Meeting for April the 14th.

I asked everyone to please sound your all of your electronic devices while attendance planning and zoning board meeting.

If you would please stand with me for pledges of allegiance.

Okay, for the record, I will call the role by calling each plan and zone board members' name.

Please acknowledge your presence by saying present.

Kevin Kovcher.

Present.

Rob Agavadon.

Present online.

Andrea Hankins.

Present.

Mrs.

Harshi is excused.

Sarah Todorichi.

Present.

Okay.

A couple of housekeeping items before we begin.

In personal attendance, 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 a form, now's the time to do so and provide it to the recorder to my left.

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

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

Okay.

Um next on the agenda is calendar, the consent calendar.

Can I get a motion to approve?

Motion to approve.

Can I give a second?

Second.

Second.

Call the roll.

Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Commissioner Kaufcher.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabblan.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins.

Yes.

Commissioner Torterici.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Okay, thank you.

Next in line on the agenda is the staff presentation reports and comments, which are Plan and Zoning Board Monthly Summary Plat Report dated for March 2026.

And Plan and Zoning Board Monthly Building Activity Report dated March 2026.

Okay.

Mr.

Chair, these are your standard reports.

If you have any questions, we can answer any questions.

Otherwise, this is a non-action item.

Okay.

No questions.

Okay.

Moving on to public hearing.

Item number four is a preliminary plat.

And staff contact is Ben Isaacs.

Uh and staff recommends approval with findings and conditions.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman and members of the board.

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

The item before you is a preliminary plat for the Tampico subdivision.

The applicant Tampico Development LLC is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for the Tampico subdivision.

The subject property is legally described as Unit 17 Tract A and Entrada de Coronado Tract B, and is located between Idalia and Batapa Roads, east of Aurora Road and west of New Mexico Highway 528.

The property is zoned R4, single family residential, and is located in the Tampico Master Plan adopted last year under Resolution 90 enactment 25088 at the applicant's request.

The preliminary plat proposes 118 residential lots and 10 tracks in total.

On this slide, you can see an overview of the Tampico subdivision and the proposed lot and road layout.

Primary access to the subdivision is to be provided from the south at the existing Batapa Road and Nogales Road intersection.

Two other access points are to be provided off of Aurora and Vatapa roads.

While the preliminary plat shows these two points as providing full access, the traffic impact analysis provided by the applicant shows them as emergency access only.

So this discrepancy shall be addressed ahead of the final plat submission if approved.

Those are highlighted in green.

Staff recommend that the board approve the preliminary plot based on the specified findings of facts and conditions.

Conditions to note include that the plat construction plans and traffic impact analysis are corrected to reflect a consistent number of access points, and that a future platning action is submitted for right-of-way dedication and realignment of Aurora Road Northeast and Batapa Road Northeast.

I'll stand if there are any questions.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Bianca.

Is the applicant present?

Please state your name and your address.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

My name is Nicosia Shuttlebauer, P.O.

Box 9043, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87119.

So just give me a moment.

I need to get the clicker.

So I'd like to start this evening by thanking staff for their continual help with the project and for their presentation this evening.

I am going to try to keep my presentation brief.

Here's a snapshot of our project history.

We brought forth a request for a zone map amendment and master plan for the site to create a single family home subdivision.

In August of 2025, the governing body passed the zone map amendment and the Tempico Master Plan.

The master plan showed a conceptual layout of 118 homes, a one-acre park, and access to the subdivision via Aurora and Vatapa.

This was what was in the master plan.

Our preliminary plat follows the same at 118 homes, a 1.4 acre of combined park area, and access to the subdivision is from Vitapa at the Nogalis intersection.

Our preliminary plat that we are presenting today is in alignment with our master plan.

In your agenda packet are the general information points for the plat.

I want to touch on number three, which is the proposed access for the site.

However, after reviewing our traffic impact analysis, we are updating the plat to follow the recommendations from the report.

One, there were no failing levels of service.

Two, the access to the subdivision from Aurora will be for emergency vehicles only.

And third and lastly, all subdivision traffic will enter and exit from the entrance on Vitapa.

We are in agreement with the conditions as outlined in the packet.

And with that, I thank you for your time this evening, and I stand for questions.

Okay, thank you.

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

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

Is it is it a raised hand or no?

Come forth.

State your name and your address.

Good afternoon.

Uh my name is Pedro Vargas.

I live uh 6908 Batapa Road Northeast.

Um I just heard this uh yesterday, and um I think is um unsafe for the kids that run on it on those roads.

Um I saw a lot of keys more and more running uh on my street.

Um they are running without looking anywhere.

Uh they even come into my uh uh parking spot, and it's it's beautiful for me to see them running, but uh with that many cars going out uh on Batapa into uh I mean into Batapa, they're gonna make right onto Aurora, and that's exactly where more of the keys run on.

Um just to me so unsafe uh on that exit.

Only one exit on Batapa Road.

Thank you.

Thank you for coming.

Is anyone else present who wish to speak for or against?

Is it raised hand?

Come forth.

Could you please state your name and your address?

My name is William Vorse.

I live at 7000 Tampico Road.

Our house is uh on Nogales, one side of our house.

I'd like to point out that Nogales is a dirt road and already has a lot of traffic, creates a lot of dust.

But more importantly, coming out of that subdivision is going to empty onto Pestilla, which then it goes on to 528.

That's a very dangerous intersection already.

There have been a number of accidents, some of them fatal.

And without a traffic signal, that is just gonna get worse and worse.

So by having all that activity empty onto Vata Pap, that's uh a danger waiting to happen.

Thank you for coming.

Is anyone else president wish to speak?

Come forth.

Um I think I saw your hind first.

They give her a second yet.

She please take your name and the address.

Janet Burnside, 2913 Aurora Road.

Um we are the second house in near Idelia, um, and we have um a circular driveway.

I actually brought some pictures just so you know, um, because I'm a visual person.

Um we constantly um get people who come through and they make U-turns in our driveway right now.

Um you increase the traffic on that road probably by tenfold by building these homes.

Um my grandkids can't go out and at flowers, ride their bikes, play soccer with people going in and out of our driveway, constantly do it right there in front of me if I'm out there.

Um and I actually it rained a couple of days ago, and I took these pictures about three hours ago.

