Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'm going to bring the Planning and Zoning Commission

Recording and process. It's Wednesday, November 12. We have

a

quorum. The first thing we're gonna do is call to order, roll call.

Commissioner Easton? Here. Commissioner Creen? Commissioner Nockelly? Here. Commissioner White? Commissioner Adler?

Here.

Commissioner Brule? Commissioner Hill? Here. Commissioner Nelson? Commissioner Brown?

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you. The next item on our agenda is public comment. This section of the agenda is reserved for comments from the public on items that are not otherwise included in this agenda. Is there anyone here that would like to come forward and have a public comment? And we have no one online. We'll move on to the next item. That is the approval of the agenda. I'm looking for a it was in your packet, and I'm looking for an approval and a second.

I move that we approve the agenda.

I'll second.

All those in favor? Aye. Thank you. Aye. We are going to now move on to the business of the commissioning, starting with the presentment of minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on October 22. A draft of those minutes was included in this packet. I'm looking for a motion to approve.

I move to approve the minutes for 10/22/2025.

And I believe I'll have to second. Can we vote on this if most of the okay. Then we will proceed to approve these minutes. All those in favor, raise your hand. Okay.

Those are approved. And we have one abstention.

Sorry. Commissioner Adler, did you raise your hand?

I did not, but I abstain because I was not at the meeting.

Okay.

I'm just I'm

not I may, you you don't

have

to be here to approve the eight minutes. But if so that's okay if it we just have a three to two, but that's not a vote. We have to have four, so it'll come back to the next meeting. But you don't have to attend the prior meeting to be able to vote on the minutes.

And Ben and I were here. So Okay. I'm happy to do you wanna redo it? Let's move it to a vote. So Ben, first, I second it, and I'm moving it to a vote. We approve the minutes as presented. Commissioner Brown, are you in affirmative? Yes. Okay. Brilliant. The next thing, I'm actually going to push the approval of the planning and zoning meeting calendar to a later date. Can we make that?

Yeah.

So if staff could take note that we'll represent that when we have a full commission, please. Alright. We are gonna move on to the public hearings. We have two cases before us tonight. We're gonna start with case number v AR20250016.

Property owners Philip and Monica Knoll request a variance from Los Alamos County code chapter 16 article two division three. Base zone district dimensional standards for 114 Piedra Loop, White Rock. The request seeks to reduce the required 25 foot side yard setback in the residential agricultural zone district r A to 14.5 feet to allow replacement of an existing garage. Now I will read the language. The commission's decision on this case must be based on the criteria contained in chapter 16 of the county code known as the development code.

As a quasi judicial public hearing, it will be conducted in a manner to protect the due process rights of parties and affected parties as required by New Mexico law. All parties have a right to be represented by an attorney throughout the proceedings. The party who files the application has the burden to show that the request meets the criteria of this code. The commission shall act as an impartial decision making fact finding body and shall approve or deny the application in accordance with the evidence presented which is complete and relevant. Testimony or evidence that does not meet these criteria shall be disregarded.

A party to the hearing shall be afforded an opportunity to present evidence and argument to question witnesses on all relevant issues, but the chair may impose reasonable limitations on the number of witnesses heard and on the nature and length of their testimony and questioning. Testimony at the hearing shall be under oath or affirmation. Cross examination of any persons presenting information at the public hearing will be permitted by the applicant, any affected party, and county staff as directed by the chair. Commissioners may ask questions of the owner applicant, staff, any party, or of any witness. The issue to be decided at this hearing is whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for variance twenty twenty five zero zero one six, variance from Los Alamos County code chapter 16 article two division three, base zone district dimensional standards for 114 Piedre Loop, White Rock.

