tears it down for you.

Yeah, and we we we we've talked about these these issues and would be willing to move that corner of the wall back to uh so there was access to that uh to that poll on that corner.

Okay, so obviously your encroachment is, and I don't mean to be having a secondary discussion here.

I'm I'm done questioning then how so I just have comment now.

So my comment is is that the site triangle is of utmost importance for safety, and those those easement uh uh those easements are are going to be a problem with that large of an encroachment, that is my opinion.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Gabadon.

Any addition comments from the board?

You took the words out of my mouth.

So that's all.

Okay.

Um is this transformer on some of these transformer is ground mounted on the ground.

Is that uh Mr.

Chair?

No, if we can go to Tim's um Tim's pictures, so it's actually a transmission line, so it's one of those gigantic poles.

Um I'm not giving it justice, but you can see it there in the back.

It's that poll right there.

That's not good.

Okay.

Um question.

Is there a timeline on when if we were to approve this to go forward?

So a timeline to have these modifications completed.

So uh Mr.

Chair, we didn't build in any specific timelines for from which time to have these completed, because it will take some time to get um the utilities to sign off on the encroachment, um, and then time to have an engineer figure it out.

Um, but staff is aware of of the concerns um when it comes to the site triangle, and so if need be um we will there is currently a code enforcement case on this one.

We'll just suspend that um as we move forward.

Um, but if um if it feels like there's no action moving forward, we would just start again with that code enforcement action.

Okay, thank you.

In addition, comments from the board.

The picture show um it looks like the discount in the box looks like it's six feet tall right now, not eight feet.

Is that is that correct?

That's right.

Uh yes, Mr.

Chairman, Commissioner Kaufcher, that is correct.

It is currently six feet in height.

It was permitted to be eight feet, but uh it was only constructed to six feet.

However, uh code does require that this be eight feet tall um per that section 154254 contractor's yard.

Oh, so they want it to be eight feet, okay.

And that's Mr.

Chair, uh Commissioner Kaufcher.

Um my understanding is that they don't want it to be eight feet, but they are required by code for it to be eight feet.

Um that's the way I understand it too.

Thank you, Amy.

Okay, in addition discussion from the board.

Call the rule.

Okay, well, nope.

There seems to be like a lot of like different things kind of going on.

We got like a wall that might be moved, you know.

They don't they don't want the eight foot, but it's six foot.

So I don't know if like by if if we rule on it right now, how we capture that.

I mean, because there's there are different things involved with this wall with the site triangles and and such that I don't know how we kind of capture that our comments to move forward on this.

I agree.

I also they mentioned $15,000 in an expense.

I don't know if that kind of taps into every element that we're talking about, or if that's just for the site line, or if that's for where the transmitter is, or that's just a lot of money.

Right.

Anything you would like to add, is there any clarification that you like to add?

Uh Mr.

Chairman.

Um sorry.

Okay.

I'll get to him, yeah.

I'll get to him.

I wanted to address Commissioner culture comments first, but anyway, come on up and then we can we can circle back.

Uh if we need to make it eight feet, we can make it eight feet.

Um I mean, whatever we need to do to we we want to expedite this process, we want to be able to use the yard and uh not have we have a lot do a lot of business in the ranch, so we just want to expedite the process.

Might have asked a question.

All right, I I have a question then.

I mean, wouldn't it be easier to rebuild the wall to where it's supposed to be and then avoid all of these issues?

Yeah, I mean just asking the question.

Mr.

Chair, uh Commissioner Gelbadone, uh uh what we tried and and Commissioner Kaufcher as well, what we tried to capture in all of our conditions of approval, um, if it was decided by this board to move forward is all of the things that we are talking about tonight.

So they they would have to meet the site triangle, they would have to work with PM on that on that easement, they would have to look at uh raising the wall as well about having an engineer approve um the the footings for the wall, all of those types of things.

Um so if during that process um if this is approved with those conditions, if they decide or determine that at a point it's just easier to take it down and start again, that there's always that option as well.

Um but to help them move forward and and to keep the process moving.

Uh we feel like we captured everything in the conditions that are uh of approval um if approved with conditions.