You can see the tire tracks where people have already been on my driveway because I haven't gone in and out of that, and I don't own many of those tire tracks, and it's not safe, and it's gonna increase with the traffic.

Um we bought this house just a few years ago.

This is the view I paid for.

I paid for a view and for my kids to be able and my grandkids to be able to go outside and enjoy what they can see and what's there.

Um it's just it's dangerous.

We can see 528 from our road.

Um there's accidents all the time down there.

Every couple days there's ambulances.

The speed limit on Idelia is 40.

If they don't hit that red light, they're doing more than 40 by the time they get to Aurora, and then they come turn turn down our road.

We're two doors in.

And the house on the corner has two smaller children than we've got, and they're handicapped.

It's not safe.

I I'm new in this area.

I came out here last time and drove down 550.

I don't usually come this way.

I'm sorry, there's a lot of open land.

Build somewhere else.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Please state your name and the address.

Catherine Sherman, I'm at 2640 Nogales, which is the second house in from the intersection.

What the development is talking about, the Tapa and Nogales.

Just to give you an idea, I bought my property in 2000.

Well, about 2000, and I built in 2006, and that property is a half acre, and we were required to have no less than 1600 square feet on that half acre of property.

And from what I was told by the builder, is the town didn't want trailer homes on any of those individual custom lots.

So now fast forward to here, and this is like reminds me of a sardine can of a development with all these cars.

Now what I'm concerned about is making the Vitapa and Nogales entrance the major one, because now it's a straight shot across Fatapa.

We already have people that don't stop at the stop sign coming over Aurora, then they zip around the corner.

I walk my dog, I have to pull her off the side of the road because people are speeding.

I've never seen a police officer do any kind of um.

25 years.

I used to patrol all the neighborhoods.

I'm sorry to talk with my hands.

Um so I never see anybody, so I'm concerned about speeding.

Who's going to pay attention to the speeding?

Or what about when it rains?

It doesn't rain often.

We know that.

Well, when it does, right in front of my house in the next unimproved lot, it's a lake.

And it doesn't go away for two days.

So we have deep mud, people coming to the mud.

Oh, I don't want to go that way, trying to maneuver around it, or they go through it, and there's deep ruts now.

One day it was so bad when somebody drove through, they drove through so fast that my garbage pail is covered in mud.

You wouldn't even recognize that it was waste management garbage pill was camouflaged.

So what is going to be what can be done if this entrance is a major entrance?

The rest, all that other impact comes from that.

And if there's uh let's say at minimum a hundred cars that come through there, who's gonna help fix whatever the the problem with the roads?

I'm paying my taxes for the town to come out and grade that road once a week, which usually isn't enough, but now with more traffic, I think it's gonna need more.

I think that's it.

Because I'm a little upset.

So um, oh well, just one thing.

Um why does that have to be the primary exit and entrance?

It's the most houses in that area.

The other two, they're out on kind of on the perimeter.

Couldn't that be possible to be the major one there and not at Nogallis and Vitapa?

Okay.

Thank you for your comment.

See a lot of hands.

Uh, I think I saw yours first.

Please come for it.

State your name and your address.

Hi, my name is Kimberley Jennison Sample, and we live right at the corner of Vitapa and Nogales.

So our property uh would abut this entrance directly.

Um I have um I remember last time I was at this meeting.

Um many homeowners brought up the fact that why couldn't um the entrance, this new development, which seems to be it's going to be developed whether we like it or not, be off encotado off um by the light off Idalia.

And the comment was made by um the other people that um the um property was owned at by another person and they would have to get back to us on that.

Um that seems to make a heck of a lot more sense to me based on the fact that they were willing to pave Aurora, they were willing to pave Vitapa, but they were not going to touch Nogales.

And I second all the comments that were made regarding Nogalis, Nogalis will not be touched, will not be paved.

Nogalis is a heavily tracked road, whether whatever they count it at now will be continually uh impacted by people exiting right across from our driveway, coming out, and they will most certainly be going down Nogalis, and Nogalis will not be paved.

So they're going to pave Vitapa, they're going to be which most likely no one's going to be going west on Vitapa.

They're going to be, if they're exiting the development, they're going to be and heading towards 528.

They're going to be going up Aurora towards Idalia, or they're going to be going south on Nogales to Pasea to go towards 528.

But Nogalis is not going to be touched, which makes absolutely no sense.

And we know that we're going to lose a lot when this development goes up.

And we at this point are just trying to protect our home, um, protect our road, um, be able to enter and exit our home safely, and coming out of our develop development right into another development where you're going to have 118 homes, um, 118, I believe, um, homes with cars coming out right directly apost from that makes zero sense to most of these residents when it the most likely, the most realistic we all feel would be exiting and entrance uh uh and entering from Idalia.

And I'm really curious as to why that option was never followed through, or if it had been looked at.

And I guess that would be it.

Thank you for comment.

I think you were next, and then we'll come we'll come around this way.

Let me get I'm sorry, sir.

She was next.

State your name and address, please.

Um, my name is Pat Da Vinci, I live live at 6404 Madamoris Road.

It's up the hill off of Adelia.

Uh my main concern is not only do we have these houses that are going to be turning off of 528 onto Adelia.

We also have 400 apartment government subsidized homes being built on the other side of Adelia.

So we have those cars turning off of 528 onto Adelia, plus these homes turning off of 528 onto Adelia.

So there's over 500 more cars coming in.

And if they have two cars each, that's a thousand.

Plus on Pasea, I live between Pasea and Adelia.

So we too we can come up with Pesilla, but with traffic problems there, they're gonna put no left turn from Pesilla on to 528.

And if you're coming north on 528, they're gonna stop the left-hand turn lane there to come on Pasea.

So that traffic's gonna go to Adelia.

So Adelia is gonna be a mess.

It's already work traffic, it's already backed up, and now you're gonna add a thousand more cars turning on to Adelia from that from 528.

We already have accidents on Pasea and 528, and the traffic's gonna be horrible coming on Adelia with an additional minimum 500 cars.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Gentlemen, the yes.

State your name and address, please.

Yes, my name is uh John Clark, and I live on 6804 Vitapa Road, Northeast.

I'm about a quarter mile up from Nogallis and the Vitapa intersection.

Uh but first I'd like to thank this board for recommending disapproval of this project.