The request seeks to reduce the required 25 foot setback set yard, side yard setback in the residential agricultural zone district to 14.5 feet to allow the replacement of an existing garage. The Planning and Zoning Commission is charged with making this determination based solely upon the review criteria adopted by the county council as set out in the development code. The commission will accept the following documents as exhibits as received and provided to the commission and incorporate them as part of the record in this case, unless a valid objection is raised by a party. Parties have had the opportunity to see these exhibits in advance, and they are able to use them during their presentation as desired. And that list is the application of the applicant with exhibits and attachments, the staff report of the community development department, exhibits to the staff report, and other materials that may be introduced without objection or as determined by the commission.

Additional exhibits may be proposed for entry into the hearing record by any party as part of their presentation. The chair will either admit or exclude those items as they're presented. If an exhibit is excluded, the commission will still maintain a copy of the excluded exhibit as part of the record. The hearing tonight will be conducted under procedures developed from New Mexico case law. The procedures are intended to protect the due process rights of all parties.

The procedures include parties and witnesses will be identified for the record. All persons who expect to offer testimony will be sworn in and will provide testimony under oath. All persons offering testimony would be subject to cross examination by other parties. Please remember that the purpose of cross examination is to ask questions and to solicit relevant facts from the witness. It is not to be argumentative or it is the time to state your own position that comes later.

The commission intends to limit testimony to information relevant to the applicant's requested action. The chairperson may limit redundant or repetitive testimony. The applicant in this case is Philip and Monica Knoll. The community development department staff will assist the commission in fully developing the record. Other parties are persons in addition to the applicant, including the property owners within 300 feet of the boundary of the property, under consideration, and those who have a legally recognized interest in this case may also be recognized as a party.

A party may call witnesses and enter evidence to present facts in support of the positions on the application. If you wish to present evidence or testimony in this hearing and believe you have a direct interest in this case and want to be recognized as a party. If you're in person, please come to the microphone and provide your name and address for the record, and you'll be sworn in.

Danielle Baldes, community development.

Philip Noel.

Monica Noel, owner of 114 Piedra Loop.

Thank you. Staff, would you like to swear them in?

Please raise your right hand. Do you affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Yes. Yes. Are

there any parties online? Thank you. The chair will now poll the commission as to potential conflicts of interest or ex parte communications. An ex parte communication is a commissioner's discussion on specific facts or issues with the applicant or other party regarding the matter now before the commission outside of this public hearing. I will go through the five criteria and ask the commission if they have any of these conflicts.

Does any commissioner have a potential conflict of interest in this case? Any commissioner that has a conflict must recuse themselves from hearing deliberation and vote. Two, has any commissioner communicated directly or indirectly with any party or party representative in connection with the merits of this issue involved? If so, please disclose. Has any commissioner reached the decision on the merits of this case as a result of ex parte communications?

Third is, has any commissioner used or relied upon any communication reports or other materials prepared in connection with the particular case other than those made as part of the record? Has any commissioner inspected the site with any party or their representative? Has any commissioner received any ex parte communication regarding this case? I'm gonna go around the room.

We did receive several emails about that were about this case from another

In White Rock?

Right?

No. Oh, okay. Then no. Okay. No. Commissioner Brown, do you have any ex parte communication or looked at any materials that haven't been presented that you know of? No. Thank you. No. Thank you. The commissioner shall receive testimony including expert or lay witnesses and relevant documentary evidence for or against the applicant application from the applicant, public governmental agencies or entities, and interested parties withstanding subject to cross examination reasonable time limits established by the chair. At this time, I will invite the CDD staff member to present.

Good evening, commission. My name is Danielle Valtes. For the record, I am the planning manager for the community development department. Tonight, I'll be presenting case VAR twenty twenty five zero zero one six, and this is a variance request for a setback reduction at 114 Pierre Duluth in White Rock, New Mexico. Applicants applicant owners Philip and Monica Knoll request a variance to reduce the side setback to 10.5 sorry, Reduce the side setback by 10.5 feet, from 25 feet to 14.5 feet to construct a new garage and workshop at 114 Piedra Loop.

