MINUTES OF THE DOÑA ANA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION · MINUTES OF THE DOÑA ANA COUNTY...

c:\users\xeniak\documents\2015-06-11\p&z_2015-06-11_minutes_03.26.15.docx 1

MINUTES OF THE DOÑA ANA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

March 26, 2015

9:00 a.m.

(Note: These are not verbatim minutes, these are summary notes.) MEMBERS PRESENT OTHERS PRESENT Bob Czerniak, Commissioner Daniel Hortert, Director, Community Development Natalie Mercado, Commissioner Janine Divyak, Chief Planner, Community Development Bill Zarges, Commissioner Albert Casillas, Planner, Community Development Greg Daviet, Commissioner Angela Roberson, Chief Planner, Community Development Charles Huestis, Commissioner Mel Acosta, Commissioner MEMBERS ABSENT Chairman Westmoreland CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Acosta called the regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order at 9:03 a.m., Thursday, March 26 2015 in County Commissioners Chambers, Doña Ana County Government Center, 845 N. Motel Blvd., Las Cruces, New Mexico. 1. ROLL CALL

Commissioner Czerniak Here Commissioner Mercado Here Commissioner Zarges Here Commissioner Huestis Here Commissioner Daviet Here Commissioner Acosta Here Chairman Westmoreland Absent

2. APPROVAL OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Commissioner Zarges proposed moving item #5 ahead of #4 on the agenda. Commissioner Zarges made a motion to approve this change with Commissioner Daviet seconding the motion. The change to the agenda was APPROVED with a vote of ayes from all Commission members present.

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 26, 2015 Meeting Minutes

Commissioner Zarges made a motion to approve the minutes with Commissioner Czerniak seconding the motion.


The motion was carried by a vote of ayes by the Commissioners with one abstention by Commissioner Daviet.

4. NEW BUSINESS a. Case #CV 15-001, Salomon Telles, 740 W. San Miguel Street, La Mesa, NM The applicant, Salomon Telles, is requesting a variance of front yard setback from 25’ to 11’ in order to expand an existing carport. The property is a 0.33 acre parcel in the Performance District, located at 740 W. San Miguel Street in La Mesa, New Mexico. Albert Casillas, Planner, gave a presentation of the proposed project. Commissioners’ Comments: a. How does rainwater storage from increased impervious areas on the property

pertain to what is before us today, a variance to the setback? b. Is there something about changing a setback that we need to be considering

rainwater storage? c. Do we have any information on other variances that have been granted in the

proximity of this property? d. Are there any easements that cross this property? e. Does the setback encroach on that easement? f. What is the purpose of having a front yard setback is? g. Does changing the setback from 25’ to 11’ impact safety? h. According to our documents the applicant wants to install a handicap ramp to

access main door of the house. i. Where is the ramp going to go? Albert Casillas’ Responses: a. I believe that Engineering and the Flood Commission are referring to new

construction whatever impervious area they are creating; the applicant, on their ponding plan, needs to make-up for whatever they are building. If any additions create any additional runoff, the plan has to reflect that so all water runoff will be contained within the property.

b. I don’t think, that will just be part of the building permit. c. Based on my research, I didn’t find any other variances in the proximity of this

property. d. After looking at the property description on their deed, I didn’t find any. The

only easement I am aware of is on San Miguel Street; their front property line runs all the way up to the edge of that easement.

e. No, the setback does not encroach on that easement. f. Basically, a front yard setback is based on the code and is a safety issue. g. Decreasing the setback, in my opinion, does not impact safety for this property. i. The applicant can tell us where the ramp will go.


Salomon Telles, Jr., 1055 Royce Rd., La Mesa, was sworn in and gave a presentation of the proposed project. Commissioners’ Comments: i. Where is the ramp going to go? j. What is the difference between the height of the driveway and the height of the

front door? k. Does your dad drive? Salomon Telles’ Responses: i. The ramp will be to the right of the vehicle. That is the front door, under the

carport. j. The difference is about 3 ½ to four inches. k. Yes, he does. Commissioner Daviet made a motion to approve the variance request. I find that granting the variance does not constitute granting special privilege; that granting the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare; that granting the variance is justified because there is a physical hardship regarding the size and shape of the property and the location of the existing structures and granting this variance will uphold the spirit and intent of the chapter and accomplish substantial justice. Commissioner Zarges seconded the motion. Commissioner Czerniak Aye Commissioner Mercado Aye Commissioner Zarges Aye Commissioner Huestis Aye Commissioner Daviet Aye Vice-Chair Acosta Aye The vote was 6-0-0 to APPROVE this motion.

5. OLD BUSINESS a. Review and Discussion of the Unified Development Code (Beginning of verbatim minutes.) Vice-Chair Acosta: Daniel, are you ready? Janine Divyak: Yes. Vice-Chair Acosta: Then we have Gilbert and Sunland Park, Mr. Martinez. Janine Divyak: Mr. Chairman, we can invite them to sit at the table if they would like. Vice-Chair Acosta: Yes, that would be even better because we have that pulpit gap and I don’t like that. There’s a mike there. Staff, take over. Janine Divyak: Good morning, Commissioners. Per your agenda this morning, we will be reviewing the administrative sections beginning with Articles 1, 2, 7 and 8. Did you all have a chance to review?


Vice-Chair Acosta: And I apologize, Mr. Dominguez, I did refer to you as Mr. Martinez. I am sorry. Ricardo Dominguez: That’s okay, Commissioner. I know who I am. Vice-Chair Acosta: Thank you. Well, anyway, I’m glad to see you are here. Janine Divyak: Did you all have a chance to review? Vice-Chair Acosta: A lot of time. Commissioner Daviet: I just want to note for the record that really I’ve only done substantial review over Chapter 1. I have not done extensive review over the other 4 chapters we are going over today. Excuse me, the other three chapters we are going over today. Janine Divyak: Chapter 1 is the administrative section that talks about the authority, the applicability, the intent, basically of the new code. It is spelled out in pages 10, 11, 12, 13 through page 26 and then Article 2 starts on page 27. Basically, the intent is all new; the administration, the applicability, authority - those are taken from the existing code. Do you want to focus on anything in particular? Vice-Chair Acosta: Janine, I have a question and set me straight on this one, please. We have One Valley One Vision 20/40 Regional Plan and then we have the Comprehensive Land Plan. What takes precedence here: Vision 20/40 or the Comprehensive Land Plan? Daniel Hortert: Mr. Vice-Chairman and members of the Commission, basically, what takes precedence will be the Comprehensive Plan. The One Valley One Vision 20/40 - it was more of a visionary plan to lay the frame work for other planning efforts. If you recall the triangle that was inside talked about Vision 20/40 at the top and then, of course, the next layer was actually comprehensive planning, so really, it sets a framework of the vision and then this is to carry it forward. That’s the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Huestis: I have much the same question. It seems to me that injection of Vision 20/40 into there does something that unnecessarily complicates it. It raises the precise question that Chairman Acosta raised. Which one takes precedence? A second year law student could have a ball with this; it seems to me that it is unnecessary. The second concern I have with Vision 20/40, even referring to it, is that the whole study in Vision 20/40, if my recollection is right, goes back to about 2008, 7, 8, 9 in that particular framework. Times have changed a great deal, especially in the Santa Teresa area, since Vision 20/40 was really worked on by the consultants who brought it forward. It’s ring binder after ring binder after ring binder of words and pictures. It is just an unnecessary complication. We are trying to do something with the comprehensive code and with this Unified Development Code to make some sense of coherence out of it, yet we’re referencing a document that, frankly, due to the changes that occurred, especially in the Santa Teresa area, is almost obsolete. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair and members of the Commission. Vision 20/40 is just that - it’s a vision. It was a document to lay the groundwork for future planning in Doña Ana County. This document right here, which began three years ago, is just that, and Doña Ana County adopted Vision 20/40 after this began. So, yes, there is some data that is outdated; we understand that and we have taken that into consideration. That basically


just lays the framework for the future; it is a regional plan. That means anyone of the municipalities or entities within Doña Ana County can look at that as, basically, a stepping stone to more detailed planning like the Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Code. It’s more of the 70,000 foot; Comprehensive Plan - more of the 50,000 foot and/or you could go 50, 30, 10, however, you want to do it - I guess the picture is painted. That was the purpose of 20/40 was to lay the groundwork as to a new way to look at planning in Doña Ana County. Commissioner Huestis: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hortert. One of the things, I know we’re not here to discuss the Comprehensive Plan this morning, but I think one of the concerns with the Comprehensive Plan was that it was more coffee and visionary type thing rather than a “plan” per se. It’s rather vague and general and aspirational and “vision” oriented. It seems to me that is a Comprehensive Plan as presented and I know it is being redrafted. As it has been presented it’s quite a “visionary” document within itself rather than “a plan”. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Vice-Chair Acosta: Thank you, Commissioner. I have another question for you, Daniel. On our existing Land Use Regulations, we have 1.6 The Repealer. I didn’t see it here on this new draft. Do we need to do that? Daniel Hortert: Let me see what you are talking about, sir. Vice-Chair Acosta: Page 12 of the Doña Ana County Land Use Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. Daniel Hortert: Yes, I have the book in front of me and for some reason I cannot find what I am looking for. Oh, it’s right in front of me. You said 1.6? Vice-Chair Acosta: Yes. By the way, I like your tie. Daniel Hortert: Or is it 250-6? Vice-Chair Acosta: It’s actually 1.6. It’s The Repealer, Page 12. Daniel Hortert: In the new code? Vice-Chair Acosta: We don’t see it, well I didn’t see it in the new code. I might have bypassed it. Daniel Hortert: I’m confused when you say 1.6. Sir, I’m looking at the existing code Chapter 250. Maybe I’m not there yet. 250-7 in the existing code, is that what you were referring to - “Repeals”? Vice-Chair Acosta: Well yes, but see like on our Land Use now, it actually states all the repeals that we have had in the past and they were previously adopted by the BOCC and prior to 1993. Janine Diyvak: Yes, Mr. Chair, definitely we will need a Repealer section because we will be repealing, my understanding is, all of Chapter 250, Chapter 157, and Chapter 300. They will all be repealed in its entirety and adopted by the new code. Vice-Chair Acosta: Okay, they will be very specific to what we are going to repeal, right? So, if somebody doesn’t come up and say “well it was never repealed”, we will have an appeal process. Janine Diyvak: Yes. Commissioner Czerniak: Can’t that be taken care of in the motion? If the Unified Development Code is adopted as an ordinance, do you have to actually put that in the


code or can it be stated in the motion that the new code repeals the following sections of the old code? Daniel Hortert: In this case, yes, that can be done. This will be done by ordinance, so the ordinance could say that it repeals everything because then it becomes law. Of course, in the whereas that’s what I was doing, I wasn’t going into detail on the ordinance, but in the whereas and is now therefore, actually, now therefore this Unified Development Code repeals everything in the past. I think we can get to there. If you would like it in the code, we can definitely do that, I mean, I don’t see an issue with it. It might add another half a page. Janine is making some good comments. Legal may require it. Because the ordinance will, the actual ordinance adopting the code, will also be part of the recorded code. It will probably be right up front. Vice-Chair Acosta: Thank you, Daniel. Commissioner Huestis: Mr. Chairman, I just have a construction question. I know that the whole first part of this has been lifted from the existing code and I understand that. Why is this labeled an Article and then it talks about this chapter? It seems to me that you’ve got confusing terminology here. I probably just need some education on it. This chapter, this article, if chapter refers to 1.1, then all the references are unclear. I guess I’m just concerned because I was taught in drafting these kinds of things is when you use a different word to mean something, it means something different rather than something the same. So, can you enlighten me on that just as a matter of my education? Thank you. Daniel Hortert: No, that is a very good point. We will go through that and the wordsmithing part of that - it will be Article 1, Section 1.1, instead of saying Chapter 1, Article 1.1 or Section 1.1. That will be wordsmithing that we’ll definitely flesh out. Commissioner Huestis: Okay, thank you. Unless, there is a reason. Daniel Hortert: Okay, so, but not in the new code. Janine Diyvak: Yes, as I was talking, having a sidebar here with Daniel, the chapter refers to Chapter 250, right? Daniel Hortert: Which is Chapter 250 of the County Code. Janine Diyvak: So, that’s what they are referring to - the chapter of the specific code. Daniel Hortert: Of the existing code. So, if it’s replacing something in the existing code, it will say Chapter 250, but every reference to a specific article and section in the new code will reference that article in that section. Now, ultimately, this may be very well chapter whatever we decide to make it in the County Code, because the County Code is set up by chapters. It’s also set up by articles too, I think, isn’t it? So, without confusing, this will be known as, you know, Chapter X of the County Code, but as you go through, it will be set up as articles within the document. So, if you ever say that this chapter, that means the whole code. It’s currently like that in the code, as well. So, Chapter 250-33 means one thing, but when you say this chapter - what we have done is instead of saying, basically, we’ve tried to simplify it by article from when we discuss it and move through processes. But again, this will be a chapter in the County Code. So, if it refers to chapter, it refers to the entire document. But I see you’re somewhat confused there; I can understand that. So, maybe we do just say it’s still going to be Chapter 500, but it will have articles within it.