Um all of us who live in that area, we appreciate you for your fortitude to stand up and say there's some problems here.

After this was approved at the city council, I spoke to the mayor, Greg Hall, uh, about why did you uh approve something that the planning and zoning board had recommended disapproval of twice?

And he said to me, and this is the substance of that comment, that you are the uh to make a recommendation, and the council and the mayor are not have to accept that recommendation.

And uh four of the city councilman and the mayor voted to approve it, one voted against it.

So this is an issue, a dirt road.

We have a family here that lives right on O'Gallus, their children.

The dust is incredible.

Today is a good example of living on a dirt road uh with what comes into the homes into our lungs.

Uh, and this is just gonna increase it.

If there's a hundred and eighteen homes, assuming that you have two parents or two a couple in there, you have two cars because they have to work.

So you're looking at over 200 new cars hitting this neighborhood.

Plus, you have a hill coming up on Aurora that is a huge blind spot.

Uh just two days ago, there's a construction of a new house on Aurora, and one of the contractors had backed some of the materials into the base of that hill.

And I slowly went around and had a car coming at me head on.

Uh it was closed.

And that's a that's not unusual on that at on that hill or that road.

And it just seems that the developers have been able to skirt this issue.

And again, in closing, I'd like to commend you for recommending non-approval.

And I hope that you don't approve this when we have a common sense egress coming right across from the traffic glide from the courthouse off of Idalia.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

My name is Josh David.

I live at 7020 Vitapa.

Um again, I I would also like to commend you guys for the integrity of looking at this subdivision and saying there are issues with it, right?

Whether you side with us or the developers, I don't think actually comes into your mind.

I think you actually didn't seek approval because you saw that there was issues.

And the number one being ingress and egress points within the subdivision.

Um both of their ideas of how to get people in and out of this 118 home subdivision are inadequate.

Ultimately, there is not a safe way for them to do it in case of any emergency.

I'm also a retired law enforcement.

You can't get that many people out of a neighborhood with one ingress and egress point.

You can't.

And that was the issue that you guys disapproved.

And I appreciate your integrity for actually looking at it.

But if you look at the plat, unfortunately, this is the problem of we want to make as much money as we can.

How can we push this through?

Right.

Um, well, we'll just change it.

We'll change it.

Maybe they maybe they won't see it, right?

Um, regardless of whether it exits onto Aurora or Nogales.

Infrastructure does not support this many homes and that many cars.

I mean, that's the bottom line.

If you're looking at a zoning and a planning, I don't care if you agree with ruining my home, right?

And all these people's life is that's not your job.

But you should look at their plat and say this does not make sense.

They have not dealt with the issue of how to do this safely with all those homes.

So again, I thank you guys for using logic, as well as your integrity to stick with it.

I know that city council does not have to listen to you.

We've already learned that once.

But if it becomes a safety issue, maybe they will at least listen before just blindly pushing this through again.

Thank you.

Thank you for comment.

Come forth.

My name's Casey Boyles.

I live at uh 7012 Chipingo, right on Chipingo Nogales.

We will be in jeopardized with our safety of my family as we go on walks with their dogs and our family.

My kids play, there's enough vehicles already for the the little bit of houses that we do have.

Like they said, to be adding 500 vehicles daily to and from work.

Construction, I make construction, so construction workers, they don't pay attention, they don't care.

Up and down the road.

I have I have kids, and it's just not safe.

Make Nogales in the top of the entryways.

Somebody's gonna get hurt.

All I gotta say.

Thank you.

Is anyone else present who wish to speak for or against?

Come on up.

Name and address, please.

I'm Jamie David, and I also live at 7020 Vitapa.

Um I just want to say at the city council meeting when they approved it, which kind of surprised us after you guys had said that you didn't approve it.

The developer said that she would be talking to those of us that live there, and we have not had any conversations.

Um I also didn't see what the update was because our house is the one that's um off of Aurora into Vitapa, so we were concerned about our driveway and accidents.

I still don't know what the update is for that.

But I also want to say that they were willing to pave, I don't know if that's still happening either, Aurora and Vitapa, but no gallus needs to be paved.

Like there's just no way to have that many cars on that road safely.

Um the puddle that one of my neighbors mentioned, my son's 17-year-old font son, our friend drove through that.

Um, his bumper hit and his whole bumper was ruined.

He got out of the car, put it in the backseat.

He has no money for a new car, and we joke that his car is now toothless from the movie.

Um, but that it's a serious issue, the puddles that are on that road.

Um, like somebody else mentioned, the city does work on it usually once a month on or once a week on Thursdays, but that's not always, and that is that doesn't seem to be enough either for the houses that are on there.

So um, I just am also very concerned about all that traffic going up Pesilla.

I have known people from friends of friends that have passed away on that road, and for us to add another thousand cars going in and out of that is just tragic.

I don't know how else to say it.

So unless no gallus is going to be paved and there's a better plan.

I just I really hope you guys consider that as a huge issue.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Someone else.

Please come forward.

State your name and the address.

Jack Galen and I live at uh 716 Vitapa, basically across the road from Aurora and Vitapa.

Um questions quickly though.

Um there's confusion about whether there are three uh uh access points or one.

My understanding from talking to Ben is that two of them are just for emergency access.

Is that true?

That's it.

I'm happy to answer this question now.

Is that allowed?

Okay.

They just they told me.

So uh second question for for you folks.

Um talk about paving Vitapa, my understanding is you talking about paving it from Aurora, Vitapa intersection direction I 21.

All right, okay.

So Vitapa is going to be uh almost all of it still a dirt road.

Um I did uh an informal analysis of the likely traffic patterns, whether you're going out of the development north, west, south, or east, and at least two of those directions are dangerous.

I echo everybody's um feeling about pushing all of the traffic out of uh out of the development that's heading south down McGallis.

It's simply is they say not safe.

It's not uh the road is not um designed or or implemented to handle that kind of traffic, and when it finally gets to 528, that as folks have said is a really unsafe intersection.

The other direction that is unsafe if you only can access uh or exit out of uh that southern point is going west.

If you uh that means two object obvious ways, folks would come out on the exit onto Vitapa, take a right and shoot up Aurora until they hit Idalia.

If you want to make a left on a daily at that point, there the last resident uh has a block wall, and you're you're gonna cross traffic first, but in order to be able to see, you've got to inch your nose out into the road, uh and then you you shoot it out.