The IDRC, the Interdepartmental Review Committee, reviewed the application on 09/25/2025, and recommended the application proceed to the Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration with no issue. This is the current structure that is in place on the property. The new structure adds approximately 1,460 square feet of building area, and that replaces what is currently what you currently see here. It is the replacement will be a new two car garage with an RV bay and an attached music room workshop. The selected location is the most economical and the most functionally feasible.

It provides direct access to utilities and driveway connections that currently exist. So on this, the total proposed lot coverage is 4,829 sorry. 4,829 square feet, which is about 5.54% of the lot coverage, which remains below the 10% allowance in the residential agricultural zoning district. Here is more specific photos of the of the project. So here to the left, you have where the proposed project is in green outlined, and it shows how much it encroaches into that side setback.

And, again, it's no more the setback will remain at 14.5 feet, and that is at the closest corner to the property line. And then you have the rendering of what it will look like at with the property line being the fence. The intent. So the intent of the development code, we guide the location and we use the structures and land for residential uses where they are or where they can be made. It's compatible with neighboring land uses and offer guidance and support to app And we are here to offer guidance and support to applicants and property owners in understanding and applying the codes, requirements, and procedures.

Zoning, the Residential Agricultural Zoning District is designed to preserve the county's rural character by allowing low density residential development, and the variant's intent is to provide a mechanism for relief for strict dimensional or numerical standards of the code when the application would create a practical difficulty or undue hardship. We have the decision, the variance decision criteria. The variance will not be contrary to public safety, health, or welfare. The project does not create conditions harmful to public safety, health, and welfare. The new structure will meet current building and safety standards.

It improves the overall design and construction quality. Drainage mitigation is also going to be required during building permit review and ensures that runoff is mitigated on-site. The variance will not undermine the intent of the code, the applicable zone district, the county adopted policies or plans, or violate building code. Approval of the variance is consistent with the intent of the development code. The proposed structure maintains the existing development pattern and aligns with the purpose of the RA zone districts.

Replacing a nonconforming garage with a modern code compliant structure improves safety and design quality without increasing nonconformity. C, granting the variance will not cause intrusion onto any utility line or other easement approved by the owner of the easement. This structure does not impede on any utility or access easements. The variance request is caused by unusual physical characteristic or hardship inherent in the lot or lot improvements, and and hardship has not been self imposed. The hardship arises from the existing conditions on the lot.

So it's not it is not due to the lot itself, it's due to where development has already been created on the lot. It is the most feasible and economical place for the new garage to replace the old garage. E, the variance will not create any significant adverse impacts on properties within the vicinity. The project replaces an existing structure in the same location and will not introduce new visual noise or environmental impacts with existing vegetation and fencing providing natural buffering, it will not create any adverse effects on adjacent properties or the surrounding vicinity. F, granting the approved variances the minimum necessary easing of the code, requirements making possible the reasonable use of land, structure, or building.

The request reflects the minimum deviation needed to allow for reasonable use, enabling the existing structure to its to be replaced in its current location and minimizing disturbance and preserving access patterns. Staff finds that the criteria has been satisfied. Please reference pages four through six of the staff report for the full analysis and justification. Our public notice requirements were met. Published and posted notice were completed on October 2 and posted on October 7.

And then the mailed notice was completed on October 2. Staff recommends approval of case number VAR2025-sixteen based on the findings of fact established on record and the determination that the application meets the decision criteria for variants as set forth in 1674G3 of the Los Alamos County Development Code. And I can stand for questions.

I have a question. Yes ma'am. And actually, if you could

bring the presentation back up, that would be great. Of course.

Give me one second. Of course,

I closed everything out. Yeah.

Can you go to slide number four maybe? Yeah. So I just wanna clarify to help me understand. The red line in the image on the left, is that the current setback?

The yellow line is the property line. The red line is the current 25 foot setback.

Okay. So the current structure already in like, goes over the 25 foot setback. Correct. Okay. And it would is the green box there, is that meant to represent the area of the new structure, or is that just for illustrative

purposes? Green box will represent the new structure. It is larger than the current structure, but it it it is a much better structure.