Commissioner Huestis: So, a chapter is higher in the hierarchy, than an article? Daniel Hortert: Well, yes, the entire document will be a Chapter of the County Code. There’s some several hundred of them, if I can pull them up and find. So, like Chapter 157 of the County Code is the Design Standards. Chapter 300 of the County Code is the Subdivision Standards, but within those there’s articles. So, the Chapter refers to the entire document, whereas the article refers to a specific section. Commissioner Huestis: Just seems to me that that’s semantic, that’s semantic gymnastics. It needs to be sorted out. Of course, I’m the new guy on the block and I’m not familiar with all the former terminology and so forth and so on. But, if we’re going to have a Unified Code that is supposed to unify, simplify and make more clear, maybe, we ought to try to do that. Commissioner Czerniak: Daniel, I was going to say state statues are set up the same way. Daniel Hortert: Yes, I’m going to read from the existing code right now. So, the existing code is called Chapter 250 - Land Use and Zoning and then Article 1 is Authority, Intent and Scope, and then it just says 250-1. So, I mean we can number it the same, but we tried to simplify it, so you know, because those little sections things - not everybody knows how to print those on their computer. So, it’s really set up the same way. There’s articles in the current code, but it is articles of Chapter 250 which is the Chapter of the County Code. So, it’s not necessarily, it’s just a place in the County Code - that’s how they set it up. We’re stuck with it. We’ve gone ahead and when we digitized it and put it on the internet - it’s always been chapters. I have a book about that thick that shows all the Chapters, maybe two books, actually. So, really when it’s referring to chapter, it’s referring to the entire document. And it still could refer to Chapter 250, Article 1, Section 1.1. So, I mean, it is a little bit semantics, but we’re really following the same guidelines and it is set up and I’m pulling up the actual statutes right now because there are some things I know we wanted to talk about. So, it’s set up the same way. Commissioner Huestis: Okay, I just find it terribly confusing. State statutes are probably quite confusing also. Thank you. Daniel Hortert: Just a bit, sir, and as we go, anytime you have, anytime from this day forward and if we are to adopt this, just give me a call. I will, hopefully, set it straight or confuse it more, one or the other. Fifty, fifty shot. Commissioner Huestis: Whether I’m confused or not is not the point. It’s whether the using public is confused or gets confused about it. That’s my only concern. Thank you. Vice-Chair Acosta: Thank you Commissioner Huestis. By the way, Gilbert, Mr. Dominguez, jump in whenever you want to get in, if there’s any questions or you have any comments to bring forth, just raise your hand and we’ll acknowledge you, okay. Ricardo Dominguez: Thank you sir. Vice-Chair Acosta: Alright. Commissioner Daviet: Mr. Chair? Vice-Chair Acosta: Yes. Commissioner Daviet: Mr. Chair, if it’s appropriate I’ve got about 30 comments that I’ve made on Chapter 1 that I’d like to go through. Is this an appropriate time? Thank you Mr. Chair.


Daniel Hortert: Let me find my pad of paper, sir. Commissioner Daviet: I do have the written log for you this time. Daniel Hortert: You’re awesome, thank you. Commissioner Daviet: The first is not on the comment log, but I want to note that since our last meeting there has been a discussion, an idea is taking hold about ensuring that a) we meet our deadline with the UDC Code, but that including a provision to sunset the code to create an additional deadline for improving any deficiencies that may be in the Code prior to passing as opposed to trying to correct every single minor deficiency in the Code between now and July. So, certainly that will be for additional discussion. Vice-Chair Acosta: Well, Daniel agreed to that. The question is, will we follow that. Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair and members of the Commission, I haven’t fully agreed to it yet, but I do agree with it. Vice-Chair Acosta: Because you did say that it was a fluid document. Daniel Hortert: It is. This is a living document. I mean, I can’t imagine us addressing this at a minimum one time a year in terms of issues that we’ve come up against. We know the first couple years are going to be probably very difficult and we are going to do everything we can to make those difficult situations much simpler. So, yes, we do agree. I’m not sure there’s a full one year, two year sunset, but by the time we get to that two year sunset or beta version, I would expect that we’re already moving along and everybody says well let’s just keep going. That’s my goal. So, yes, I did hear about that yesterday. I was not in the meetings, but that is one thing that we can all discuss that we know these documents are never going to be perfect. But, we’re not going to let them sit and collect dust like the other ones. There’s just no possible way. Vice-Chair Acosta: Thank you Daniel. Go ahead. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you, Mr. Hortert, thank you, Mr. Chair. I’ll simply note that I’m still digesting that and don’t have a position on that yet. On page 9, Section 1.2.1.a, we talk about the applicability to other government entities. The last sentence finishes with “the entity shall be exempt from these regulations only when specific exemption is provided elsewhere by state and federal statute or law.” My specific question was regarding Elephant Butte Irrigation District and the significant maintenance they do on the Rio Grande Project. I believe this was addressed when this was put in. I just wanted to make that comment. Daniel Hortert: If you’d like me to clarify real quick on that. Commissioner Daviet: Be happy to, Mr. Hortert. Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, Commissioner Daviet, yes, this was something that was worked out between Doña Ana Mutual and Elephant Butte Irrigation District. In fact, they, if any, have the least amount of effect of any kind of zoning in terms of ditches and stuff like that, irrigation channels. This doesn’t preclude them from doing all their standard maintenance and everything else. Buildings potentially would only be addressed at the building to make sure that they are safe and sane for the occupants. The same thing with Doña Ana Mutual – a lot of it came up with location of wastewater facilities and stuff like that. I’ve since heard from them that they don’t even intend to do that anymore. They’re working closely with the City of Las Cruces to capitalize on joint effort in terms of wastewater getting to a pre-existing


facility. It doesn’t mean that in the future we don’t do one, but the simple fact that, again, the state gives us the authority same as quasi-governmental agencies to bond and propose taxes and stuff like that. We still have the authority to zone and subdivide which is the only difference between us and the quasi-judicial. So, we’ve hashed that out. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved that previously as did the Board of County Commissioners with the agreement through many, many meetings with Elephant Butte Irrigation District and Doña Ana Mutual to get that through. So, hopefully, we don’t ever have any problems with it and we don’t think we will because it doesn’t preclude EBID from doing all the stuff that they already do. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you, Mr. Hortert. Commissioner Huestis: In interest of full disclosure, I was awfully close to the case that brought this whole thing to a head. So, consequently I have some knowledge of what the background was and what the issues were that led to this change in the Code, because this language represents the change from the original Code. The original case was brought forward to the Commission by Doña Ana Mutual on the basis that the existing Code did not, I say again – not, give the County zoning authority over other governmental units. That was the issue that was brought forward and that got over into the too hard to handle political pile and, of course, the sequence of events, should Doña Ana Mutual and it was joined by EBID, Lower Rio Grande and a number of other governmental entities also - their option was to go ahead and put it before the BOCC, get it turned down and go to the Third Judicial Court to enforce the existing language. This didn’t make sense for anybody to do that and my understanding was, and I was either lied to by my attorney or my attorney was lied to by someone, that the agreement was that, yes, for minor kinds of things such as Commissioner Daviet raised, certainly there was no issue and that the only thing that the County would have zoning over was, and I’m working on memory here, was buildings over 2 stories high, i.e. it was put together - you shake your head, Mr. Hortert - I’m saying what my attorney told me the agreement was at the time. Now, he may have lied to me, in which case that’s on him and on me, if he was in fact lied to by the County administration – BOCC, well that’s on them. That’s the origin; that’s my recollection as a player in the game of what the agreement was. This language is very blanket and covers everything and does not seem to be consistent with what I was told at the time. I think it becomes unclear to have this blanket agreement in there, if we have a nod and a wink of - well it doesn’t apply to EBID, but it does apply to everybody else – we’ve got a real serious problem. Thank you. Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, there was never even a 2-story discussion. And, Doña Ana Mutual is one of the great test cases on this whole thing because when they expanded their facilities in Picacho Hills after they purchased it, they went through the normal zoning stuff and that was fine. What this says is that we’re all subject to zoning of that specific jurisdiction. When we put this building in, we were subject to zoning of the City of Las Cruces. And, we’re the County government. Vice-Chair Acosta: But, do you know the real story behind that? Daniel Hortert: Well, there’s a lot of different stories. I mean the County has to be within the City of the County seat. There was a lot of hoops that we went through, but regardless, we still had to comply with the zoning. And, it’s not that, you know,


obviously, when it comes to major utilities and when it comes to major governmental entities, you know, we’re going to comply with what we have to comply with. There was never any discussion about 2-story buildings because, honestly, that is very limited. We don’t regulate the height, well we regulate the height of a building, but you can have a 2-story building, anyone in our zoning could and we would not prohibit that if it was permitted, which it is. The whole point of that was state law gives the County and any municipality the authority to zone and subdivide. It does not give quasi-judicial entities, whether it’s the conservation districts, whether it’s the water, the mutual domestics, or the water authorities or anything else. And, EBID, it wasn’t fashioned for EBID, it was the same attorney - the exact same attorney. If he misled you, I apologize for that, but again, all you have to do is ask me. We met several times and we all agreed that when it came down to it, the County has the authority to zone. That’s why we also changed many of the definitions to fit EBID and the water companies or the utility companies. We actually changed to better clarify the definitions and I forget exactly which all of them were; we added some, we altered some. So, carrying the jurisdictional which the City has and which all municipalities have in their zoning ordinance, to carry that over exactly how it was approved, was our intent. Vice-Chair Acosta: Is that okay? Daniel Hortert: Yes, character was one of them. We actually changed, we changed the definition of character or did we add it? Commissioner Huestis: Changed the definition, I’m sorry Dan, changed the definition of what? Daniel Hortert: One of them, we either added or changed the definition of character. Commissioner Huestis: Of what? Daniel Hortert: Character. So, I mean, but there were other ones. I’m not sure … Commissioner Huestis: Daniel, I don’t think we’re gaining much by belaboring history. On this, the fundamental issue still remains is does one governmental unit have jurisdiction over another governmental unit, so forth and so on. But, we’re not going to get anywhere at this table with that esoteric debate. I would suggest that we go back to Commissioner Daviet on this. Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair, if I may and excuse me Commissioner Daviet. I mean, number 1 this is public record, okay. Number 2, there could be many people out there hearing it and it needs to be clarified and understood because it’s going forward in this Code the same way it was amended and adopted in the old Code. That’s the issue for me. When it’s a public hearing and it’s on the record, I think it has to be clarified. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you, Mr. Hortert. I will just note that was comment #1. Comment #2, page 10, Section 1.3.2 - it’s titled this chapter intends the following and then we’ve got Subsections A-E. Is the intention for that section to be a very short reflection of the Comp Plan? Because that’s what it felt when I read it. Daniel Hortert: What section? Commissioner Daviet: Section 1.3.2, when it talks about the region. Daniel Hortert: And, you just want A-E or A-H? Commissioner Daviet: A-H.


Daniel Hortert: Okay. I think, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, I think as, as an implementing tool for the Comprehensive Plan I think they should intertwine and several of them do. I mean, they talk about development. As the general planner, sorry, I forgot where I’m at, Comprehensive Plan. So, they should intertwine. I think this reinforces what’s laid out in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you Mr. Hortert. And, I agreed in reading it. I just wanted to emphasize to be sure that continues to mirror the Comp Plan as it goes through a, you know, this re-drafting process. 1.3.2.e (echo). It reads that wildlife corridors should be used to define and connect communities, as well as to preserve wildlife habitat behavior patterns. My question is what does this mean for existing, as well as for planned development? Exactly, how do these wildlife corridors affect those? Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, Commissioner Daviet, I think what it emphasizes, if in fact there are wildlife corridors, which there’s many delineated throughout the County. Most of them are in areas that prohibit development in the first place, but if they are there, then we would try to take a look at that and, hopefully, design around that. Commissioner Daviet: If I could interrupt just for a moment, Mr. Hortert. In this sentence it says, “used to define and connect communities”. So, it’s not talking about undeveloped areas, but talking about that these wildlife corridors are actually connecting as well as defining the communities and that’s where I got a little confused. Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, Commissioner Daviet, I think using wildlife corridors only, is probably something we should look at, because there’s other natural features that can connect communities, arroyos, unbuildable open space, BLM land, State land, etc. So, that’s a very good comment and I think we should take a look at that and better define if corridors are going to be used, are they limited to wildlife or do they include others. Commissioner Czerniak: Mr. Chair? Vice-Chair Acosta: Do you yield, Commissioner Daviet? Commissioner Daviet: I yield. Commissioner Czerniak: Daniel, does the code really mean to connect communities or natural communities? Why would you use a wildlife corridor to connect communities to one another? That doesn’t make any sense. Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. That’s why I think we need to more define what type and what type of corridors are really intended here. I mean, wildlife corridors could just mean javalinas that travel back and forth somewhere in Las Alturas. And, they are mean little devils. You know, or it could mean other types of wildlife. I think wildlife is too broad in this sense and it’s a good pickup again. Commissioner Czerniak: But the wildlife corridor is defined in the Comp Plan, right? Daniel Hortert: Yes. I don’t know that we have a true map of wildlife corridors other than what exists in the building prohibited areas. Commissioner Czerniak: Well isn’t there, there’s one, I remember asking this question earlier. There’s a map in the Comp Plan that shows, I think it’s the community types. But, there’s a corridor defined on that map in one place - it’s north of Doña Ana. Commissioner Daviet: It connects the Doña Ana part of the - with the Robledos.