You go, yeah, okay, I got room and I take off.

Sometimes it's close because folks are lying down the hill on Idelia toward the light.

Um if people are uncomfortable at that corner, the other likely way they'll head west is to stay on Vitapa.

And after a hundred feet of paved Vitapa, you hit the door dirt road.

And once again, you're on a residential dirt road with folks walking, kids playing, uh, people running.

Um, and it's not designed to uh well, like if it rains hard, um there is you know uh a minor river coming down Vitapa.

So uh way of people going to sir.

Uh just a remind um um speakers that you have a two-minute maximum okay station okay if we just stay.

Last last point though, if they stay on Vitapa to head west, they'll go up the street, they'll take a right on a dirt road, Compeche, come out to Idalia, and at that point you can see clearly both ways to cross the traffic.

But to go that way, once again, you're putting um traffic that wasn't intended onto a dirt road.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for the comment.

I think it's anyone else who will speak for against item number four who's present.

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

Okay, item number four is now closed for public comments.

Um motion to approve item number four and chairman.

Motion to approve.

Okay.

Um discussion from the board.

Did we want to give the developer an opportunity to answer some of the questions?

Yes, come forward.

So Mr.

Chairman, Commissioners, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on some of the matters that were brought forth from the neighborhood.

Um I think just to start with this subdivision, we are following all of the guidelines and the technical standards that the DPM and engineering require when we develop a subdivision in the city.

So with that being said, right, Aurora, the Tapa have to be paved and improved, and that roadway for Vitapa will be improved all the way to the edge of our subdivision, which is actually where that roadway ends now.

So it should be a complete improvement up until the intersection of Aurora, and then from there we go Aurora North to Adahia.

Um with that, that should hopefully help with some of the maintenance that happens because of the rains.

There is a lot of upstream that comes through this site in the neighborhood, not just in our subdivision, but in this area.

Um so putting in some storm drains into the intersection of Aurora and Vitapa will hopefully alleviate some of that ongoing maintenance for the areas that we are not improving.

Um I also would like to point out that I think we had the discussion previously that NMDOT will not allow access onto New Mexico 528, which is why all of our access points had to be directed back towards Adalia.

Um we have hired a traffic engineer, and we are not as much as I'd love to just put a uh an entrance where we'd like, um, we have hired somebody to do a study to understand what the impact of that subdivision is going to have and if it's safe and what kind of traffic it generates, and that study has come back with nothing that is contributing to failing queuing lengths or issues both from our subdivision and onto the the roadways that it's going to impact.

Um I certainly just gonna try and go through the notes.

I know Jamie brought up the roadway and try to understand what's happening at that intersection.

Um we've presented the roadway intersection configuration based on the recommendations from that traffic impact study.

We've coordinated with city staff on the design, and ultimately we defer to the city um regarding that design and the right-of-way construction because we want to do what's safest for the residents as well.

Um trying to just read through the notes here.

Um our grading is another issue that pinpoints exactly where we have to have these entrances.

So as some of the residents have said, there's a pretty steep hill on Aurora, and because of the grading changes that we have to make to meet the spec standards for the roadway of Aurora and having it be, you know, a certain grade level to be able to put in sidewalks and have a drivable road, we can't put entrances at certain points because of just the natural topography and trying to make that site level, which is why we had to push it further down to Nogales.

Um I I really wish if there was a way, right, that we could better address some of these concerns, but we've done what we can because we've hired our traffic engineer, and we've worked with city staff and engineering to try to make sure that we're adhering to all the standards that it would take for the subdivision to be built out.

If there's any other outside questions you feel I haven't answered, please let me know.

Thank you.

So the traffic study that you had done.

Just remind everybody that that would have to be turned in as part of your permitting process and to get your approval to even start the construction, correct?

Correct.

So with our preliminary plat, we've already submitted the traffic impact analysis for review.

It has to be approved by both the city of Rio Rancho and New Mexico DOT, and we cannot have final plat approval until all of in any comments, issues, safety concerns are addressed.

Thank you.

And so that was more the kind of letter there because I knew the answer, but the I want to remind everybody.

Um this is the preliminary plat.

This is a very early stage in the construction of that.

There's a lot of conforming things that have to happen for them to commence construction.

That being said, you know, when um we like to promote well, speak for myself.

You know, physically responsible development.

That's what that's what keeps the the city moving.

And when you get an investor and a developer that is doing just that, conforming to the DPM and conforming to that, you know, it becomes very hard to do um to tell them they can't they can't prove prevail with their investment.

So that's that's my comment to it.

Not that the concerns aren't being heard, but you can go block by block in this town and figure out how it could be better.

Um, and sometimes you know, it's the the impact of growth is just that.

So thank you.

Thank you.

In addition to comment from the board, Mr.

Chair, this is Robert Gabbledone.

Go ahead, Commissioner.

I um I I want to uh agree with uh Commissioner Torterici that you know we're so we're so early, so this is preliminary, and uh we are as uh you know, to most uh opinions out there, we are pro-growth, pro-development, and uh we do our best to do those things, and our staff does a great job of that.

Um we always can look back and see what we could do better.

It's easy to look in the mirror and and uh rear view mirror and say, oh gosh, could have done that better.

Well, what I'm hoping with this particular project with this particular project owner, and we discussed this a lot last time.

I think the project owner can nod her head right now.

Yes, we discussed it a ton.

Um, I hope it gets way better before we get way further down the road.

But uh I think that uh you gotta allow that process to play out.

All the comments are very much appreciated, but um you know, we're we're this is kind of the quote unquote beginning, and you gotta let the process play out with what the developers' work is going to be with staff.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Gabadon.

Mr.

Chair, if I may.

Um, I just want to clarify that preliminary plat um does give the developer the ability that once they work through construction plans with the city that they they will go to horizontal construction.

Um so this is um one of those first steps um towards construction.

So I I just want to make sure that yes, it's preliminary, but there are some tangible steps forward for construction.

Thank you for the clarification, Amy.

But not until all of the requirements are met through the city permitting DPM and and all the things that are that need to be in place.

Mr.

Chair, uh Commissioner Tortorici, that's correct.

All those construction drawings do need to meet um the standards of the city, but but that is a step that they're already working towards for construction.

Thank you, Amy.