Okay, thank you.

That clarification, thank you.

Okay, again.

In addition, discussion from the board.

Nothing further.

Any addition discussion from the board call roll.

Commissioner Hardesy, no vice chair gabbledon?

No.

Commissioner Hankins, yes.

Commissioner Hofcher, yes, Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Okay, moving on to item number six, subdivision variance.

Stave contact is Michelle Costill and Stab recommends denial of the request with findings and condition.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

Michelle Castilla, planner with the City of Rio Rancho.

I'm gonna um I'll be presenting items six, seven, and eight together.

Um the first two items are requests of subdivision variances to chapter 155.41.

And these are requested in conjunction with the third item, a preliminary preliminary plat for the northern exposure subdivision at the property legally described as unit eight, block 48, lots 13 through 17, 19, and 23 through 32.

Subject property is located between Northern Boulevard to the north, 9th Avenue to the south, and 3rd Street to the east.

It is zoned R1 single family residential ordinance number 62, and Act number 94-60.

It's not within any specific area plans or master plans.

The item was originally heard on March 10th, 2026 and was postponed at the applicant's request in order to incorporate minor changes to the plat, including removing track C and D, nearing tract A, and widening the adjacent lots four through seven.4M, dead end streets shall not be longer than 500 feet and shall be provided at the closed end with the turnaround having an outside roadway diameter of at least 100 feet.

The applicant is requesting approval of a subdivision variance for the stub streets to be named Arctic Avenue and Avalanche Drive, stating in their justification letter that this layout would be the best solution to optimize the land use.

Staff finds that the dead end street for Arctic Avenue would not adversely impact the proposed uh subdivision and does not impede necessity of the two access points for the subdivision.

And while this is also true for Avalanche Drive, staff finds that the design of the subdivision could be improved by not being a substreet and instead connecting to 9th Avenue to the south.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of the subdivision variants for Arctic Avenue with findings and conditions.

Recommends denial of the subdivision variants for Avalanche Drive with findings.

And also staff recommends approval of the northern exposure preliminary plat with findings and conditions.

With that, I'll stand for any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Is the advocate present?

State your name, address.

Yes, sir.

Uh Jared Liker, 409 New Mexico Highway 528, uh, Rio Rancho, New Mexico, 87124.

Um, wanted to give a couple kind of generalized comments.

Obviously, I'm gonna do all three of these together, so so bear with me a little bit, please.

Um in general, the DPM talks about the international fire code in depth uh throughout the DPM, and this meets one of the criteria for the fire apparatus access roads appendix D.

Um, in that particular uh document in D 103.4 dead end streets, um, it allows for 150 feet without a turnaround.

Um so I believe I'm complying with that.

We're less than 115 feet deep on these two substreets and comply with that international fire code for those two uh stub streets.

There's additional considerations for these two substreets that I'd like to discuss.

Um of those being that on Avalanche, what what you'll find on Avalanche is that everything to the west when we come to 9th Avenue, everything to the west is owned by Skafka.

There'll be no development to the west.

So on 9th Avenue, they bought all those properties because there's a playa at that location.

We actually sold a majority of our interest in that area to Skafka so that they could own and operate the playa in that area, so nothing will go west of that.

What we were thinking when we did this stub treat in that particular uh area on Avalanche was that um what we wanted to do was provide access for utilities.

So we don't we don't have any, we have very little interest in land to the south of 9th Avenue, but wanted to be able to stub water and sewer through that location.

Um in the ABM, it discusses that we have two access points.

Um if you take a look at the plat, we actually have three currently and didn't want to have a fourth on 9th Avenue where it basically goes to an area where we have no interest.

But we did want to have the ability to do water and sewer stubs through that stub street into 9th Avenue.

What happens is when people develop their acre lots south of 9th Avenue, um, we're also gonna stub on third street, so for utilities.

Um so what happens is if I don't have that connection via avalanche on that stub street.

Rio Rancho has rules where you can't have a dead end line for water more than a certain length.

So what that's gonna help the city with is being able to connect into our subdivision with water, um, so they'll have a loop system if people develop their lots on on um 9th Avenue to the to the south.