Okay. So that's in generally the the footprint of

the That that'll be the general footprint.

Okay.

Alright. Thank you.

Yes, ma'am. Any other questions from commissioners? Alright. Can you confirm this factually accurate to the best of your knowledge? And

I confirm.

And please enter it into the record. Thank you. At this time, if the applicants would like to come forward and present their application.

Okay.

And are there any other parties? No one in line. All right. At this time I will now close the public hearing to receipt of evidence and ask the commission to review and discuss applicable criteria. Following the discussion of the criteria, I will ask the commission to make and discuss a motion in this case.

So just to review the criteria that needs to be met for a variance, is it will not be contrary to the public safety, health, or welfare. The variance will not undermine the intent of code, the applicable zone district, or other county adopted policies or plans, or violate building code. Granting of the variance will not cause an intrusion into any utility or other easement unless approved by the owner of the easement. The variance request is caused by unusual physical characteristic or hardship inherent in the lot or lot improvements, and the peculiarity or hardship has not been self imposed. The variance will not create any significant adverse impacts on properties within the vicinity.

And lastly, granting of the approved variance is the minimal necessary easing of code requirements making possible the reasonable use of land structure or building. If you're ready. Commission doesn't have any k. We we can still discuss it after the second. But Yeah.

I move to approve case number v AR20250016, a request submitted by Philip and Monica Knoll, property owners of 114 Piedra Loop, White Rock, for a variance from Los Alamos County Co chapter 16, Article two, division three, base zone district dimensional standards. The request seeks to reduce the required 25 foot side yard setback in the residential agricultural RA zone district to 14.5 feet to allow for the replacement of an existing garage. Approval is based on the findings of fact established at the hearing and the determination that the applicant has met the decision criteria for a variance per section 16 dash 74 g three of the Los Alamos County Development Code. The commission acts under the authority of section 16 dash 69 b two and six of the Development Code. I further move to authorize the chair to sign the findings of fact and conclusions of law for this case that reflect that reflects the decision of the commission.

This document will be prepared by county staff based on this decision.

I second.

Any discussions? If not Madam

chair, if I may. Commissioner Naughley, was your microphone on when you said that?

I just turned it off so I think it was

Okay. Can you That's fine.

Maybe you pull it forward.

You're speaking. Just to state for the record that the motion was the verbatim, the recommended motion in the staff report just in case that didn't get picked

up. No. It's okay. All right, we have a motion and a second. No discussion. Could staff call a vote, please?

Commissioner Brown.

I think I read his lips and he said yes. Yes. Thank you, Commissioner Brown.

Commissioner Nachley. Yes. Commissioner Adler.

Yes.

Commissioner Hill? Yes. Commissioner Easton? Yes. Motion passes.

Thank you. Yeah. I need to do that. Thanks for the reminder. Shuffling my papers.

You guys are moving too fast for me tonight. So I'm now gonna read the appeals criteria. Any action by the Planning and Zoning Commissioner in granting approval, conditional approval, or denial of an application may be appealed by the owner of the property listed in the applications, persons that are required to be mailed notice for the application giving rise to the final action being appealed, and any county official acting in their official capacity whose services, properties, facilities, interests, or operations may be adversely affected by the application, or any person who has a recognized legal interest under New Mexico law within fifteen calendar days, including weekend days, excluding county recognized holidays after the date of the final written decision pursuant to section sixteen-seventy two gs five a of the development code. Alright. We are gonna move to case number v a R20250017.

Property owner Geraldine Lopez Keene request a variance from manufactured home community MHC Zone District dimensional standards to allow a porch to encroach into the 15 foot front setback, reducing it to 9.3 feet. The property TSV 131 is located in the Sikamu Village subdivision at 1177 Seminole Los Alamos, New Mexico. The commission's decision on this case must be based on the criteria contained in chapter 16 of the county code known as the development code. As a quasi judicial public hearing, it will be conducted in a manner to protect the due process rights of parties and affected parties as required by New Mexico law. All parties have a right to be represented by an attorney throughout the proceedings, and the party who files the application has the burden to show that the request meets the criteria of this code.