Appreciate it.

Okay.

Any addition comments from the board?

I hear none, I see none.

Called a roll.

Commissioner Torterici.

Yes, Vice Chair Gabbledon.

Yes, Commissioner Hankins, yes.

Commissioner Kaufcher, yes, Chairman Richardson, yes.

Motion pass okay, moving on to item number five.

A preliminary plot extension.

Stab contact is Tim Deboric as to have recommends approval with findings and conditions.

Give me Tim, give me one second to everyone clear out.

Yeah.

Okay, good, good.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

Tim Dvorak Planner with the city of Rio Rancho.

This item is a preliminary plot extension for the Broadmoor Hill subdivision.

Uh the subject properties are legally described as Unit 13, block 118, lots one through nine, and 16A through 20A, and comprise approximately 10.4899 acres.

Additionally, lots 16A through 20A are also subject to overlay ordinance number 63, enactment number 07-75.

The subdivision itself will be accessed via Blue Corn Avenue Northeast of Residential Road via Broadmoor Boulevard Northeast, a minor arterial, and also via Puerco Drive Northeast via Picarus Avenue Northeast, also both residential roads.

For zoning, we have R1 single family in all directions, along with R6 multifamily residential to the north, including NC neighborhood commercial.

To the west, we have R3 mixed residential and su for commercial, and um to the east, R4 single family residential, south C1 retail commercial.

The plot itself consists of 56 lots, two tracks and one parcel with private internal streets.

This plot um originally came before the board May 27th, 2025, and was approved by the board.

This also came with two subdivision variants requests, which were also approved.

These were for two street stubs within the subdivision for Members Drive Northeast and Salado Loop Northeast.

Additionally, this preliminary plot was approved under the previous subdivision ordinance.

So while there have been significant revisions to Chapter 155 and the development process manual, um as there have not been significant revisions to infrastructure design standards, um staff finds that this plot does not require a second review by the board.

Um as such, staff recommends approval and uh with findings and conditions, and I'll stand for any questions.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, really quick, if we can.

Um I believe Commissioner Galbadone was going to be recusing himself from this item.

That is true.

I my family is uh associated with land that is directly to the immediately north of that subdivision, so I will be recusing my vote.

Thank you, and I mean thank you for reminding me.

Okay.

Is the applicant present?

State your name and address.

Good evening.

My name's Nina Via with Hewitt Zollers.

Uh the address is 333 Rio Rancho Drive.

I'm an agent representative for the owner.

Uh we have reviewed comments from the staff and agree to address them.

And if there's any other questions, um ready to answer.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Is there anyone virtual who wishes to speak for against item number five?

Okay, uh item number five is now closed for public comments.

Motion to approve item number five.

Motion to approve item number five.

Second.

Second.

Okay.

And a discussion from the board.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, Commissioner Tortorici, this is the first preliminary plot extension request for this plot.

Oh, gotcha.

Ms.

Keyword.

Gotcha.

Okay, and then further discussion from the board.

See now here now.

Call the role.

Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Commissioner Kaufcher.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins?

Yes.

Commissioner Totorichi.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Okay.

Moving on to item number six is a conditional use permit.

Staff contact is Michelle Costile and staff recommends approval with funds and conditions.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

Michelle Castilla, planner with the City of Rio Rancho.

This item is a request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow for boarding kennel at the subject property legally described as Arrowhead Ridge, Tract 12A.

The subject property is located off of Arrowhead Ridge Drive, a residential road.

It's on SU special use for all permissive and conditional uses as defined within the C1 retail commercial and C2 district.

All surrounding properties are similarly zoned on SU under the same ordinance.

Land to the north is undeveloped and used for drainage.

Land to the east is a car dealership.

Land to the south is a tire shop and vacant parking lot, and land to the west is apartment homes.

This location previously received approval for a boarding kennel by the planning and zoning board on June 25th, 2024, under a different business and owner.

The current application applied for a commercial business registration with the city of Rio Rancho for the business named Premier Pets Playground.

Due to the business being under a different business and owner, a new uh and separate conditional use permit is required.

Per the Rio Rancho Municipal Code Section 150.04, a conditional use permit may be granted for the specific zone in which it is provided it meets in which it is allowed provided it meets any conditions stipulated in this title and is not detrimental to the public welfare, safety, health, morals, and convenience of the surrounding area.

The applicant has provided a site plan and details of the business operations, but which have been included as an attachment.

The application meets all conditions stipulated in the land use title as the business will be moving into an existing tenant space previously occupied by a similar boarding kennel business.

Site development of this property conforms to the conditions of the title, and the applicant will not be significantly modifying the site development.

Staff recommends the planning and zoning board find that the proposed use is not likely to be detrimental to the public welfare safety, health morals, and convenience of the surrounding area.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to findings and conditions, and with that I'll stand for any questions.

Okay, thank you, Michelle.

Is the applicant present?

Is the applicant present?

Okay.

Um president wish to speak for against item number six.

Okay, item number six is now closed for public comments.

Motion to approve item number six.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Second.

Okay, and discussion from the board.

And a discussion from the board.

Okay.

Called roll.

Commissioner Kaufcher.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabbledon.

Yes.

Commissioner Toltorici.

Yes.

Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Commissioner Hankins.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Um, moving on to item number seven.

Mr.

Chair, we'll have the record reflect that uh Commissioner Torterici has uh left the meeting for tonight.

Okay.

Not just for today.

Yes.

Okay.

Item number seven is the variance.

Staff contact is Layas Rarezquallos.

And cell recommends approval with fondness and conditions.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman, members of the board.

Lizarith Carlos, planner with the City of Rare Rancho.

The item before you is a request for a variance for 529 9th Avenue Northeast.

The applicant Amreston Homes LLC requests approval of a variance for the subject property legally described with unit 11 block V V lot 134.

Again, physically located at 529 9th Avenue Northeast.

The applicant requests a variance to the 60-foot lot width requirement for R1 single family residential to allow for development on the 50.02 foot wide lot as it exists.

The subject property is zoned R1 single family residential.

It comprises approximately 0.2295 acres and situated northwest of the 9th Avenue Northeast and 6th Street Northeast intersection, both of which are residential roads.

It is also located one lot south of Northern Boulevard Northeast, which is a principal arterial road.