Commissioner Czerniak: Right. Daniel Hortert: I’m trying to, do you recall if it was under the green infrastructure? Commissioner Daviet: I believe it was. Daniel Hortert: Yes, enhancing habitat in Florida and neighborhoods. Commissioner Czerniak: Yes, it’s almost invisible on the map. Commissioner Daviet: Page 55. Daniel Hortert: Oh, I was way off. I was on page 95. All wildlife corridor - right there. You did ask that question before and I think there was a reasoning behind it. I cannot remember that reason. Commissioner Czerniak: No, I just said I didn’t see it on the map and it was because it was so small. And, you said that’s where it was located. That was the only corridor identified on the map. Daniel Hortert: And, I think what that does is go between that one section, which I believe is the Doña Ana Mountains. Commissioner Czerniak: Yes, it’s the Doña Anas. Daniel Hortert: The Doña Ana Mountain over the Robledos. There may, I’d have to check into this. There may already be something either in a BLM Resource Management Plan, the proposed or the existing that highlights that and they still have to cross I-25. So, I am assuming there is something they can get underneath and there may be an existing corridor. The odds of development happening right there, I mean, right now I would see as not doable anytime in the near future. Commissioner Czerniak: Well, that’s why I said that the wildlife corridor, the purpose of the wildlife corridors is to connect natural communities or natural habitat, not communities in the general sense, where we typically use in planning. Okay. Daniel Hortert: Commissioner Daviet, we’ll definitely take a look at that and ensure that and if it is natural communities or natural places, then we will definitely make sure that that’s notated in there. But as we proceed though, if there are observance of some natural corridors that are used by animals or, I guess animals, I was thinking of quads and dirt bikes, but if there’s some that are also used by animals, as we develop I think that we would encourage and discuss with the developer on ways to preserve that, if at all necessary. Commissioner Daviet: I yield for the gentleman from Sunland Park. Vice-Chair Acosta: Mr. Dominguez, go ahead. Ricardo Dominguez: Thank you, Commissioner, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is really, Daniel, is this going to be a legal requirement where development cannot occur? In my neck of the woods, we have a couple of wetland areas that we want to preserve and maybe develop. So, the question to you now though is - wildlife corridors - is that going to be then restricted to only wildlife? Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, Mr. Dominguez, I believe in the fact, it’s all refreshing my memory now. Is that is a delineated corridor, so there’s nothing we can really do that anyway because I believe it’s mandated by the federal government. But, you notice on the map on 55, there’s no other ones. So, I think connecting with corridors, natural corridors, whether they be arroyos or some other kind of scenic opportunity or whatever, I think that’s something we can look at and


elaborate on in the same paragraph or the same bullet list. The one that is shown on page 55, that one, I believe, is restricted by the federal government. So, if you, in your, if you were to decide to take whole or in part any of these regulations, then yes you could, but wetland areas often times have much smaller hoops to jump through anyway. Ricardo Dominguez: The idea that we have or we’re discussing is that perhaps we can set up an area for the eco-tourists. So, what we do in Sunland Park, we can finally connect or at least indicate for within our areas, any wildlife corridors when the County or those eco-tours that may come. Vice-Chair Acosta: Gilbert do you have any questions that might impact you up there. Gilbert Mesa: Thank you Mr. Chair. I do, actually, on a different line item. On item #1.3.2.c says a development that is not contiguous to community should be organized in the pattern of villages, small villages and work places. I guess, a couple of questions. I don’t know exactly what that means and then also, I mean, I can see where if it’s a large land holder that’s developing an area that’s not contiguous to an existing community, you can accomplish that with a master plan and, you know, because you control a large area, but, where it seems like in those areas that are, there are a lot of examples of areas that are not contiguous with existing villages where there’s small land owners and, so how would, say a developer just looking at a 5 acre that’s not contiguous to something, how is he supposed to develop that in the pattern of a village or small village when it’s - you can’t accomplish it in my opinion. Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair this goes back to the existing types of zoning that we have - the performance district and the processes for the development of a small village or something, would basically is the kind of incentive for a developer to look at development in a different way to maximize his property and so forth, but the opportunity to just go ahead and, even if you have a large land area and you want to do a subdivision, you can still request a rezone and go through the existing process just the same. Gilbert Mesa: No, if you have a large parcel, I think it’s easy to accomplish maybe what this paragraph is saying - to develop in a pattern of a village or small village because you can control the whole layout of a large area. But, if you just looking at a small parcel of land, how is this accomplished from a practical point of view because you know you may only have land to build some lots for housing, you don’t have any more control outside of that to add any other types of uses. Do you follow what I’m saying? Daniel Hortert: Yes, I do and then at that point, you would essentially just go through the same process that you go through now. So, it wouldn’t, I know it says that and it, I’ll take at look at that in terms of to insure that it’s not contradictory. If you look further about what constitutes a village and, you know, a minimum of 40 acres, no more than 100 acres for a small village, you know, you could go through the standard process regardless of parcel size. What this does is just encourages that master plan. Gilbert Mesa: Which I think makes a lot of sense. So, maybe if the wording is encourages or applies to larger parcels and that would help clarify that. Commissioner Huestis: Mr. Chairman? Vice-Chair Acosta: Yes, Commissioner Huestis.


Commissioner Huestis: I’m sorry, sir, I lost your name. Commissioner Daviet: Mr. Mesa, Gilbert. Gilbert Mesa: I’m sorry, Gilbert Mesa with the Camino Real Regional Utility Authority. Commissioner Huestis: The question raised by Mr. Mesa is the thing that’s kind of bothering me especially in regards to your answer. This whole Vision 20/40, this whole Comprehensive Plan, this whole Unified Development Code, is putting before the public and the developers a quite different approach to economic and social development in the County than what has been its pattern in the past. That’s probably a good thing. And yet we’re trying to shoehorn this Code, the old Code into the new Code to accommodate circumstances that are quite different than when the old Code was brought up and was brought forth. I don’t know whether you can do that or not. You’re trying to put together two almost incompatible concepts. The growth, as it’s foreseen, and the regions and communities and areas and so forth - there is a new concept and yet we’re trying to use old language where we can. It seems to me that if we’re going to put forward a new Comprehensive Plan, a new Unified Development Code, that we need to do that. And approach it as a package, as a goal, as an objective, with minimal regard to what the history is. That’s a concern I have. As I go through this I see all kinds of what appear to be internal inconsistencies. They can probably be explained away, I understand that, but they appear to be internal inconsistencies because what we’re trying to do is build a new Comprehensive Plan, a new code on the old code. That doesn’t seem to me, like I said, a very doable kind of thing and, quite obviously, this whole project has had problem after problem after problem as we try to do that. Thank you very much. Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, actually, this is a direct reflection of the existing code. It’s not shoehorning anything. You still have the right. I mean the intensity standards based on a village or a small village are still exactly the same as we have now but it encourages a broader mix of uses whether it be housing, commercial and so forth. But, the existing code still lies within this entire code and that seems to be the misunderstanding. We’re not forcing anybody to do a small village and I think if you look - 1.3.2 talks about the region that talks about larger developments. 1.3.3 talks about neighborhood and community development. 1.3.4 talks about the block and the building. I mean, so it’s a trickle-down effect in terms of intensities again so we’ve worked with intensities since ‘95 and we’re not changing that at all. What we’re doing though, is we’re incentivizing somebody to do something more at a regional scale that develops that community so that people in Berino don’t necessarily have to drive all the way to Las Cruces to get their groceries. Vice-Chair Acosta: Daniel, let me help you out here a little bit. Change is always very difficult, too. And these are your words, okay? I’m paraphrasing, sort of. Anyway change is a very difficult process to make change and to accept change. I guess accepting change is probably the hardest thing to do. However, when we had a meeting a couple weeks back, you said that you wanted to have a sweeping, flowing document where we don’t get ourselves entangled into what we have now. And, so in the process, you said something like I want this to be fluid, I want it to be very transparent, I want it to make sure that when somebody comes in front of the Community Development that


they have a real understanding of the options that they have available to them. As for now, it is very restrictive and if I’m wrong, please guide me. Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Acosta, I mean I’m not going to say you’re wrong, but you’re very close to being right. They are restrictive, and the higher the intensity, the more hoops you have to jump through under the current code. Under the new code, you can still go that way but even those hoops have actually broadened - they’ve gotten bigger. For instance, and I said this before, the accessory dwelling unit - I mean, we heard over and over and over from the residents at these meetings that it’s so hard to bring my mother-in-law or my ill child to live with me and I don’t enough room in my existing home and I need to put another home on the, yes - I’m getting a new one, I already asked for that – and I’m getting a new one and I need to put a new mobile home or a new casita on the property to house my inlaws or my ill child. Right now, we in certain areas, we have limitations. If your child needs constant care and they live more than 5 years from the approval date, well what do you do then? Do you come back in and have to get another SUP for an accessory dwelling? Why does that make sense? It doesn’t. The encouragement now is to build community within itself from one lot to a thousand lots or a thousand acres. You know, we’re trying to minimize the requirement for them to jump through those small hoops which many people can’t afford. You know, but they can’t afford to get that mobile home and move it on that property and have their relative live there close to them and improve that quality of life. I mean, that’s just the one example, but that’s an example that’s throughout this whole thing. So, we are, we’re really trying to make it simpler. I mean, the process is always going to be the one that probably is in flux. You know, how long does it to get this done? How long does it take to review that? Does it need to go to a public hearing? Does it need to go to an administrative approval? We’re trying to work through those as best as we can. And, I think we’re coming closer and closer to being successful in showing that, but again, this is a document that’s going to change, I see many times, over the next who knows how many years. Vice-Chair Acosta: Gilbert, you had something to say? Gilbert Mesa: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Hortert, you said something actually that helped out a lot in addressing my concerns, because I wasn’t, I think this, since this is a new document, a new way of looking at things, it doesn’t always make sense in an initial read, but, when you explained it, you had these sections that talk about region and neighborhood and community. That really helps, because I missed that and so, if you’re looking at it from the big picture, sort of coming in, these, I guess ideals, make a lot of sense. I was reading as just in general, you know, applying at all levels, but at the regional level, that absolutely makes a lot of sense. So, I just wanted to clarify that I misread this section. Vice-Chair Acosta: Commissioner Daviet, continue please. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you Mr. Chair. Section 1.3.4, Page 11, item f - that civic buildings should be distinctive and appropriate to a role more important than the other buildings that constitute the fabric of the communities. Specifically, I honed in on the appropriate to a role more important than other buildings. Why is that, why are we defining that civic buildings have a role that is more important than private buildings?


Daniel Hortert: Which number is that? Commissioner Daviet: That’s item F. Daniel Hortert: Well, I think what we’re encouraging there and it says civic buildings, but it could be a plaza like in Berino. It could be just a central location for gathering for people to interact, for kids to play, so forth like that. And, I know it says civic buildings and probably should say civic spaces/buildings and that’s the whole point, is that helps define a community. Some people, I mean, the park in Berino is very important to them. It’s very important to them. And, the center of Doña Ana. The community of Doña Ana and their civic space that they have with that nice little park and the churches around and stuff like that. That’s very important, that’s why it should be very prominent, and, as you develop, as you have a regional idea, you start to think about the neighborhood and then you start to think about the community. Okay, or the block and the building. So that helps define that, in a sense that creates a community place, a community, a sense of place for the community. It doesn’t mean that it absolutely has to be the focal point of everything, but, what it does is it encourages that because we know community, communities around here are very tight and not all of them have a place to interact with each other. Commissioner Czerniak: It’s not a question of importance, that’s the key word. It’s a question of whether that, those buildings should be designed with care to reflect the character of the place, to create identity for that place. So I think the word importance, I hate to get into this stuff, but the word importance isn’t the right word, because it means that it elevates the role public buildings above private buildings. That’s not what we want to do. It’s a matter of design and it’s clear that was written by an architect. Vice-Chair Acosta: Commissioner Czerniak, do you have a thesaurus for important? Commissioner Czerniak: I think I would replace it with “design with care, create a sense of identity”, something like that. The staff can come up with the right words. Daniel Hortert: Yes, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, again, a very good discussion on this, because I think it’s not that it should be important or that it will be important, but I think it should be based on the importance of what goes on in that community. Vice-Chair Acosta: Well you don’t want to violate social mores to the area because of the actual traditions and colloquialisms that are found in townships. I call them townships because that’s what they originally are and now we’re going to change them to hamlets and now we’re going to change from hamlets to townships and villages. So, I have some other words for it too. Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair, please we’re not going to call them hamlets. I put a stop to that a long, long time ago. Vice-Chair Acosta: Okay, thank you. Back to Commissioner Daviet. Commissioner Daviet: I yield to Commissioner Zarges. Commissioner Zarges: Just from, Mr. Hortert, from your explanation, it sounds like you’re being totally redundant with E and F. I mean, E states exactly what you just talked about as being F. So, it’s just like, why don’t we just get rid of the F. Thank you. Vice-Chair Acosta: Commissioner Daviet, go ahead.