The commission shall act as an impartial decision making fact finding body and shall approve or deny the application in accordance with the evidence presented which is competent and relevant. Testimony or evidence that does not meet these criteria shall be disregarded. A party to the hearing shall be afforded an opportunity to present evidence and argument and to question witnesses on all relevant issues, but the chair may impose reasonable limitations on the number of witnesses heard and on the nature and length of their testimony in questioning. Testimony at the hearing shall be under oath or affirmation, and cross examination of any persons presenting information at the public hearing will be permitted by the applicant, any affected party, county staff as directed by the chair. Commissioners may ask questions of the owner applicant, staff, any party, or of any witness.

The issue to be decided at this hearing is to whether approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a variance from the manufactured home community zone district dimensional standards to allow a porch to encroach into the 15 foot front setback, reducing it to 9.3 feet. Again, the property is located TSV 131 at Sikamu Village Subdivision at 1177 Seminole, Los Alamos, New Mexico. The Planning and Zoning Commission is charged with making this determination based solely upon the review criteria adopted by the county council as set out in the development code. The Commission will accept the following documents as exhibits as received and provided to the Commission and incorporate them as part of the record in this case, unless a valid objection is raised by a party. Parties have had the opportunity to have these exhibits in advance, and they are able to use them during their presentation as desired.

And those include the application from the applicant with exhibits and attachments, the staff report from the community development department, exhibits to the staff report, other materials that may be introduced without objection or as determined by the commission. Additional exhibits may be proposed for entry into the hearing record by any party as part of their presentation. The chair will either admit or exclude those items as they're presented. If an exhibit is excluded, the commission will still maintain a copy of the excluded exhibit to keep as part of the record. The hearing tonight will be conducted under procedures developed from New Mexico case law.

The procedures are intended to protect the due process rights of all parties. The procedures include parties and witnesses will be identified for the record. All persons who expect to offer testimony will be sworn in and will provide testimony under oath. All persons offering testimony will be subject to cross examination by other parties. And please remember that the purpose of cross examination is to ask questions and solicit relevant facts from the witness.

It is not to be argumentative, nor is it the time to state your own position that comes later. The commission intends to limit testimony to information relevant to the applicant's requested action, and the chairperson may limit redundant or repetitive testimony. The applicant in this case is Geraldine Lopez Keene. The community development department staff will assist the commission in fully developing the record. Other parties are those parties in addition to the applicant who are within 300 feet of the boundary of the property under consideration, and those who have legally recognized interest in this case may also be recognized as a party.

A party may call witnesses and enter evidence to present facts in support of that party's position on the application. If you wish to present evidence or testimony at this hearing and believe you have a direct interest in this case and want to be recognized as a party, if you're in person, please step to the microphone, provide your name and address, and be sworn in.

Desiree Lujan, senior planner, Los Alamos County.

Geraldine Lopez King. 1177 Seminole Street in Los Alamos.

Thank you. If you'd swear them in, please.

Please raise your right hand. Do you affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Yes. Is there anyone online? Interested party? Okay. Thank you. The chair will now poll the commission as to potential conflicts of interest or ex parte communication. An ex parte communication is a commissioner's discussion on relevant sorry, specific facts or issues with the applicant or other party regarding the matter now before the commission outside of this public hearing. There's five criteria, and I review them again. Does any commissioner have a potential conflict of interest in this case? If there is a conflict, the commissioner must recuse themselves from the hearing, deliberation, and vote.

Has the commissioner communicated directly or indirectly with any party or party representative in connection with the merits of any issue involved? Has any commissioner reached a decision on the merits of this case as a result of ex parte communications? Has any commissioner used or relied upon any communication, reports, or other materials prepared in connection with the particular case other than those made part of the record? Has any commissioner inspected the site with any party or the representative? Has any commissioner received any ex parte communication regarding this case?