The property was platted in January of 1967 in Book 1, page 72.

And the subject property is also located within an overlay zone.

Per ordinance number 21, enactment number 98-23, adopted September 23rd, 1998.

The overlay zone deems all contiguous 50-foot minimum fronted plots in the same ownership as merged for building and zoning purposes.

The applicant owns a single lot, and therefore the overlay does not apply.

The applicant also does not have the ability to apply for a summary plot to combine two adjacent lots into a larger conformity.

As such, staff recommends the planning and zoning board.

Find the subject property as an irregular and narrow lot.

The strict application of the minimum lot width requirement of 60 feet on this 50-foot wood lot wide lot would result in a hardship that would deprive the owner of the reasonable use of their land.

As the applicant does not own any adjacent lots to the subject lot, the option for a summary plot consolidation to expand the lot with is not available.

Staff recommends approval of variants case number 26-110-7, subject to the following findings and facts and conditions of approval.

And with that, I will stand for any questions.

Good, thank you.

State your name and the address.

Mr.

Chairman, members of the Planning Commission Board, Brian Ottagon with Amherston Holmes.

Um we have reviewed the uh findings from city staff, and I'm available to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

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

Certain one Burcher will wish to speak for against item number seven.

Okay, item number seven seven is now closed for public comments.

Motion to approve item number seven.

Mr.

Chair, motion to approve item seven as presented.

This is Gabble Done.

Can I go to second?

Second.

Okay.

And a discussion from the board.

Any discussion from the board.

Commissioner Hankins.

Yes.

Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Vice Chair Gabbleton.

Yes.

Commissioner Kaufcher.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Okay.

Moving on to item number eight, which is an appeal.

And that's to be presented by Mr.

Bryant.

You may proceed.

Uh good evening, Mr.

Chair, members of the Planning and Zoning Board.

Uh Brian Babia, planning and zoning division manager with the city.

The item in front of you is an appeal request for a wine grower license use at 3546.

The applicant is requesting an appeal of the decision by the city manager to uphold the development service department's final decision determining that a wine grower license is not a permissive use for the property located at 3546 Red Canyon Drive Northeast.

On your screen is a location map with the subject property denoted with the arrow and red box.

It's about 650 feet west as the Crow Flies of Cielo Azul Elementary School and north of uh King and Willpit, uh northwest of the King and Willpit intersection.

Uh for the proposed business, uh the zoning certification, which is what uh the appeals being heard under this evening, uh, would be the first step uh followed by a home occupation permit, business registration application application, uh, which would also require uh a wine growers license.

Uh that wine grower's liquor license uh would require approval by the governing body uh prior to being issued by uh the alcohol beverage control division, so this is not the final step by any means for the applicant should uh the appeal be uh granted.

Uh some additional background.

Uh why are we here this evening?

Um we don't hear too many appeals.

This is uh how we got here.

Uh in November, the development services department issued a zoning certification letter uh in response to a request for uh the zoning certification letter as required by the state of New Mexico for liquor licenses.

Uh the zoning certification that was written by development services staff uh stated that a business that would utilize a wine grower license was not permissible on the subject property.

Uh staff found the manufacturing of alcohol is not a listed permissive use in the SU zone for the subject property in the residential zoning districts in municipal code.

Also do not list the use as permissive.

Uh staff went further into looking into the uses allowed with a home occupation permit as outlined in chapter 121, and again did not find alcohol manufacturing production sales as permissive uh for the subject property.

Following staff's issuance of that letter, uh the appellant requested appeal of the development service department's decision to the city manager, which would be the first appeal uh in the process outlined in chapter 150.

Uh the city manager rendered his decision upholding staff's determination that the wine grower license use was not permissible in February of this year.

Uh the appellant is requesting reconsideration and reversal of the city manager's uh decision to uphold the development service department's determination per the zoning certification letter that a wine grower's license is not permissive on the subject property, and that's where you are today.

Um the review, uh the zoning ordinance, the SU Special Use Ordinance 022 enactment 95-020 for the subject property provides a lot size standards, which generally follow those of the R4 single family residential district along with permissive and conditional uses.

The development service department finds that the property zoning does not permit commercial production of alcoholic beverages, including the uses described in the wine grower's license under listed permissive uses.

While the 95 ordinance for the subject property does not explicitly list home occupations among permissive or conditional uses, staff has interpreted home occupations as a permissive use for the subject property.

Uh each residential zoning district in the city in the municipal code chapter 154 lists home occupations as permissive.

Uh, with those permitted and prohibited uses stated in section 12105.

Uh so here are some of the listed permissive or all of the listed permissive and prohibited home occupation uses.

I'm not going to read all of them off, but included among them for permissive uses are things like offices for accountants, attorneys, uh, those kind of professional offices and services, other services like pet grooming, physical therapy, and then artists and businesses like crafts dressmaking and sewing, just to name a few of the permitted home occupations.

The prohibited uses are explicitly listed, but also not limited to the following uses.

Uh, and they're included as they have a pronounced tendency to increase beyond the limits of the home and thereby impair the use and value of a residentially zoned area.

Some of these include uh motor vehicle repair, large appliance repair, dog kennels, and uh medical offices.

So in staff's review of this, uh we referred to and looked for uh definitions of wine grower as this uh relatively new and unfamiliar uh use in a for home occupation.

So under New Mexico State Statute 60 3-3, wine grower is defined as a person who owns or operates a business for the manufacture of wine or cider.

The wine grower's license uh wine grower's license regulations are listed under uh state statute 60-6A-11, which includes but is not limited to uh manufacturing or producing wine or cider, uh, blending, mixing, flavoring, coloring of the uh wine or cider, um, storing, transporting, importing, exporting wines or ciders, uh, selling wines or ciders to holders of wine growers, wholesalers, uh small brewer's license, um, and transporting not more than 200 cases.

Um with these Chapter 60 of uh Mexico State statutes, there are also additional regulations in the New Mexico Administrative Code, uh, the NMAC, as it's referred to, including Title 15 uh gambling and liquor control.

Chapter 10 definitions go further uh into the definition of wine grower, uh, which means a person or entity that is engaged in bona fide manufacture of wine, holds a valid wine grower's license, federal basic permit, who owns or controls fully operational wine-making equipment with the capacity for commercial production.