Commissioner Daviet: Thank you Mr. Chair. Item H, which is on the next page, page 12. That the preservation and renewal of historic buildings should be facilitated to affirm the continuity and evolution of society. Facilitated - what’s intended by Planning and Zoning in the code facilitating preservation in renewal? Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Daviet, I’m not sure that that would be wholly of the purpose of Planning and Zoning here, at least the County’s taking a stance on that, but it could. One example, I guess could be main street projects. That, maybe they upgrade facades to enhance those buildings back to their, maybe natural, state that gave the identity to some of these communities in the first place. Vice-Chair Acosta: Daniel, are you taking into consideration SHPO requirements and standards? Daniel Hortert: That was my next thing to say. I just wanted to confirm that San Miguel has one of them. I mean, the church in San Miguel is very important. But, SHPO absolutely has to play a part in this ultimately, because we probably have some sights that need to be on SHPO, on their list, whether it’s the national or the state list of historic and significant places or something to that extent. I mean, because what that also does is that increases the opportunity for tourism and economic development to see that. There’s people that go to historic sights, whether it’s a church, whether it’s an old building or whatever. I just, the other day, saw where Pat Garrett was shot; never knew it was there. Saw a sign as I was driving by, because I was finally a passenger in a car. I saw that and thought wow I had no idea. These are important cultural and historical assets that Doña Ana County has and I think that’s the goal, is to really start to capitalize on those, whether it’s public, private, partnerships, whether it’s historical societies or whatever - that we begin to ensure that those last a lot longer than they already have. Vice-Chair Acosta: Commissioner Daviet, go ahead. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you Mr. Chair. Same page, section 1.3.6, the continuum of intensity. Item A, the communities should provide meaningful choices in living arrangements as manifested by distinct physical environments. My comment was, what? I didn’t get that all Daniel Hortert: I can probably give you a, hopefully, a brief. Typically, our communities have similarities within them already, whether it’s, I mean, some of them - mobile homes are their similarities. Some of them are, again, the civic space or the historical space. So, when it says living arrangements, what it talks about is affordability, but staying within the makeup of the community . It’s a little fluffy comment there and I’m seeing many of the comments you’re bringing up are kind of fluffy comments that maybe should be more technically, I guess, portrayed in terms of what they actually mean instead of what maybe some, maybe an architect or a designer thought up in the backroom. So, I see what you’re saying there, but I think the intent is to provide a level of mixed income, affordable housing, a sense of place for commercial and leisure activities based on, and when it says the physical environment, Rincon comes to mind, where you really can’t build up that hill right behind Rincon - steep slopes, all this other good stuff, but taken into consideration how you work with that to create a stronger community or in this case, a Colonia.


Vice-Chair Acosta: Mr. Dominguez, any questions, comments. Ricardo Dominguez: Yes, I was thinking, as Daniel was describing this, and the idea to me seems to be that we want to look at lands and then the open space and then the thoroughfares. We need to look at them in its entirety as a community and then make decisions. I agree that with Item A, it’s a difficult sentence to describe to somebody else. That’s really the only comment that I have. I don’t have any other concerns. Vice-Chair Acosta: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Daviet, go ahead. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you Mr. Chair. So, Mr. Hortert, similarity - that’s what we’re trying to accomplish with item A, is that there should be similarity with surroundings? Daniel Hortert: In a sense yes. I was going to say that but then he gave the floor back to you and I thought we’d be over this. I think what we’re trying to do is continue the cultural identity or just the neighborhood identity to the best of our ability. I mean, a lot of that, based on the manifested by the distinct physical environment could, to me, that could also talk about infill development so that it does in a sense maintain or even further the identity of a specific community. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you, Mr. Hortert. Vice-Chair Acosta: Commissioner Huestis, go ahead. Commissioner Huestis: That brings up the point of change. I understand there’s a proposal being looked by the City for the development of the El Paseo Corridor. I’ve just told you everything I know about that, almost. What little I’ve been told, again, is that it represents a rather dramatic renovation of the whole El Paseo area down as far as the high school and so forth. That would certainly seem to be incompatible with this and I don’t mean to get into jurisdiction with you again, by any stretch, but that’s an example of, okay what do we really mean by that? If you read this rather tightly, it’s really anti-growth, anti-progress, anti-change and that’s one of the problems I had with the Comp Plan, in general. It seems to be rather backward-looking rather than forward-looking and this is consistent with that. Thank you. Vice-Chair Acosta: Commissioner Daviet? Commissioner Daviet: Thank you, Mr. Chair. We’re still in Section 1.3.6, item BI, that the natural zone should consist of lands approximating or reverting to wilderness condition, including lands unsuitable for settlement due to topography, hydrology or vegetation and specifically, what I honed in there was approximating or reverting to a wilderness condition? That sounds like codifying rewilding and I was concerned with that. I believe what we’re suggesting is an undeveloped condition, not a wilderness condition. Daniel Hortert: Okay. Commissioner Daviet: Same Section III. Ricardo Dominguez: Sir? Commissioner Daviet: Yes, I yield. Ricardo Dominguez: Thank you, Commissioner. Can we use a different word than wilderness condition? Because what we’re doing in a particular area that I mentioned in the first time, those 300 acres, we made a commitment to preserve the arroyos, to preserve the deserts and not even preserve them, but to also build them up by


providing landscaping that’s indigenous to that area. So, we’re building that up where it may have been a little bit sparse. So, I guess I can change the word when it gets to my City. I think that’s the way I read this. And, contrary to what we do in El Paso, we just throw the spill over and then we’ve lost the beauty of the arroyo. That’s what I don’t want done here, at least in my part of Sunland Park. Vice-Chair Acosta: Mr. Dominguez, my opinion has always been that an arroyo should be a PUD for effective land use, but, I mean, that’s only my opinion. That’s an idea, maybe. Commissioner Daviet, go ahead. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Same Section III. I amended the last sentence of that which is at the top of page 13 - blocks should be large and thoroughfare networks irregular. What are irregular thoroughfare networks? Do we have a definition for that? Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Daviet, we will look at that statement. I think what it’s referring to is not wide, not the same type of thoroughfare throughout, in the sense that for various reasons, one of them being traffic calming purposes, you don’t really want a collector running down every neighborhood street. We have several developments that have similar to that, but under the thoroughfare section, we’ve further defined some of that, but I will take that note and ask Angela what she’s going to say. Vice-Chair Acosta: Angela, do you want to come forward, give us your opinion? Daniel Hortert: Oh, okay. So, a lot of the code talks about grid development, kind of the historical type of development, you have your symmetrical oblong or rectilinear blocks any given size, but what this says is that the large land thoroughfare networks be irregular as in not specific to the grid. Now, after discussions we’ve had in the past couple days with Andres Duani being in town and speaking to many, many different people, this may be an issue that comes before you that is either way better defined in terms of how much of it be irregular or taken out all together. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you, Mr. Hortert. Then I’ll look for further discussion on that in the future. 1.3.6, Item C, to provide for continuity with existing regulations by further differentiating the zones of the continuum of intensity by use, so that the existing character of land development under previous regulations can be maintained. Again, my comment there again was, what? I couldn’t follow that. Daniel Hortert: That kind of bodes to the fact that it too is not very descriptive, but the intent of that is to say, that the existing regulations, especially upon existing zoned or mapped zoned areas, that that continuity will continue. It doesn’t mean that they have to stick to the exact regulations that we have now. What it says is that, basically, we’re not taking away any of their vested rights that they’ve had for, if it’s in the ETZ, for 25 years. Again, a little fluffy. I’m putting a little (f) next to fluffies. I think it does need to be more streamlined and defined in a little bit clearer way. Commissioner Czerniak: Is the term continuum, is it continuum of use? Commissioner Daviet: Continuum of intensity. Commissioner Czerniak: Is that defined in the definitions? It’s not and I don’t think it’s graphically represented anywhere is it, in the code?


Daniel Hortert: No, if I’m not mistaken, though, there’s a section and it’s one that we’ll look at later, but I will double-check. Commissioner Czerniak: That really underlines the whole thing. Daniel Hortert: So, it talks about, you’re talking about the actual heading for that whole section continuum. Commissioner Czerniak: Yes, I’m talking about the, I mean, it’s based on the transects so without that being somewhere there’s no way to understand what that means. Daniel Hortert: Okay. It is actually defined, sir. Commissioner Czerniak: Did they provide a transect for Doña Ana County? They did didn’t they? Daniel Hortert: Well, yes and no. Right now what you saw, last time that needs to be revised is the precursor to the transect and what each transect, so like in a G3 you may be able to do a T2, T3, T4, whereas in the 01, you may be only be able to do a T-whatever. Commissioner Czerniak: My question, doesn’t that have to be explicitly stated somewhere in the code? Daniel Hortert: We’ll get to that under Chapter 3, when we talk about Chapter 3 and Chapter 5. To answer your one question, though. Continuum of intensity is an array of conditions ranging from the rural to the urban and used in a regulatory manner in this chapter, chapter whatever it may be, by arranging zones within that range. Still not very clear though, because the reference in the section 1.3.6 really refers to existing and this kind of just defines what continuum is, but not how it applies. So, good point. Vice-Chair Acosta: Commissioner Czerniak, in a definition do you want to define continuality or how would you prefer it? Commissioner Czerniak: Well, in form-based codes there’s an underlying concept called the transect and within each community type, there’s a continuum of intensity of uses. That’s what Daniel was referring to when he said T1, T2. Those are different kinds of uses. Why don’t you explain it, rather than have me do it. Daniel Hortert: Well, actually you probably don’t want me to do it either. But, what I’m going to try to do is pull... Dennis, can we have this on the screen as well as on the commissioners’ monitors, please. What I’m going to show you is just a standard basic transect. They’re typically, it kind of gives you the range of intensities from open and rural all the way to highly urbanized. But, what it’ll do is, each transect when you go into a community based on the form-based code, it actually fashions it towards that community and based on that community; it just doesn’t automatically overlay the highest intensity urban in the City of Las Cruces or the City of Sunland Park, because technically that would be more indicative of, say, Las Angeles or what have you. But, you can even create your own transects further to define those kinds of situations, but let me get there. So, can you see what I’m looking at right now? So, these aren’t labeled right now, but these show transects, kind of a natural progression of, for it looks like, that’s for a beach. But, you can see how the ocean is probably the least intense, pretty sure you’re not going to develop there anyway. Then you have a beach, then you have a beach, primary dunes. That’s not a good example. I actually have several


examples on my personal computer. This one looks pretty good. See if I can get that bigger. Oh, use quote time. That doesn’t help me at all. Commissioner Daviet: I actually think we may have something like that in the Comp Plan on page 54. Yes, in fact, continuum of intensity is on page 54 and there’s a little chart there that shows how we go from undeveloped to the highly developed. The big thing that I want to note there is that I appreciate that the rural setting is a house surrounded by pecan trees. I just want to note that I approve of that. Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Daviet, we actually googled pecan tree in this setting. No, we didn’t. Thank you for bringing that to my attention, but we’ll bring it up on the screen as well. So, what you can see and if you look at the progression, it doesn’t really have the T’s in there, but in this case, this is really the continuum of intensity. We’ll show the more rural and undevelopable space to the far left and as you get further in, what it does is shows you the larger lots, and lot sizes seem to get smaller and the street grid, for this part, seems to change just a little bit, but you see it gets more intense as it goes. In this case, I believe T4 is the highest that we’re proposing and in this case that would be the far right, which would have more of an urban setting which we technically don’t really have in the County, but in Sunland Park we have a more urban setting than in the City of Las Cruces, of course. Then you get to, I think, kind of right in the middle, I think is where you get to more of a Mesilla. If you look at the, and Angela may be able to point. Commissioner Daviet: I think I’m the only one, not everyone’s got it up yet, Mr. Hortert. Daniel Hortert: Okay, you see the intensities in use on this. How do I make this a little bigger? So, basically, if you see this on the far right, that would be the O or the natural. I mean, on the far left, you see with the little river and then you see, as it gets into like the O-2 or the, it’s more the natural/rural in this case and then as you progress, you see, these are somewhat inducive to the community types that you will see in there as well, exactly. So, what page is that, the village? Vice-Chair Acosta: Page 34. Daniel Hortert: That’s small village or village? Vice-Chair Acosta: It’s village. Daniel Hortert: Okay, so that would probably be pretty much right in the middle. Vice-Chair Acosta: You can see how it expands as you go. Daniel Hortert: Yes and typically what you’ll see is kind of those middle areas would be very indicative to the Town of Mesilla. It’s a village. You know, it has a civic space in the middle and has, in this case, we’ve been fortunate to have commercial surround that civic space and encourage tourism for this matter. We have a church right there and a little parking lot right in front of the church, but I think that was added after the fact. As you go further out, Mesilla’s a good example as you go further out. So, as you go further to the left that’s more indicative of what happens then you get into farm land. Vice-Chair Acosta: Yes, off of 292, going north on 292. It’s a good example, starting on page 34 - works it way through. Daniel Hortert: You see the T. These are transects, they call them transects and they’re basically transects of how development occurs within a given area. You see the T1 is the