Sorry. I'm looking at all your eyeballs. Marlon? Excuse me. Commissioner Brown?

Commissioner Brown? No. Thank you. The commission shall receive testimony including expert or lay witnesses and relevant documentary evidence for or against the application from the applicant, public governmental agencies or entities, and interested parties withstanding, subject to cross examination and reasonable time lives established by the chair. At this time, I invite the CBB staff to present their report.

Good evening, commissioners, members of the public. For the record, my name is Desiree Lujan. I am senior planner here with community development, and I was assigned the case manager to case number V AR2025Dash0017. This is an application submitted by Geraldine Lopez King requesting a variance from manufactured home community zone district standards to allow a porch to encroach into the 15 foot front setback, reducing it to 9.3 feet. The property is within the Sycamore Village subdivision and address as 1177 Seminole.

The proposal before us is to create to construct a 48 square foot, eight by six foot covered freestanding porch, which would be 9.3 feet from the front property line where the MCMH excuse me. The manufactured home community zone district requires a minimum of 15 feet. The variance applies only to the covered portion of the porch per Los Alamos County code section sixteen twenty two, uncovered walkways, driveways, steps, patios, or courtyards may extend into the required setback area without limitations. Therefore, the associated two fifths footsteps are excluded from the request. On the table below on the bottom left, all other zone district standards are proposed to be met.

The point 17 acre property is located in Los Alamos town site on North Mesa. The lot is generally rectangular with a slight angle on the southeast corner. The lot width along Seminole is a 109.16 feet and its depth varies from 56.76 feet on the west side to 71.53 feet on the east side. The lot is developed with the 1,568 square foot manufactured home positioned 15.3 feet from the front property line. Utilities are located within the public right of way, and a six foot utility easement is along the south and east property lines.

The intent of the MHC Zone District is to accommodate manufactured home communities as the predominant residential use alongside other complimentary use accessory and non residential activities, which primarily serves residents of manufactured home communities. I will note that the only design standard within the MHC Zone District is for color material and appearance of skirting of manufactured homes that are installed on a non prominent permanent foundation. As for dimensional standards, the 15 foot setback minimum is shown there in the yellow dash line, and the requested 9.3 foot setback is shown in the red dash line. The black line represents where the steps will encroach into the setback area as permitted by code. The IDRC reviewed the application independently and provided comments via email.

No concerns from Department of Public Utilities and the fire marshal's office. Public works engineering noted drainage aspects that will be evaluated during the building permit process. No comments from the chief building official. Building code standards will be applied during the permitting process. Overall, IDRC recommended the application move forward to Planning and Zoning Commission for approval.

Per the requirements of section sixteen seventy one and as case manager, I affirm that the public notices were fulfilled, both published and posted and mailed. So before I move on to the decision criteria, what is a variance? A variance allows reasonable use when zoning or development standards don't fit unique site conditions. It provides a flexibility while maintaining community vision, health, safety, and welfare. It applies when hardships hardships arise when unusual physical characteristics of a lot or lot improvements which are not self imposed.

It balances individual property rights with community interests. As it relates to Los Alamos County development code, minor deviations may be approved administratively. Those that exceed those thresholds are required to come before the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall make a decision to approve approval conditions or deny the application based solely on the decision criteria of section sixteen seventy four g three. I've made some key notes under each criteria, but you could refer to the complete analysis on pages five through seven of the staff report.

So criterion a, the variance will not be contrary to the public safety, health, or welfare. IDRC reviewed for safety. No safety concerns were identified. The porch remain the porch remains fully within the private property and maintains safe separation from the right of way. The covered entry improves safe access during snow and ice conditions.