Um city staff uh determined that this use would not be permissive under the home occupations because of these definitions, uh, the manufacturing, the storing, and the capacity and and uh expanse that could be covered under the wine growers license.

Uh the city manager upheld the development service staff's finding uh that it couldn't be classified into one of the categories of permitted home occupations due to the nature and description of the business, uh materials used and products not aligning with uh one of the five categories that's listed uh in chapter 121, section 12105.

Uh and therefore the manufacturing production, storage, and sale of alcoholic beverages is not permissive as a home occupation.

So, next steps.

Should our decision be reversed, uh the appellant and business owner would need to conform with all regulations under 121 home occupations.

Um the decision be reversed, the approval this evening would be determining that the use is permissive.

Uh the licensing, registration, any other further licensing with the state uh would not be uh are not being approved at this time.

Uh the applicant would still need to apply for the home occupation permit and business registration.

Um then that also would include uh applying for a liquor license for the wine grower's license, uh, which as mentioned earlier would be approved and heard by the governing body uh or would need to be approved by the governing body through a hearing uh and any other associated third party internet sales licenses and liquor licenses with uh the state of New Mexico would have to be approved as well.

Uh if the decision by the city manager and city staff is upheld by the board this evening, the uh appellant uh may appeal the decision to governing body or doesn't proceed with the use.

Oh, in front of you are the findings and conditions for denial, uh that would be upholding uh our decision.

And then the findings and conditions uh for approval uh should you reverse our decision.

With that, I will stand for any questions, and I believe the applicant is online.

Okay.

Um guess approved oath.

Okay, uh, if you can uh fill in the blanks as you read.

Yeah, sure.

I Matthew Chaplin residing at 3546, Red Canyon Road Northeast, three rancho new Mexico 87144.

Do solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony I give is in reference to item number four.

I'm sorry, item number eight, excuse me, uh, and shall be the truth, and I do this under the penalties of perjury.

Thank you, Ms.

Chaplin.

You can proceed.

All right, so I believe it's Brian, he's gonna be helping me out a little bit with the and I appreciate you guys letting me attend via Zoom.

Uh, I had a conflict um to be there in person.

But there's a um a short PowerPoint.

Um Ryan, are you gonna be able to pull that up?

Yes, uh, I have it pulled up and it should also be visible uh in chambers for the PCB.

I got it.

Okay, awesome.

All righty.

So good evening, uh chair, members of the committee.

Thank you for your time tonight.

Uh so I'm here today uh requesting approval for the zoning statement and confirming uh that a small-scale home artisan wine production is compatible under chapter 121 of the home occupation ordinance.

Um this presentation is briefly going to explain my background.

I think that's important for you all to know considering my request, uh the scope of the proposal, and then why the activity that I'm asking for actually meets the intent and the requirements of uh the ordinance.

Uh next slide, please.

So that picture there, uh, if you all recognize as a Zobra there in the background, or if anybody's been to that.

So this was taken about a year and a half ago.

This is me and my beautiful wife there.

Um that was my last year at the Santa Fe Police Department.

Uh I retired about a year and a half ago as the operations uh deputy chief of police.

Um I was responsible for about 200 sworn uh civilian, all major police operations.

Um the reason that I bring that up is my role really involved policy development, uh, ordinance interpretation, regulation, uh presentations, uh, and presentation before governing body, and then committees like yours.

Um my career really has been focused my entire adult life uh on public safety and protecting the public interest, which is one of the reasons that the uh initial proposal was denied here was because um public interest was given as a one of those bullet points.

Uh today I still serve.

I retired over 20 years in state law enforcement or city law enforcement.

Uh, today I still serve in uh the federal government uh as a special agent and um counterintelligence.

So again, I only share this because I just want to in part that I understand the importance of the regulatory compliance, uh, the community standards and the responsibilities that your committee has really in carrying out and evaluating uh a request like this.

Next slide, please.

Uh so again, kind of throughout my career, I've worked with the these regulatory frameworks that are designed to protect public interest.

Um I've spent years interpreting uh ordinances, enforcing laws, and I I fully respect the responsibility that the committee has uh like this and preserving that residential uh character um and the impact to those people around me.

Um and because of my background, uh I approach this request very carefully and very intentionally and structured it around the measurable standards of that that home uh occupation ordinance.

Next slide, please.

Very briefly, um, just kind of an experience with wine making.

Uh I've been making wine for several years under the federal uh personal use allowance.

Uh that allowance permits up to 200 gallons in a two adult household uh every year.

Sometimes I produce up to that, sometimes I don't.

But over time I've developed a strong appreciation for Mexico wine, our agricultural community.

But when I researched Rio Rancho's ordinance concerning this, I recognize that tasting is uh will not be permitted here.

And I understand that.

So this uh so that's how I designed uh this uh proposal, excuse me, kind of accordingly to that.

Next slide, please.

So what this proposal is not, and I think that that's important.

Um I think it's I might get getting lost a little bit.

Uh one thing, uh it's I'm not sure if Brian's referring to a city liquor license, but the wine growers' permit doesn't require an actual liquor license uh to be produced wine at residential property.

That's one thing to just kind of keep in mind there.

The liquor license would be for a brick and mortar type establishment.

I'm not asking for that.

Uh so uh this is not a tasting room, uh, it's not a bar, it's not a retail storefront, there's no customer visits, there's no tastings, uh, there's no events at the residence, uh, there would be no signage, no exterior modifications, um, and the request is strictly for the small scale uh production only.

So uh next slide, please.

And so a little bit what what is this proposal uh and what am I trying to do here?

Uh so the wine produced would be sold through channels that do not involve uh customer traffic to my home.

So that includes online sales, farmers markets, uh sales through local wineries, uh limited wholesale to maybe restaurants or retailers, wine festivals, uh Bloom Fiesta, you know, Rito events in Taos, things like that.

Uh and all of these would occur off-site and under the proper state, city and state licensing.

Uh next slide, please.

Uh so I think this is important.

Scale is important, right?

I'm in a residential community.

Um, so my current production, like I said earlier, about 200 gallons per year.

Uh, my proposed range would be about 300 to 800 gallons uh annually.

And I doubt that I would uh reach that because it's just a one-man show here.

Um, but uh the absolute maximum would be a thousand gallons.

I think that that would be it's a far-fetched, but I felt that was a fair number, uh, even if I was to get uh popular and mix sales and whatnot.