natural zone. That would be similar to our old one in the sector plan. Then you see T2 which falls more into, I don’t know if those are pecan trees, they’re not in very good order. Commissioner Daviet: They look like pecan trees. Daniel Hortert: Okay, it looks like my lot where they could be Chinese Elms and that’s not a good thing. So then you get into the T3 which is a more suburban zone. I would say that’s more indicative of some of the stuff that’s gone on at the East Mesa. It’s not really the Sonoma Ranch type, but this could also be the outer ring behind, you know outside just shortly outside of, the Town of Mesilla. Then you get the general urban zone, but this is more indicative of our suburban zone which would be like the Sonoma Ranch. Then you get into the urban centers which would be more like Sunland Park and the City of Las Cruces. The urban core in the special districts - we just don’t relate - maybe in 100 years, I won’t be here. So, even the urban core, you can slightly relate that to Las Cruces, in terms of we have one skyscraper up and down Lohman but there are houses directly behind all that. I mean, it’s not a very urbanized core, but it’s the urbanized core that we have in Las Cruces or in Doña Ana County. I hope that kind of gives you the transect idea where we’re really talking about moving from the natural and open space to the more densely populated or the more village type or town type development throughout the County which is actually naturally how it’s occurred until probably the past 20 years. Then again, many of this goes back to our current code doesn’t allow us to develop something in the nature of Mesilla. It really doesn’t give that opportunity for somebody to say I want to create a place similar to that. Maybe down in Santa Teresa or maybe in 100 years it becomes, they get signs on the freeway too “visit historic Town of Mesilla” or “Santa Mesilla”. So, the opportunities are there to develop throughout this and doesn’t mean you say okay I have to develop within this transect, you can mix. It’s not uncommon. The general layout is, if I’m under, and we’ll go back to that diagram I gave you last week that needs to be updated, okay, when you go back to that diagram first you have the sector that’s on the top which is again, kind of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use overlay or the Land Use Plan for the Comprehensive Plan. Then you get to the next level down which starts to get into these village types. Then even further is the intensities within those. Commissioner Huestis: This makes a great deal of sense to me. Again, it goes back to, this represents quite a change from the way business has been done. If you apply this whole philosophy of as you’ve outlined it, that’s quite new. It really is. What has happened and what I’ve just seen recently in the last, almost year now, we still have a great of haphazard ad hoc decision-making. If we’re going to have a new Unified Development Code, it needs to coherent. When we try to superimpose it upon what has become an ad hoc system, you got a very, very difficult chore. Perhaps, we need to look at the development of the development code, not from the top down 30,000 feet, but from the bottom up. What kind of development do we have, given the physical layout of the valley, given the transportation corridors, in other words with the world as it really is, how do we want to have the vision of this being developed. This makes a certain amount of sense, even if you expand the concept from just the intensities. I want to compliment you on making this a little more clear for me. Thank you.


Vice-Chair Acosta: Is it okay if we take about a two or three, five minute break? Daniel Hortert: I was going to ask you. Before we do, one second, the key word you said there was “business”. Business as usual or business how we’ve done it in the past and the ground up is actually how this was developed. This was developed by visiting every community and every, basically, driving up and down as many roads as we could in the County to determine what makes the most sense and then talking to the people about the exact same stuff, the residents, the stakeholders, about the exact same stuff and how they felt they wanted their communities to grow. That was spot on and the intensity will, I can’t emphasize enough, it really is the same, it just looks different. It gives you more opportunities should you want to develop larger parcels down in Santa Teresa and you probably will have an example of that pretty soon on how to apply this code in different aspects of what the property owner desires. Commissioner Huestis: I can appreciate your aspiration and what’s gone into and where it came from, but we’re talking about development of a code to implement this. I’ll go back to my thesis here this morning, that we really need to start with a blank sheet of paper and say okay, we have certain concepts we know what the community has said and you have all the background information that you got. How do we put together a Unified Development Code to implement that and even, how does this thing called the Comprehensive Code - what is it that we want to do and how do we put it together? It’s where I’m coming from this morning. Thank you. Vice-Chair Acosta: We would like to take a break and we’ll be back here at 11:00 am. Thank you. Vice-Chair Acosta reconvened the Planning and Zoning Meeting at 11:08 a.m. Vice-Chair Acosta: Janine, for the record Commissioner Czerniak has to leave. So, what we’ll do is we’re going to try to wrap this certain portion by 12:00, because I know you folks have a lot of things to do. So, I’m going to continue with Commissioner Daviet. So, go ahead, Commissioner Daviet. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you, Mr. Chair. At the request of the Chair, there is a specific item that we want to be sure to get in. So, I’m going to skip over several of my comment logs and we’ll return to them as time permits. I’m going to move forward to Section 1.4.7 on page 23, the Land Development Hearing Officer. My first question is, what is this position, because it was a new position and I’ll just start with that very open ended question. Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair and Mr. Daviet, give me one second because I haven’t actually looked it up, I started to do that a long time. Basically, the Hearing Officer takes many forms oftentimes. It could be a pre, kind of a precursor to the Planning and Zoning Commission, where you would never have to see us again. No, we would still be there. To make a determination on a land use case, could be a minor case could be a more intense case, but they would make that recommendation to you based on their intimate and legal knowledge of the ordinance as it is. Or, it could be a Hearing Officer that actually hears appeals to try to curtail, it potentially making it to District Court, which, in any case, the person would still always have that option. So, I’m looking in, I saw it earlier that it is also in state statutes, but where it is right now, I can’t find it. My computer is not working like I’d like it to. A lot of thought has gone into this since then,


and honestly, I have no heartburn either way. So, what a Hearing Officer would basically do, staff would submit to them what the applicant, it would be, potentially it could be quasi-judicial hearing with the Hearing Officer; they would weigh the facts and the legalities of the case and then they would provide a recommendation. Staff would present that recommendation, most likely, but, they would make a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you, Mr. Hortert. I heard two different definitions of the LDHO there. One was it was an initial approval and then would only go to the Planning and Zoning Commission if there was an appeal to that approval. And, the other was that it would be an appellate position between the County Commission and District Court. Vice-Chair Acosta: What is the pecking order, Daniel? Daniel Hortert: No, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Daviet, what I meant would be that if it was a simple case, any aggrieved party would appeal and then you would hear that appeal. It all lies beneath the Planning and Zoning Commission. So, it’s really, it’s kind of a recommending body to you. Many cases, after the discussions we’ve had over the past couple of days, we’re actually looking to give the Planning and Zoning Commission way more authority than they already have to decide subdivisions in whole except when dedications are required, but certain things have to go to the County Commission because of their authority to accept or to maintain or operate roadways and so forth. But, what this person, what the Hearing Officer would do would be to hear cases and then make recommendations. They may hear variances and you would never hear that. They may hear a special use permit and you would never hear that; they would make a final decision on that. But the real cases, the rezones, the larger issues that require public hearings still from your, for you guys, you would still hear those. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you, Mr. Hortert. I’m going to go ahead and yield to Mr. Huestis. Commissioner Huestis: This is a new position, Daniel? There is no such thing as LDHO in existence currently, is that correct? Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Huestis, currently we do not have one in Doña Ana County. Commissioner Huestis: So, this is a new, presumably paid position in the County manning table? Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Huestis, no, it would be a voluntary position based on qualifications. Commissioner Huestis: It’s a voluntary position. It sounds a lot like we could substitute Janine Divyak in there, because Janine comes before us and says we have the following administrative approvals each time and we say fine, great go ahead. Sounds very much the same as what your office is doing now. Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Huestis, actually, I’m the zoning administrator for the County as delegated to by the County Manager and I delegate that responsibility from time to time as much as possible to Janine, but no, that would not an appropriate use of this because our bias could interfere, if in fact we had any, which we try not to, but potentially could be perceived as bias coming from staff. That’s part of the Hearing Officer, that’s part of that process. Is it, it removes any bias for or against a case and


puts the burden on the Hearing Officer and not necessarily staff. As I said before it kind of villainizes staff sometimes when we make a recommendation that’s very unpopular, but if it was something that came before the Hearing Officer and they made a recommendation to you on the case, the assumption would be that the Hearing Officer would again, with potentially a legal background or an extensive land use background, a volunteer is the same, but somebody that has intimate knowledge of the code as much as staff and the Commission itself, would be able to make that recommendation. And, it kind of takes staff out of the equation at that point and gives it to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Huestis: Okay, I guess I just have a handle on you guys. I give a lot of credence to your recommendations when you come before us with a recommendation to approve or disapprove any particular issue and I rely on your professionalism and professional background to do that and you’re asking now we just put in another little layer of some kind in there for the purpose of insulating both you and us from some kind of an imaginary problem. It just seems like a layer that I have some question about. Thank you. Vice-Chair Acosta: Commissioner Daviet? Commissioner Daviet: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My second question with regards to this, it’s going to end up being a little expansive. The approval authority, as it’s written in Item B, says an application pertaining to the development of land, which I assume means everything, shall be approved by the LDHO. So, that certainly sounds like he has approval authority, at least initially over all land development issues. Is that what is intended, Mr. Hortert? Daniel Hortert: Yes, D actually elaborates more requests for uses and development which are allowed by right are reviewed for compliance with the regulations of this chapter by the CDD and do not require findings from the LDHO, but I see what you’re, where you’re going with this is that ... Commissioner Daviet: Shall be approved means, he either approves it or he does not. It doesn’t say maybe. It doesn’t say sometimes is, shall be approved. Daniel Hortert: Yes, we can look at that in more detail amongst ourselves, but also says the Hearing Officer shall present findings for matters requiring a public hearing to the P&Z and/or BOCC. I’ll look at the shall be. Commissioner Daviet: Right, and specifically in that sentence shall present findings. So, according to Item B which came first, he made it either an approval or a denial; then there’s a hearing that comes before us he’s required to present “his findings” that he made a decision on to the P&Z at that time and that makes sense. I just couldn’t quite find the approval authority and then with that, what the appellate path is. I apologize we’re going to jump forward to page 27, section or 2.2 appeals. Give you a moment, Mr. Hortert and then I’ll read it into the record. A decision of an official or body listed in 1.4.1 may be appealed to the one listed before it. And, when you go back to 1.4.1, the LDHO is not in the list. So, I couldn’t quite figure out what the appellate path was for the LDHO. Daniel Hortert: Yes, we’ll have to take a look at that Commissioner Daviet. Again, … Commissioner Daviet: Just off the top of your head where would he go in the list?