Criterion b, the variance will not undermine the intent of the code, the applicable zone district, other county adopted policies or plans, or violate the building code. The proposed porch supports the development code's purpose to protect health and safety, guide compatible development, and preserve neighborhood character. It maintains residential use and aligns with the MHC zone intent, and it will comply with building codes to the permitting review process. Criterion c, granting of the variance will not cause an intrusion into any utility or other easement unless approved by the owner of the easement. No utilities or easements exist within the project area.

The Department of Public Utilities have confirmed there are no conflicts. Criterion d, the variance request is caused by an unusual physical characteristic or hardship inherent in the lot or lot improvements, and the hardship has not been self imposed. The home sits roughly four inches behind the 15 foot setback, leaving no room for a porch. The lot design is wide and shallow. The hardship is inherent to the lot design and home's placement and not self imposed.

Criterion e, the variance will not create a significant adverse impacts on properties within the vicinity. The porch location maintains clear sight triangles from north for nearby homes. Roof drainage will be reviewed to prevent runoff issues, and there are no visual access or functional impacts on adjacent neighbors. Lastly, criterion f, the variance will not create any significant adverse impacts on properties within the vicinity. The home was placed 15.3 feet from the front property line, leaving insufficient space for usable porch.

Administrative deviations wouldn't provide enough depth for functionality, and the requested 9.3 foot setback is the minimum needed and consistent with nearby properties. If you can see on the screen there, I have an excerpt of exhibit four, which is in the staff report, and it shows some properties within Seminole. Using the same symbology. We have the yellow dash line representing the 15 foot setback, which is the minimum requirement, and the red is what is proposed by the applicant of 9.3 feet. You will see that a lot of these properties currently have improvements or have placed their homes outside of that min 15 foot minimum and sometimes even more close to the front setback than the proposed 9.3 feet.

This is a characteristic that's been naturally established by this neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of case number BAR2025Dash0017 based on the findings effect established on the record and determination that the application meets the decision criteria for a variance per section sixteen seventy four g three of Los Alamos County development code. I affirm, chair, that my staff report and my presentation are accurate to the best of my knowledge, and I do stand for questions at this time.

Not necessarily related, but if you go back to that slide, are there sidewalks throughout the subdivision?

I'm looking at a different area. It looks like it is on the I'll

let the applicant, when she comes up to do her presentation, answer that question. Question. Thank you.

I have one question. I assume that right now there are just steps that come right up to the door with no landing?

I'd have to defer to the applicant for

Okay.

Their presentation.

Any more questions of staff, commission? If not, thank you. At this time, I'll invite the applicant to present your application and support.

Hi. Hi. Okay. I'll answer any questions I can answer. So you were asking about the sidewalk. Yes. The sidewalk is actually on the other side of the street. There's no sidewalk on where I reside.

Thank you.

And then the other question was this home was placed probably about ten years ago. And at the time, all we had were the steps. So there is not a secure land landing for me, and it is a step up into the home, causing, you know, concern. We've actually have fallen off the steps and, you know, medical personnel has come and tried to get into my home, and that's been a challenge for them as well. So

Thank you.

Yes. Thanks. Anything else? Is there anything that you would like to add for the record that staff

hasn't Desiree presented? Represented everything very well. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. And there are no other parties.

I will now close the public hearing to the receipt of evidence and ask the commission to review and discuss the applicable criteria. Following the discussion of the criteria, I will ask the commission to make and discuss a motion in this case. And a reminder, an application for a variant shall be approved if it meets all of the following criteria. A, the variance will not be contrary to public safety, health, or welfare. The variance will not undermine the intent of this code and the applicable zone district and other county adopted policies or plans, or violate the building code.

C, granting of the variance will not cause intrusion to any utility or other easement unless approved by the owner of the easement. The variance request is caused by unusual physical characteristic or hardship inherent in the lot or lot improvements, and the peculiarity or hardship has not been self imposed. E, the variance will not create any significant adverse impacts on properties within the vicinity. And F, granting of the approved variance is the minimum necessary easing of the code requirements, making possible the reasonable use of the land, structure or building.