Um but for perspective, even small or medium commercial wineries are producing about 26,000 gallons a year uh or more.

So this proposal really represents about 4% of even a small scale winery.

Um so like we're in single digits here.

Um and it's closer to a small uh craft hobbyist scale than it is a commercial winery, I guess.

Um next slide, please.

Uh only a few slides left here.

I appreciate your time.

Um so the physical footprint of this, again, I know under uh I understand the residential community part, um, but the entire operation takes place in a you know a single 120 square foot uh room inside my my house.

Uh that's less than 5% of my house.

All the production will happen indoors with you know enclosed storage.

There's no exterior modifications, there's no outdoor equipment, there's no visible indication outside the home at all that anything is occurring.

And in terms of deliveries, uh, it would not increase the current delivery traffic, trust me.

I get Amazon daily uh from retailers and things like that.

It's not going to increase or change that.

Next slide, please.

So the important part here is uh and what Brian was talking about is the compliance with chapter 121, uh, that being the home occupation permit.

And the way that I proposed this was to meet every measurable condition within that ordinance.

Uh, it's under 500 square feet, it has no employees, it's just me.

Um, there's no signage or exterior storage, there's no nuisance in terms of like uh noise or uh odor or traffic, there's no hazardous materials, there's no uh additional parking or residential parking.

So, you know, in other words, the activity, the winemaking is incidental and subordinate to the residential use, which is what I think the intent of chapter 121 is.

Next slide, please.

And Brian kind of touched on this.

I'll just kind of get a little bit more in depth about it.

I just really uh think it's important to clarify what the regulatory process is.

So there's no confusion about what the approval uh of the appeal would mean tonight.

Um so that zoning statement uh from you all is just the first step.

Um after that, step two is that me actually applying to the state for the wine grower license through the Mexico Alcohol and Gaming.

Step three would be the federal permit through the alcohol and tobacco tax and trade bureau.

Uh, and then those agencies are the ones that are going to regulate production limits, uh, labeling, inspections, alcohol compliance, all those kind of things.

Um, and only after all those approvals would then I return to the city for the standard business registration.

Um, so the city's role here in this particular uh step of the step in the game, so to speak, is just the land use compatibility with chapter 121.

Um I've seen the uh I had I got a chance to look at the agenda uh I saw the uh the approval letter that was drafted by city staff and the denial letter drafted by city staff, depending on which one you guys signed tonight.

Um, and the approval letter um is uh or statement is completely accurate.

So if you have a chance to review that, um that's exactly what I'm asking for, just the opportunity to now go to the state to ask the next level um of approval.

So um next slide, please.

So this is the important part.

This is important to me.

Um again, my entire career still is built around public safety, public interest, and the neighborhood compatibility here.

Um I produce wine at my home for several years, and to and to start, it's probably gonna be less or the same that I've already been producing.

I'll just maybe be able to sell it.

Um, but under the personal use allowance, so with no impact to the neighborhood at all, you know, there's been no customer traffic, there will continue to be no customer traffic, no noise, no nuisance, uh, no strain on any city services.

Um, and I've received support from my neighbors confirming that they've experienced uh no negative impacts in in my residential area.

Next slide, please.

So this is simply just uh this slide shows my neighbors, my nearby neighbors, and who have who have expressed their support for that request.

The orange dots represent the neighbors, um, and the red dot represents my house.

So these are all the individuals that uh opened their door, were kind enough to speak with us.

Um and we didn't receive any denials, uh just not everybody answered their door.

If we did have denials, I would be transparent and provide those to you, but nobody denied it.

So everybody that we talked to uh went ahead and approved it.

Um and their experience has been that the activity or the winemaking has no visible or practical impact in the neighborhood.

So and they're in support of my request.

I also included all of those letters that were signed by the community around me, detailing exactly uh what they're in support of, and that there's been no negative impact uh to my neighborhood, and they're continue or will continue not to be um so you're not just taking my word for it, and you can actually see the letters yourselves.

Next slide, please.

Uh these are just some kind of proposed safeguards, uh, conditional uh type approvals, but you know, to ensure that activity remains controlled and comfortable for everybody and compatible, um, you know, I'm willing to accept any of the safeguards or limitations.

This doesn't really have to be in kind of an all or nothing approach.

I can uh recognize and respect this is a new request, likely um that's come in front of you guys.

It's not a um a regular request.

I can I can see that.

Um, but you know, production capped under a thousand gallons, that's very, very small uh in terms of production.

Uh that 120 square foot area not growing that, not only would you be restricting me, but my wife is not gonna let me go any bigger than that as well.

Um, no on uh on-site retail or tastings.

Um, you know, it's a one-person operation here.

Um, and we would obviously comply with the full state and federal licensing compliance, and you all just kind of give me an opportunity to take the next step to do that.

And I may be denied at the state level or the federal level, uh, that's to be determined, but it at least allows me to take the next step uh responsibly.

So and uh last slide, please.

So kind of to just closing here, uh I do appreciate your time.

I know I took a little bit of your time, but this request is for that small-scale artisan wine production uh that is fully regulated, you know, with low to no impact to my community.

Uh it's consistent with the residential standards of impact in chapter 121.

Um, and I would respectfully request uh that the approval of the zoning statement uh that can uh confirming that compatibility under uh chapter 121.

And uh for that uh I would be happy to answer any uh additional questions.

Thank you, Brian, and thank you for doing the slides for me.

I appreciate you.

Thank you.

Okay.

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

Same one present virtually who wish to speak for against item number eight.

Okay, item number eight sound closed for public comments.

Motion to approve item number eight.

Motion to approve item number eight.

Okay, second second.

Okay, and discussion from the board.

And in discussion from the board.

I hear that I see not called vote.

I do have a question.

So when we when we're voting, we're voting to what uphold the the uh the previous ruling by the city manager, or are we voting uh for appeal?

So um, in this case, if you are voting in the affirmative, you are a vote you're voting for the appeal, which would overturn the city manager and staff's interpretations.

Commissioner Hankins?

Yes.

Commissioner Calcher.

Yes.

Chairman Richardson.

Yes.

Motion pass.

Moving on to discussion and deliberations.

Any comments, my members?

But I do want to circle back to that.

We're now open to the public for any comments.

Second.

Second.