Daniel Hortert: It would probably go and it should say zoning administrator instead of department directors, but, a Department Director (inaudible 11:19:33), engineering crew, for example, can make a decision and that could be, you know, put into the record; somebody could still appeal just that, say oh no, the road has to be 14 inches longer here, whatever, I don’t know. That could be appealed, but typically that would be under the under E, Department Directors, I guess or Zoning Administrators/… Commissioner Daviet: So, would the LDHO go between C, P&Z Commission and D, the Development Review Committee? Daniel Hortert: In this case, yes it would. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you. You talked about recommending. It is my opinion that the, with the exception of staff making a recommendation on what they have found from an application, that recommending bodies should be dissolved and the cases should only be heard by approval bodies because it’s just adding an extra layer of bureaucracy to folks trying to develop land. If the people that are presenting to can’t make an approval, why are they presenting to them? So, if your intention is for this simply to be somebody else that makes a recommendation and that they then present the case, I would not be in favor of the LDHO. If it is meant to streamline the approval process because it’s cumbersome to get the P&Z for simple cases, then I am in favor of that. Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Daviet, that was my initial intent, you know, hopefully this code, really it won’t abolish completely but variances, again, here they’re given out like candy on Halloween. That was very new to me, very foreign to me actually when I came here. Those types of cases - the variances, the special use permits, or the conditional use permits, those are something simple that can be heard by a Hearing Officer and then a determination will be made. A subdivision definitely has to go to the P&Z. And, the potential route we’re taking, what we’re proposing now, which I haven’t gotten to the subdivision code yet, but through many, many discussions with many people yesterday, potentially giving the Planning and Zoning Commission full authority to approve subdivisions. Commissioner Daviet: So, specifically enumerating which bodies are the approval of the initial approval authority for each of the things we discussed is something that currently is lacking from the administrative section and I would ask that that would be put in so that it’s easy to determine where you need to go for the project you’re trying to develop. Vice-Chair Acosta: Daniel? Daniel Hortert: If I can comment on that, one good thing, we’re going to try to do this. It’s most likely going to be done internally, but if somebody wants to come in and do a specific project and it’s listed on the list, we’re going to have a hyperlink that they just go to on the computer and it tells them everything they need to know about that project: where to look in the code, where to look in the Comprehensive Plan, what they need to submit, etc. We have checklists as it is now, but they’re just simple checklists. A lot of times some of that stuff is not even required for a simple project that they’re doing, but that will fall into the application and procedures which is Article 2, on how to streamline this whole thing so that it’s just a no-brainer and if it becomes something


that’s just isn’t on the list, well, good, that’s one of the things we have to do to adapt and figure out how to fix. Vice-Chair Acosta: Daniel, the LDHO would be empowered with quasi-judicial powers? Daniel Hortert: Depending on the type and that’s something that we need to look into a little further. A variance is a modification to the code and the code is law. So, that’s the one thing may, but a special use permit, that’s not a modification to the code. Even if we put conditions on it that’s something that ... Vice-Chair Acosta: But, Daniel, where I want to go with this, is stretch it out a little bit farther. Watch, that would be a very, very powerful position to have and I am not too sure that as we go, as you said, this is fluid. And, my recommendation would be that we would not have this at this time. In the event that we were to need it down the line I think that maybe we should look at that. But to get started, not to muddy up the water, I believe that we should strike that at this time. If we need that position as we go we could always amend that to do an LDHO. The reasoning behind that would be you have a pre-approved application which is basically a DRC, a lot of things can be ironed there before you folks get it. Janine Divyak: So, Mr. Chair, you are suggesting to eliminate the Hearing Officer, like give the DRC more reviewing authority? Vice-Chair Acosta: I think so. Because see Janine, we’ve all been there. All the Department Heads should be there. Not a representative, but a Department Head. The reason being is this: they would automatically see the conditions of the case coming forward before you folks get it. And, I know that there’s going to be communication between Community Development and the DRC as we go because a lot of paper work and thoughts have to go through it. As far as I’m concerned, at that point and time, there would be a determination of what the appellant coming in here, the petitioner coming in for approval or whatever. That they would have a lot knowledge because that’s why they’re there they’re Department Heads. They can iron things out very quickly and they can give recommendations to the petitioner - say “this is what you need to do in order to proceed with this case”. So, at this point and time, I just don’t see a use for that LDHO, not now anyway. That’s my recommendation and I have a real issue with it anyway. Janine Divyak: And is that the consensus of the Commission? Commissioner Daviet: Mr. Chair. I want to note that I agree with the Chair that it is an extraordinary powerful position. Mr. Hortert talked about it being an appointed position by the County Commission, presumably with a term of office. I think that does quite a bit to mitigate the fact that is not a permanent position and somebody that you’ve got to pick gets trenched in the bureaucratic process. However, I also agree with the Chair that the process we have - it’s currently functioning, it maybe not be functioning well and that it may be more appropriate to specifically add that one section in after we have the new UDC functioning. Commissioner Huestis: Ms. Divyak’s question. I tend to support that, but I don’t know how wholeheartedly; I have to think it through but right now it does seem to be a little redundant.


Commissioner Zarges: Just in reading this, I guess I’m going to have to go along with the Chair as well. The position says “that he performs quasi-judicial reviews of most land development applications”. That sounds to me like just a redundancy as well as really a usurpation of what the P&Z’s duties are as well as the duties of most of the planners in the Community Development Department. I just don’t see this as being necessary at this time at all. Vice-Chair Acosta: Daniel, when you have a de novo hearing again, we’re starting all over again. So, how many times are going to have de novo hearings as we go up the chain or the pecking order? I mean, it just doesn’t quite make sense at this time anyway. Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair and members of the Commission. Again, my heartburn, it’s not existent either way. Vice-Chair Acosta: Then I looked at some of the stuff with Land Use Ordinances with City of Albuquerque, Florida, Michigan and they had had a lot of problems with that and I’m sharing that with you, Daniel. Commissioner Daviet: Mr. Chair, I’d be happy to go on with other items in my comment log but looking at the time if there are Commissioners that have some points that they really want get in today I don’t want to completely usurp their time. Vice-Chair Acosta: No, you have 25, right? Commissioner Daviet: Yes, I think we’ve gotten through like seven or eight. Vice-Chair Acosta: Keep going. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you. So, we were…. Commissioner Huestis: We haven’t even talked about the five pages I’ve sent in except that we have talked about some of them. Commissioner Daviet: Page 14. Section 1.3.7 which is in subdivisions. Item B reads “that the size and configuration of lots provide for adequate light, air, and privacy; and are secure from fire, flood, and other dangers”. My question was, adequate air? How do subdivision lot sizes provide for enough air? Are we talking open space? I think that no matter how you develop a lot it’s going to have the same amount of air. Vice-Chair Acosta: Is that suggested in pond or are you real? Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair and members of the Commission. I understand your comment. I’m going through our current subdivision of land. Commissioner Daviet: It’s in the current one too and it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Daniel Hortert: I mean, I think that’s a standard one that may or may not have come about, let’s see, 1919, 1920-in New York City when zoning was first introduced to the United States. It’s a very common one and if you think about it typically it does to refer to skyscrapers or the old building styles that had window lifts and units in the middle of them. This would introduce the courtyards, a lot of times. There are a lot of issues to that, I’m pretty sure we’re not going to worry about air. Commissioner Daviet: That sounds like a building construction issue and this is talking about subdivision lot sizes. So, is there an intention to have lot sizes so that there is sufficient open area, you know, non-constructed on space, is that what’s intended by air, there?


Daniel Hortert: No, I don’t think it’s a misprint. It’s just the standard clause that was in our old one that was transferred over. If the Commission so desires that that’s not a necessary term, we’d be happy to take it out. I know we do worry about everything else. Commissioner Huestis: Daniel, you just made my point about dropping things from the old plan into the new plan. That’s the kind of example of a conflict that we run into. No need to argue. Daniel Hortert: No argument intended. Again, like I said it’s probably something that came out of 1920 New York zoning regulations. Commissioner Huestis: That was kind of my general point. Thank you. Vice-Chair Acosta: Commissioner Daviet, proceed. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you. I just want to note that the air item arises again on Page 15 in 1.3.10.a and it’s just we’re not into building construction where air, I would assume, that air makes sense with windows and things of that nature. We’re talking about signs and landscaping. It just seems to make sense, if we don’t mean something other than the actual molecules of air, that we should strike it so it’s not interpreted to mean something else. 1.3.8.b, also on Page 14. So, 1.3.8 is landscaping. Item B says “that trees, shrubs, and ground cover consist of native species appropriate to expected climactic conditions”. The thing I honed in there was native species. Are we intending to limit all landscaping to things that are native to Dona Ana County? Because I think that precludes things like grass. Daniel Hortert: I’m trying to read through the whole actual section again. Potentially, Angela has something to say about this, no. Commissioner Daviet: And, going along with that is Item C - that the need for irrigation be minimized. Again, that’s a highly limiting comment. Specifically, grass is one of the highest water use landscaping items. Are we intending to essentially codify not putting in grass? Daniel Hortert: No, the intent of this is not to … I have a lot of grass at my house and I like definitely like it, so do my dogs. So, that is not the intent of this at all, but we can further clarify those comments. I think what it’s doing it’s encouraging and it should probably say encourage, you know, native flora and fauna to the best of the ability and to if you can do xeriscape which would reduce the water consumption drastically and the homeowners that buy those lots prefer that, then I think that’s a valid effort. So, I think we should just reword some of the words because it really just says “that”. They all start with “that” and sometimes I question what does “that” mean in this case. So, is it an encouraging “that” or is it a prohibitive “that” or what? But, we’ll look at that. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you. I believe encourage and facilitated may be correct maybe a better way to put it other than consist of and need to be minimized. I yield to Mr. Dominguez. Ricardo Dominguez: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. On your same question, should we put a certain percentage that needs to be landscaped or is that going to be negotiated between staff and developer? Daniel Hortert: That’s further in the chapters. This is only the intent of the actual code itself. This is a little more, the intent of the previous code didn’t go into this much detail


of the intent of each one of these sections. We’re trying to clarify it up front and then it’s more defined in terms of the actual section, in this case landscaping further in the document. Angela Roberson: Mr. Chair, thank you. Just to remind everybody as we’re going through this, on Page 10 at the start of this Section of Intent which was just pointed out: the very first paragraph there under intent, so 1.3.1 where it says the intent and purpose of the chapter and then it goes on to say “as adopted and amended, enable, encourage, and qualify the implementation of the region”. So, all of this stuff that we’ve been going through after that paragraph is about encouraging, enabling and qualifying the implementation of what’s set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. So, I guess if you just keep those words in your mind as we’re going through each sentence that says “that” is probably the best way to look at it. So, I don’t believe that they’re absolute sentences saying that they must be native species. For example, just that we’re trying to encourage and qualify and make it possible to implement the recommendations coming from the Comprehensive Plan. Daniel Hortert: I would note that anytime we’re in front of the P&Z on a case that is in the valley closer to the river I’m going to push for anti-mosquito plants just so you know. Commissioner Daviet: I will note on that comment, Mr. Hortert, that I want to be cautious about us having essentially ad hoc recommendations that we’re making to developers, where as we discussed in the meeting we had yesterday, where we’re making it up as we go, so every developer in every development - they’re not sure what requirements they’re going to be hit with when they show up. It just makes the process difficult. So, while I appreciate your comment, I want to be careful that that’s not where we’re going. Vice-Chair Acosta: Commissioner Daviet, the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Chair, the Planning and Zoning Commission can by right assign ad-hoc committees for recommendations to Community Development regarding certain issues as we go. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you, Angela, for that clarification; that’s actually most helpful. It will probably mitigate some of my additional comments and thank you. 1.3.10 on Page 15, Item H “ensure that proposed grading shall result in the minimum possible disturbance of the terrain and natural features necessary for development”. That again, that probably in the encouraging, that’s probably a good thing to encourage. I want to be sure that we’re not say that somebody wanted their lot to be flat and it’s not otherwise effecting health, safety and welfare, why we wouldn’t permit that. Item I “prevent grading that unnecessarily changes the terrain, other features, or create flood problems that will have an adverse effects, etc. My question was, does that just cover H? Daniel Hortert: I think what that does is elaborate on H and I think we could probably just strike H. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you. Vice-Chair Acosta: Commissioner Daviet, on item I, when you do any development in the County, you have to have a SWPPP and grading plan. So, that would actually just take care of that immediately.


Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair and members of the Commission. Yes and no. I mean, part of this is encouraging that we maintain some of our natural features that are there and SWPPP and Erosion Control Plan around those. It’s kind of given both sides. If you’re just going to take an undulating site and flatten it out and then develop on top of it, that’s one thing and the SWPPP and ECP are required. If you’re going to have, if you’re going to try to maintain some of the contours or natural features that are there and not just blade them flat that also takes into consideration you still need to do a SWPPP. Well, what that’s saying, that’s the encouragement of potentially keeping more of, trying to keep some of the natural terrain intact. Vice-Chair Acosta: Daniel, let me ask you a question. A dead arroyo, what is your definition of a dead arroyo for development? Daniel Hortert: I would have no definition of a dead arroyo because anything over a certain CFS and everything in this valley seems to run towards the river should be taken into consideration. Vice-Chair Acosta: Then say, for instance, the SWPPP plan doesn’t - well engineering or something goes by them, right, and, they allow a development on the arroyo for a structure. Does a dead arroyo come into play in a situation like that? Daniel Hortert: I’ve been accused over-committing and under-delivering on occasion, but I can assure you that all that is going to be taken into sincere consideration whether it’s me pointing it out to them or them already knowing about it. So, that’s why I don’t know what a dead arroyo is, is it an arroyo that doesn’t carry water anymore? Vice-Chair Acosta: I don’t know, that’s why I’m asking. I mean, to me an arroyo is an arroyo. Daniel Hortert: Did I miss that, is that in here? Vice-Chair Acosta: No, it’s not there. I’m saying that it would come under “I”, I’m sure. Daniel Hortert: Well, I mean, anytime it rains if it’s a dead arroyo it going to come to life. Whether it’s two inches across or 200 hundred feet across, you may not see the water all the time, but I think the issue with storm water, especially in a County such as ours where it could be alluvial or retain to an arroyo that could move over time as well, is the fact that the water that is coming on to your site and the additional water that you’re creating on your site - you can’t add all that up and send it off your site. So, I’m not sure where you were going with that, but we take into consideration all that, we look at all the arroyos. A lot of times we have easements for them but arroyos can change. We’re working on that with Engineering as we speak and how do we do that. And, I think it’s more of a mitigation by the developer in terms of storm water and the existing arroyos than it is just saying well there’s an arroyo there we’ll put an easement on it. Vice-Chair Acosta: The reason why I asked that was because it says “if the effect of a natural topographic drainage features - arroyos, water courses and things of this nature.” That’s the only reason why I asked that question. Commissioner Huestis: As long as we’re in that section, paragraph D-I don’t want an explanation or we don’t have to go into it, but that seems extremely broad and has a little clause in there in this one section that says “oh by the way it doesn’t mean anything because BOCC can come up with something later on”. I think that second


paragraph D needs to be looked at. I don’t have a suggestion as to how to correct it. It just seems hugely broad. Thank you. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you Mr. Chair. All the way to Page 18, 1.4.3 which is the Planning and Zoning Commission. Item B II Deliberations. A hearing by the P&Z is an administrative. My first comment is that, is this supposed to be quasi-judicial? Daniel Hortert: Depending on the case. Depending upon the requirements it’s state statute; if it’s a rezone - yes. If it’s a variance, potentially yes. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you. Just a clarification on the fact that we do have quasi-judicial hearings and specifically that differed from Section C, excuse me. That differed from the similar paragraph in the Board of County Commission section. It seems like they should have been more similar. Page 19, 1.4.4 which is the DRC. Section C, I “notice at least 15 days prior to the date of any hearing”. But Section C is called meeting procedures, are these meetings or are these hearings by the DRC? I see that as being something very different. Daniel Hortert: Yes, those are just meetings. Commissioner Daviet: I would just recommend changing that from hearing to meeting. On II, under Deliberations, “the DRC shall consider all oral and written statements from the agency or applicant, etc, etc. Deliberations suggest, again, a quasi-judicial matter as opposed to a meeting and I, again, was just a little confused - is this administrative decision or a quasi-judicial decision that the DRC is making? Vice-Chair Acosta: Recommendations. Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair and members of the Commission, I mean, it really is, we deliberate over the facts or what’s before us and then make a recommendation as part of the package to the P&Z. We’ll take a harder look at that and see. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you. Page 21, Section 1.4.5 which is the Community Development Director, item C: the last sentence of item C reads “staff shall route document documents appropriately to department and officials per the Sections”, So, document documents, was that supposed to be some specific type of document? Or, was it just the word got repeated twice? I’m sorry, at the top of Page 21, the last sentence of Item C. Daniel Hortert: That’s just a typo. Commissioner Daviet: Is it supposed to be application documents or I was just trying to figure if there was a more particular type of documents that were supposed to be routed or if the word got repeated? Daniel Hortert: So under C it says review and routing: staff shall review the application within the processes of etc., and Article 2, Application and Procedure. Article 2, Sector Plan, Community Types and Subdivision. So, it tells you what you’re supposed to review it under and then the Standards and then “staff shall route”. Really, what it is, is you’re right, it is probably the application packets. I’ll confirm that because what it also sounds like or may sound like is that Community Development Director or my designee will have to compile their review of the documents and then distribute it to the other departments and I’m not sure that’s the way I want to do it. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you, I appreciate that. I was confused by that. 1.4.6; which is the Flood Commission Director. Item C “review, approve or deny all


applications for development permits required by adoption of this chapter”. I did not realize that they had approval and denial authority and they’re not in the appellate list. Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair and members of the Commission, particularly, Commissioner Daviet on this question. We used to get a lot of, and you’ve seen many, many cases come before you where the Fire Marshal says approved. I have over and over, over said “no”. You don’t approve it. You either give conditions or you say no comment. Because that means all the conditions or all the things that you look at are addressed. The only person that can approve or deny, or recommend approve or deny, is the P&Z and the Board of County Commissioners. Vice-Chair Acosta: Daniel, let me help you out on that. Way back, you established, it hasn’t been done, but you wanted recommendations to conditions that they would impose from the Fire Department and from the Flood Zone Commission. And, given now that we don’t have certified FEMA maps, I mean, these are strong recommendations that Paul Dugie can give, you know. Daniel Hortert: But, again, that’s recommendations, that’s not his approval of the document or of the application. Those are recommendations, just that. Your recommendation to the BOCC, you could recommend denial and they could recommend approval, vice versa. He could recommend something and I would expect him here to provide his expertise on that matter as to why he’s approving, or why he’s recommending that condition. The recommendation to approve may be something different, but we will give the overall recommendation that we feel that you should. But, we’ve also starting putting, but as we’ve always told you in the past, you have the opportunity to recommend, recommend with conditions or deny. Staff’s opinion, based on the comments, as the quasi-project manager, since all the applications come through Community Development, we do put that “staff recommends this” based on their comments. We’re not asking them approved, we recommend this and that goes into the recommendation put forth by staff, based on all the different talks and discussions in the conditions. Your point is well taken again. We’re trying to get them just to say if they have no comments, you don’t say approved, you just say no comments. If you prefer, they say if you want a recommendation from them, if they say recommend approval and planning says recommend denial, to me that starts to get into conflicting, and that should have been worked out before it gets to you. So, based on our conversations with them, County Planning staff makes the recommendation to approve or deny, or approve with conditions based on coordination with all the departments. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you Mr. Hortert. Commissioner Huestis: A quick one on Page 25. The tenth. I noticed the startling absence of Vision 20/40 in there. Going back to what we started this morning. Thank you. Commissioner Daviet: Page 25 X. Commissioner Huestis: It talks about the realization of the Comprehensive Plan prior to that we always talk about Vision 20/40, kind of just going back to the issue that was brought up earlier this morning. It refers to Comp Plan but not Vision 20/40 whereas historically, every place else in the document where we see one we see the other.


Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair and members of the Commission, in this case, Vision 20/40 has no authority. Again, it’s a vision document, it doesn’t talk about land use. It’s not a land use policy document, it is policy recommendation document. Commissioner Huestis: So, your point is that’s deliberate. Daniel Hortert: Absolutely. Commissioner Huestis: Thank you. Daniel Hortert: Because here’s where it refers directly back to the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you Mr. Chair. Page 22, we’re still in Section 1.4.6 and Item I When a regulatory floodway has not been designated, the floodplain administrator must require that no new construction, substantial improvements, or other development, including land fill, shall be permitted, provided it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the water surface level of the base flood more than one foot at any point within the community. What? I don’t get that at all, what’s it saying? Daniel Hortert: Hopefully, I can provide you the intent and hopefully, we can get that pared down. The Flood Commission was very thorough in their review. Unfortunately, Mary Evans, who is no longer there, she’s the one that compiled all their comments and actually made some very valid comments herself. I will check with Paul Dugie and/or John Gywnne to confirm that, but, what I think that says, is that through the process and that is still under Flood Commission, through the process that storm water master plan or a drainage master plan is going to be required to show just that - that the increase in storm water on a site is not, I’ll check what the flood base, elevation and all that stuff, but basically what I said earlier is that the drainage master plan should show that any water coming on the site the same amount is leaving the site and no more. And, if it’s on the site when it’s on the site it’s no more than one foot above base elevation. Vice-Chair Acosta: Except for community ponding. Daniel Hortert: Well, of course. Actually, that should never go above base elevation, because that’s in the ground. So, what it’s saying, oftentimes they look at, even if they look at a house, you know, a plan, and it’s in the Zone A, they’ll say foundation must be one foot above the flood elevation because the flood zone will require that and that’s actually federal standards as well, unless, it’s been amended to ours to make it more strict. Oftentimes, they can say we require an elevation certificate, we can see how high it has to be above the base flood elevation and that’ll usually say one foot, 18 inches, two foot or whatever. That’s how I interpret that and I probably interpreted it worse than it reads. We’ll clarify with Paul Dugie. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you. Page 23. Mr. Chair. Vice-Chair Acosta: With Paul, can you talk to him about the FEMA standards for getting a lot or lots out of FEMA and ask him if he has some recommendations that we can put in here and procedures. Daniel Hortert: You mean out of the flood plain? Vice-Chair Acosta: Yes. Daniel Hortert: I don’t know if we want to. Number one, there’s federal requirements, but I understand what you’re saying and we actually talked about some yesterday.


Using the example of La Union, if everything comes down and floods La Union, what you do is kind of create a new La Union right next door that’s elevated one foot, two foot whatever, which essentially becomes the dam and you divert the water around. Radical changes long term - I’m still not sold on it, but what I’m saying there are ways, I mean if you have a property that’s in the flood plain he’s going to tell you, if you’re in zone A or whatever zone it is, he’s going to tell that you have to elevate your pad sites x-amount of feet to stay out of the flood plain. We can’t design it, I don’t know if we can put it in here on how to do it, but usually that’s a comment that they have and then it’s up to your engineer to design it that way. Vice-Chair Acosta: Thank you. Commissioner Daviet. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you Mr. Chair. Page 23 under Administration, Section 1.5.1 Item A talks about a fee schedule and Chapter 179 of this code. My question is, I’m not actually sure what Chapter 179 is but is it intended to also be rolled into the Unified Development Code? Daniel Hortert: No, that’s, no, Chapter 179 is actually the fee code for the County Code. So, it could say the County Code. We technically could roll the fees into this. I mean, we have our fees separated, but Chapter 179 of the County code says how much it costs to do a subdivision, how much it costs to do a zone change, how much it costs to do a variance. It’s basically our fee schedule. Commissioner Daviet: Are there fees for anything other than land development? Okay, so it would be inappropriate to roll Chapter 179 into the Unified Development Code, is that correct? Daniel Hortert: In it’s entirety, yes. But, in a portion and if we decide to change Chapter 179 to Articles and Land Use happens to be Article 4 or whatever, then we could roll Article 4 of Chapter 179 into this, because I think it’s important that when people say they I want to do this, how much is it going to cost me, from a County perspective. Then their engineer is going to tell them, well this is how much it’s really going to cost you from their perspective. But yes, it should be very transparent on what our fees are. I will look into that on how to, because we could probably put a section of 179, and I was actually trying to go there right now to see if it’s already separated by Articles. Janine Divyak: I did want to point out that the fees are adopted by resolution. We do not adopt them by ordinance because it takes certain publications, public hearings, 90-days to change an ordinance. So, they are adopted by a resolution and I believe that’s why they are separated by their own particular chapter. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you. That would actually make sense. I would say that if it’s possible without encumbering them to get them into the UDC. This is intended to be a one stop shopping document. If you have all the information you need in the document, great, but if it encumbers the ability of those to be adapted to the times and I would like government to be easier not harder. Daniel Hortert: It is done by Article and all we have to do is incorporate them into this document and then say Chapter 179, Articles 2 or whatever, just Chapter 179 as amended. We could definitely put something in there and we can call out specific Articles, in this case, the grading and drainages Article 2 and Article 171-1 - it talks about


a whole bunch of different stuff. We’ll figure out a way with Legal to be able to keep it in here and without doing an ordinance change, they would always change with the actual Chapter 179. They could be in the Appendix of this, so that when they’re updated in Chapter 179 they’re updated automatically in here. Vice-Chair Acosta: I’d like to ask Gilbert just one question. I’m going to just jump a little bit ahead, Commissioner Daviet. On page 25 1.5.3 extraterritorial zones. What is your pleasure on that? Gilbert Mesa: Thank you Mr. Chair. Actually, I do have a comment on that, we need to work with Mr. Hortert on wording that a little bit differently, because in the CRRUA we do have an ETZ Commission but it only has a recommendation authority, it doesn’t have approval authority. So, everything there essentially goes through the CRRUA ETZ Commission for recommendation and then goes to the CRRUA Board of Directors for approval. Vice-Chair Acosta: So, you can hammer that out with Daniel, right? Gilbert Mesa: Yes, I think we can do that. Vice-Chair Acosta: Then they’ll come back for recommendation. Okay, continue, Commissioner Daviet. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you Mr. Chair. Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair, if I might real quick. It does say that, under P. Gilbert Mesa: It’s not somewhere else? Daniel Hortert: We’ll clarify that. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Same page 1.5.2 Item C P&Z Hearing and Approval “the P&Z shall hold a hearing to approve the matter within 30 days of receiving the Community Development Director’s report. The P&Z shall recommend to the BOCC that it approve or deny the matter. If it denies the matter, its decision is final”. Who is it? Is that supposed to be the BOCC? Janine Divyak: The way it currently stands now, Commissioner Daviet, is that P&Z is the recommending body for a zone change. If it is denied at the P&Z level, it does not move forward unless it’s appealed. Vice-Chair Acosta: Then it goes to the BOCC and then Third Judicial District Court. Then the State of New Mexico Appellate Court and then probably the Supreme Court, right? Janine Divyak: Yes. Daniel Hortert: Let’s hope we never get that far, sir. Vice-Chair Acosta: We want to know the packing order. Daniel Hortert: I think there needs to be more clarity on this whole thing, as well, because it bodes back to the types of approvals and final approvals that you don’t currently have that may factor in into something like that especially with the subdivisions. Typically, that’s how it is now, if you recommend denial, which doesn’t make sense to me, because what you’re doing is recommending to the BOCC that they deny it, but it’s up to them whether they take your recommendation or they approve or deny. There needs to be more clarification on that for sure. Commissioner Daviet: I’ll just leave it as I read it – that it’s broke. If we could please correct that so it’s clear who’s doing what. Again, I want to state that recommending