I agree that with staff's report that we've

Would you like to make a motion?

They've met all the criteria. Sure.

Okay.

I move to approve case number VAR2025Dash0017 as request a request by property owner Geraldine Lopez Keen for a variance from the MHC dimensional standards. Approval allows construction of a 48 square foot, six by eight freestanding covered front porch to be located 9.3 feet from the front property line at 1177 Seminole, Los Alamos, New Mexico. Approval is based on the findings of fact established at the hearing and the determination that the applicant has met the decision criteria for a variance per section sixteen-74g3 of the Los Alamos County Development Code. The commission acts under the authority of section sixteen-69b2 and six of the Development Code. I further move to authorize the chair to sign the findings of fact and conclusions of law for this case that reflects the decision of the commission.

This document will be prepared by county staff based on this decision.

I second.

Any discussion? I don't believe so. No. Can you call roll call, Or

vote. Commissioner Houston? Yes. Commissioner Hill?

Yes.

Commissioner Adler?

Yes.

Commissioner Nockelly?

Yes.

Commissioner Brown?

Yes.

Motion passed.

Thank you. Any action by the Planning and Zoning Commission in granting approval, conditional approval, or denial of an application may be appealed by the owner of the property listed in the application, persons that were required to be mailed notice for the application giving rise to the final action being appealed, any county official acting in their official capacity whose services, properties, facilities, interests, or operations may be adversely affected by the application, or any person who has a recognized legal interest under New Mexico law within fifteen calendar days, including weekend days and excluding county recognized holidays after the date of the final written decision pursuant to section 1672G5A of the development code. Thank you. We will now move on to the regular remainder of our meeting, starting with department reports.

We have finalized our RFP responses for the comp plan and the historic plan. We are excited to get those kicked off. And that's really all I've got for you. Oh, I would don't forget next month's meeting is dedicated to the strategic plan. Chair, I sent that over for you for review. I'd like to discuss that with the other commissioners, if you'd like to bring that up at some point before the meeting. And that way, if there's anything to add, we can add that as well. That's it.

Can you remind me when the council is going to have the traffic survey presented?

There's an issue with one of the areas

that

they want in the report. So the project manager is working with the consultant to get it all figured out and cleaned up, and then we'll have a date for when that, for that when that presentation will be presented to counsel. And before that happens, we'll make sure that you guys all have that invite for the North Mesa traffic study. Also, as a reminder, we have the BNC luncheon tomorrow.

Thank you. I will move on to the chair's report. So that was what I was asking about, the transportation survey. If you could send it out as soon as you know it, that would be great. I just know that this commission is very interested in that, so we don't want to miss it. Yes. Tomorrow, there is a luncheon, and I am not able to attend. And so, Ben, are you available to attend if I send it to you? It's okay to say no. I'm putting you on

the spot.

I I don't think I can.

Okay. Any commissioners? I can't.

Sorry. I have to be

down You might be at work. Never mind.

If if you think of something you would like me to present to the board, otherwise, I can create that report and and send that to you for approval, and I could I can present. No problem.

We're gonna have to pass on it this month. And I think that's all I have at the moment. There's a lot coming up. We are literally on November 12. We've got holidays, and we've got one meeting in December. It's just the strategic plan, and we'll go over the working calendar that we passed on this month. So we'll review all of that. We did not accomplish having presentations, education. So I think Commissioner Nachele sent some information that we didn't follow-up on as a presenter. I'd like to follow-up on that. If we don't get it in this month or next month, then January.

A presenter and also a book that she had recommended so that we would like to get to the council, and we're working on that internally.

Okay. Thank you for acknowledging that. Appreciate it. I did get a note from Counselor Herman who said she apologizes for not being here this evening and had nothing to report out. And then I open it up to Commissioner's comments.

All right. Any other public comments? Seeing none, I close the commission meeting. And thank everyone for being here and your Recording stopped.