So we wanted to provide that stub, and if people want to extend water, that location it ultimately, if everyone developed in there, they'd have a loop system, and it wouldn't violate the city's uh design standards for a dead-end length waterline.

Um the two stub streets, I believe, are basically identical.

I didn't really hear anything that was elaborate just because the staff didn't like the layout, but they approved one and not the other.

I would I was confused by that.

Additionally, in the comments for for the subdivision, um, development services engineering had no comment regarding the stub street.

Um fire um actually reviewed it as well and had no adverse comments for for either of the stub streets.

So I think with the added benefit of providing that looped water line, I'd ask you to prove approve both Avalanche and Arctic.

Arctic's a little bit different.

What we're thinking on Arctic for that stub street is Skafka owns lot 18 uh directly to the east of that stub street.

Um storm water from northern just sheet flows into that lot.

Um we didn't think access off a northern would be the best case scenario for flood control in that instance.

So what we wanted to do was provide that access to 18th so they can come and maintain that property um at whatever time we we actually develop and dig a pond in that location.

So that one got that one was recommended for approval.

The other one was not.

We think they're kind of identical situations uh with the added benefit of in the future we can have that looped water line for the residents that are south of 9th Avenue.

Um, really no additional comments with regards to preliminary plat.

Um we agree with the conditions.

Um obviously, condition seven talks about SKAFCA and getting them to allow me to work on their property.

Um we'll do those discussions.

They call it a turnkey agreement.

I'll get that going with SCAFCO once we have a preliminary plat in place and we know we're gonna move forward.

Um I would stand at that point for any questions you have for me on those two.

Okay, thank you for your comments.

Is there anyone present who wished to speak for or against item number six?

So anyone present who wished to speak for against item number six.

Is there anyone virtual who wish to speak for or against item number six?

Okay, motion to approve item number six motion to approve item six is presented.

Um second, second, okay, and a discussion from the board.

I do uh I I would like to address the question you had about the difference in the and the recommendations for the two different requests.

One street recommending approval, one street recommending denial.

Can you provide any clarifying information, City staff?

Mr.

Chair, Commissioner Hardesty.

So when staff reviewed uh one of the things when we look at subdivision variances that we look at is um if the subdivision variants actually uh adds to or creates a better um better layout or a better condition for the subdivision.

Um so we find for the one off of Arctic, we understand that that dead ends into a lot that is not owned by the by the owners, and so we get that there is a need for that with the layout that they've created.

Um it felt that the one on Avalanche um just for the general flow would just um connect down to that ninth street.

Um I think it's ninth.

Uh I don't have the map in front of me.

Um so uh to us it didn't feel like a better um a better layout, um, and so that's why we recommended denial of that one and approval of the other one.

Thank you, Amy.

Thank you.

Any further discussion for the board I hear not call to roll Chairman Richardson?

Yes, yes, heckins, yes, vice chair gabbledon.

Yes, motion pass.

Okay, moving on to subdivision variants.

Um staff contact is Michelle Costello and staff recommends approval.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Members of the board know for their comments, yes, Mr.

Chairman and and board members.

Um no additional comments would stand for any additional questions you may have on me.

Okay, any motion to approve item seven as presented.

Thank you.

Second okay.

Um, any discussion from the board.

Any discussion from the board.

I hear it once you know I call the roll.

Commissioner Copter.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabbleton?

Yes.

Commissioner Hartispe.

Yes.

Chairman Richardson?

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins.

Yes.

Motion passed.

Okay, moving on to item number eight.

Uh, staff contact is Michelle Castle, and she recommends approval of the item with findings and conditions.

Thank you again, Mr.

Chair, members of the board, no further comments.

Okay.

Chairman Board members, uh, same for me, no additional comments.

Okay, motion to approve item number eight.

Motion to approve item number eight.

Second.

Commissioner Hartesty?

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabbleton?

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins?

Yes.

Commissioner Copcher.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Any comments from the members on the board.

Um, public form.

Someone in the public would like to speak.

On item that is not listed.

No.

Okay.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

Go lobo.