hearings, it would be nice to do away with hearings that just recommend something. If there’s not an approval or denial let’s skip the hearing. Vice-Chair Acosta: Could you run that by us again? Commissioner Daviet: Sure, if anybody that has to do a hearing doesn’t have approval authority, is just making a recommendation to the approval authority, let’s not make people go to two hearings. Let’s just make them go to the one that actually approves it. Daniel Hortert: What I believe you’re referring to is similar to what I had mentioned earlier about subdivisions. You’re not recommending them anymore; you may recommend that the, they may be at a final plat, that you recommend the BOCC accept dedication in maintenance for the roadways within there, that may be, but you’ve approved the subdivision, it still needs to go one step higher and maybe that’s just a minor recommendation - it’ll probably be on consent anyway, but you recommend yes to the Doña Ana County BOCC except for maintenance, the roads in plat number whatever. But, you’ve already approved the subdivisions, is that what you’re saying? Commissioner Daviet: I’m saying if someone’s coming before us for a hearing, let’s say it’s a subdivision hearing and we’d have no approval authority, we’re only hearing it, we’d deliberate and then we’d either recommend approval or recommend denial. It was really no point for them to come before us. They’re going to have to before the BOCC anyway to carry out, to actually get approval or denial. Daniel Hortert: It depends on how the state statute requires certain hearings. We will definitely look into that because sometimes they do require a public hearing at the P&Z and at the BOCC. Commissioner Daviet: And, my point would be, that if it’s required to have a public hearing of the P&Z, to have the code delegate approval authority to the P&Z with the BOCC only hearing appeals. That way if something goes through, someone only has to come to one hearing. Approved or denied if it’s not appealed, they just have one hearing. The other way they automatically always have two public hearings. Daniel Hortert: The state statue may require that. We’ll double-check. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you. On page 25. I yield Commissioner Huestis: Just quickly, I had a question. On page 24, as long as we’re going through it, under policies, which seems to be an awfully powerful term, but nevertheless we have a whole string of them. Item C II says “cost shall not be a consideration”. Are we saying if it costs 10 million dollars to do it, why I guess you have to do it anyway. That’s an interesting way to kill something. It struck me as it were saying, well we have to consider everything else in the code except the cost of compliance. Commissioner Daviet: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Huestis, as I read that, “the cost of land or other economic considerations shall not be the determining factor”. So, we can’t rule on something saying “well we wouldn’t approve this except for the cost” but the cost is really high. So, that’s the reason we’re approving it. It just cannot be the determining factor for a decision. It does not say that we cannot consider it along with other items germane to the case.


Daniel Hortert: I believe that’s the flip side, as well. As oftentimes, you hear it’s going to decrease my property value. The cost of land should not be a consideration for a decision. Commissioner Huestis: So, the word “the” overrides the word “not”, okay. Commissioner Daviet: Page 25, 1.5.3 under the purpose, there’s the first two lines talking about the code and third line starts with “shall be applicable to all property with the limits of the ETZ jurisdiction”. I think that should say “within the limits” and I just wanted to be sure that. Daniel Hortert: You’re right. That’s a typo. To be honest with you, we may be doing an extremely quick amendment 31 days after this is ever adopted. We’ll test the amendment process right off the bat. Commissioner Daviet: Thank you. Page 26, 1.5.4.c this is talking about injunctions. In it, as opposed to reading the whole thing because it’s lengthy “the BOCC, the County Attorney, the District Attorney, the County Sheriff, the Zoning Administrator or any adjacent or neighboring property owner who would be damaged by such violations may institute an injunction”. I was not aware that we could grant injunction authority to citizens. I’m pretty sure that they may request an injunction from District Court and maybe that’s my misunderstanding of the word “institute an injunction”. Daniel Hortert: I understand what you’re saying. I think institute maybe the inappropriate word there, I mean “initiate” in terms of “they can initiate the call to the Dona Ana County Codes Enforcement Division” and usually that ends up on my phone and say will you guys take at look at this. They can also go to a Commissioner and initiate a CARF which will also do that. Commissioner Daviet: Specifically, with “injunctions”, I’m not even sure that County Commission can enjoin an action. I believe actions must be enjoined by a court of law. So, I think that this is saying that any of those can do those but I don’t think that the County Commission can by vote make me stop doing things. I think that requires a court order. Daniel Hortert: I think what the purpose there would be for citations, which would initiate the court order. Actually, we can. If you’re operating an illegal business on your property, we can injunct it. We can say no, you must stop that and if you don’t we will cite you and we will take you to court. So, there can be injunctions and it’s stipulated earlier that the purpose of zoning is to protect health, safety, and welfare. If you’re doing something, you have a shooting range and you only have a 6,000 sq. foot lot, it might be a problem. Commissioner Daviet: My simple request on that is if we can have County Legal just look at that and say if that’s worded properly or not. Commissioner Huestis: The word “injunction” may be the issue. Because I think Commissioner Daviet is right, the word injunction clearly implies a judicial action. Daniel Hortert: Again, that may be state statute; I will double-check. Commissioner Daviet: I only have one comment for Chapter 2. Because that’s all the further I’ve gotten. On Page 27, 2.2.5 Evidence and Argument. It starts with “A party before one of the bodies,” so the parties would be County staff and the applicant or the appellant. A party shall have the opportunity to present evidence and argument, and


when before the BOCC, to question and cross-examine witnesses on all relevant issues”. I have not seen that demonstrated as a process. Specifically, what I’ve seen is that you’re not permitted to question witnesses or cross-examine, that all testimony must be directed to the Chair. Is that a change in actually changing the ordinance or are we simply not currently following that procedure? Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Daviet, Yes, everything is directed to the Chairs. I think what the intent is and we’ll unintend it and then reintend it purposefully is that in a grief party, or somebody, a resident or a neighbor, can come up and say what about this and typically then it would be on the Chair to direct that question to staff and/or the engineer or applicant in this matter. So, yes. Commissioner Daviet: I agree with that, Mr. Hortert, because they are not a party, but if we have, say the engineer representing one of the parties, and someone from the public comes up and presents testimony. This says the engineer can start questioning them and actually direct questions to them that they must answer. Vice-Chair Acosta: Daniel, but see in court, the element of surprise is basically not accepted, that’s why we have disclosure. So for any witnesses coming forward, I would strongly urge that they have disclosures so we won’t have the element of surprise when they come in here for questioning. Daniel Hortert: I’m going to look into that a little bit more, because I understand the intent, I personally don’t like the way it’s worded and it actually says “only when it’s in front of the BOCC” and not the P&Z. At any public hearing, any party is allowed to make on the record and sworn testimony whether they like things or not. At that point, their testimony is to the Chair which by nature is also the Board, and then the Chair may or a member of the Commission may request that further clarification from the applicant and/or the County Staff or whomever might have that information in their opinion. Commissioner Daviet: I agree with that Mr. Hortert, simply that this is stating that one of the parties, that either be staff or appellant or applicant, whichever the parties are, that they can, that they are given the right to question witness’ testimony which doesn’t say that if the Chair feels it’s appropriate to ask that question they can. That says they get to question them. Daniel Hortert: Again, the way I’m reading it and I’m going to take a hard look at it. The way I’m reading is, if somebody comes up and basically challenges something that is said by the applicant, to me that is a cross-examination, but they make it through the Chair or by nature, the Board. They make it through, they don’t turn around and say - they don’t wait until the - it’s not like the witness stand, it’s not like they are cross-examining as a lawyer from here. They’re cross-examining through the BOCC and/or should be the P&Z as well, if it’s a public hearing and then it’s taken into consideration by the BOCC to answer their requests or answer their argument or counter their argument through the applicant and/or staff. We’re going to get that rewritten. I don’t like the way it’s written personally. Janine Divyak: I think that they’re referring to the Battershell Case. Vice-Chair Acosta: We had one case several years back on a rock quarry and there was a couple of cross-examinations from the gallery and it got kind of very hot and Janine had to call the Sheriff’s Department to come in here on cross-examination. It was very


threatening. I don’t know if you remember that rock quarry up north on 85. So, we hardly ever have that but we need to berm up in the event that we do that. The Chair has the right to - we can’t slander or use abusive language. So, therefore, the Chair has the power to say okay, we’re going to remove this person to come forward. Daniel Hortert: Absolutely, but you also have the opportunity to receive their questions or counter argument and then request clarification. Vice-Chair Acosta: And, not directly, it usually comes from the Chair and then we get the applicant to respond that, but we never have them cross-examine each other, confronting each other. Daniel Hortert: Exactly, that’s what I saying. They would never confront each other and they shouldn’t. Commissioner Huestis: Just a comment that Daniel just made. We just changed our rules on advice of counsel that on a witness we, as Commissioners, are not allowed to question them. There will be no exchange, we changed our internal rules that there will be no exchange between the witnesses and the Commission. We can’t comment on their testimony. Commissioner Daviet: Commissioner Huestis, if I may. Daniel Hortert: Are you talking about the Planning and Zoning Commission? Commissioner Huestis: Yes, we adopted the same rules the County Commission did. We can’t say anything from up here in front of a case. Daniel Hortert: That’s only during public input, I believe. It’s not on the agenda. Commissioner Huestis: I stand corrected, thank you. Vice-Chair Acosta: You worried me there for awhile. Commissioner Daviet: Either regrettably or possibly thankfully, I’ve gotten no more further in the code, so I have no more comments. Vice-Chair Acosta: We wanted to see if we could adjourn by 12:00, we’re going twenty after 12:00. I know that the Community Development staff has a lot to do. Let’s move on. Commissioner Huestis: Mr. Chair, with regards to Article 2. Blessedly I’ve sent in about two or three pages worth of commentary. Most of them highly critically of this. I won’t burden any staff with it or the Commission. It just seemed to me it was not well organized; it should’ve been thought through better, kind of from the bottom up. What is it we’re trying to do here in this application procedure thing? We’re trying to simplify and so forth, I didn’t see that objective obtained. That was the thrust of my general comments and specific comments that I made and I won’t burden the Commission with those today. Vice-Chair Acosta: Angelica brought up something else that was very important. We should read this before we get started on anything. That’s on Intent 1.3.1, page 10. I think that if we that as mind-set we can proceed with this a little bit more fluent. Daniel Hortert: Mr. Chair and members of the Commission, it’s my goal to simplify. I’ve been around a long time, I’ve seen what works, I’ve seen what doesn’t. I don’t know all the answers, but I’m willing to try anything to make things work better and streamline the process. Development is, for the most part, the prosperity of Doña Ana County is what we need. It’s what we need to come out of the shadows, at least in this State of


New Mexico, of Bernalillo County, as well as El Paso County. We’re on that path, we’re going there. Development is crucial to our prosperity. Good development even makes it better. Really, that is the goal and the idea, not to tighten the regulations, but loosen them. Make them so much easier that we get to hear the positives of okay I will make sure the diagram is changed and we’ll even give it to in color. Vice-Chair Acosta: Daniel, I think we better proceed with item #6, is that okay, Presentations? (End of verbatim minutes.)

6. PRESENTATIONS None. 7. COMMITTEE REPORTS None. 8. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS

None.

9. STAFF INPUT Janine Divyak reported the press release was sent out last week for the three vacancies on the Commission. I believe Commissioner Daviet, Commissioner Mercado and Commissioner Czerniak who are up for reappointment. You will need to resubmit because we’re selecting a new pool and the BOCC will make their determination at the second meeting in April. The deadline to reapply is Monday, April 6, 2015.

10. COMMISSION INPUT None. 11. ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Daviet made a motion to adjourn with Commissioner Mercado seconding the motion. A vote of all “ayes” was heard from all present Commissioners. The meeting was adjourned at 12:22 p.m. ______________________________________ Officer: Planning and Zoning Commission

Date post:	15-Jan-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

MINUTES OF THE DOÑA ANA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION · MINUTES OF THE DOÑA ANA COUNTY...

Documents