Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

hooked up or do you need someone to log you in? Okay, we'll get you logged in. Maybe just a minute to get everyone logged in. Good thing.

Good afternoon. Uh, let's call meeting of the May 15, 2025 Santa Fe County Planning Commission to order. May I get a roll call vote, please? Yes. Carl Trillo, Wendy PR, here. Dan Pava here. Jeremy Mir, Jose Crawford present, Steve Buger here, and Sher Above here. You have a quorum. Thank you very much. Let's all please stand for the pledge of allegiance. Uh the next item on the agenda is approve is approval of the agenda. Staff, are there any amendments to the agenda? Chairbo, there are no amendments to the agenda. Thank you. May I get a motion to approve the agenda? Also move. Thank you, Commissioner. May I get a second? Thank you, Commissioner. All in favor, please signify by saying, "I." I. Anyone opposed? That motion passes. Next item is approval of the meeting minutes from the April 17, 2025 planning commission meeting. Uh, are there any I get a motion to approve the minutes? Motion to approve. May I get a second?

Second. Are there are there any changes noted? Um, all those uh to approve the minutes from the April 17th meeting, please signify by saying I. I. Anyone opposed? That motion passes. The next item under new business is case number 25-5090, David Anchondo um variance. Uh Mr. Ruiz. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Um good afternoon, Mr. Chair. David and Chando applicant request a variance of chapter 9 type table 9.11.2 dimensional st standards to the treasurer deiente residential estate to allow a maximum height of 23 feet. The 3.466 acres size site is zoned residential estate within the tresoyo del ponente community district overlay uh which allows for maximum height of 18 ft. The site is located at 818A uh New Mexico 599 Frowners Road within Township 17 North Range 9 East section 29 Commission District 2 SDA2. Um the applicant has obtained a development permit permit 24 383 to construct a 5500 foot residence. In the process of building a home for his family, Santa Fe County code enforcement received a complaint that the height of the residence was not in compliance with the height requirement within the Tresa Roy Ponente overlay district. Therefore, the applicant received a stop work order

from Santa Fe County code enforcement. Santa Fe had reviewed the approved permit and identified that the permit had been issued in error as the maximum height in base zoning districts is 24 in height. 24 feet in height. Uh the maximum allowable height in the tap overlay district is 18 foot in height. Staff met with the applicant to inform the applicant about the review error and the applicant agreed to apply for the variance. The applicant states states, "I did all I had in my hands for this to go the smoothest way possible. My permit had been signed and approved a while back. Now I am forced to stop and look for alternatives. There's no way I had inflicted this upon myself since the permit had the permit was reviewed with the two different departments. The building is now is now is sitting at 23 foot and the code says it should be no higher than 18 foot. The applicant has addressed the variance criteria and staff has responded as contained in the [Music] memo. Building and development services staff has determined that this application is not is not in complete compliance with the SLDC, but it seems to be in line with the criteria necessary for for granting a variance. Due to staff oversight, the applicant has met the variance criteria where due to extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions to the of the property, the strict application of the code would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional and undue hardship on the owner. The cost the cause is peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties of or exceptional and undue hardship on

the applicant owner. The hearing officer heard this case on April 10, 2025. At the hearing, no people spoke for the case and four people spoke against the case. The objections to the case are related to the height of the residence blocking the line the skyline views from neighboring residents neighboring residences. On April 10, 2025, this request was presented to the sustainable land development hearing officer. The hearing officer memoralized findings of fact and conclusions of law in recommended order on this request. The recommendations of the hearing officer based on the evidence presented is for denial of the request to allow a variance of height. However, staff recommend recommends approval to allow the residents and the existing height of 23 feet in height. Staff ensures more through thorough review of zoning uh districts and overlay districts to prevent oversight of this nature. Staff would like to impose two conditions to be read as follows. The proposed residence shall be in compliance with all other pertinent requirements of chapter 9 section 9.11 Tesa Royos del Ponente Community Overlay District. And number two, upon completion completion of the approved development permit, the the applicant shall receive a final inspection from Santa Fe County Code Enforcement and obtain and and obtain a certificate of completion. Mr. Chair, may I enter these conditions into the record? Yes, please. This report and the exhibit listed below, I hereby submitted as part of the hearing record. Mr. Sher, at this time I stand for questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Ruiz. Uh, commissioners, do you have any questions of staff at this time?

Commissioner Ruger. Thank you, Chair. Uh, Mr. Louise, uh, just, uh, for the record, I didn't notice in the packet that there was a letter from TAC uh, in there. the uh nor the uh the development permit some usually that's included in the agenda. So I didn't notice that in here the the for the tax meeting. Yeah. Um it was a a county uh staff oversight. So we we helped them apply for the application. Okay. H question. Uh when uh when was the development permit issued? In it was issued um sorry I believe it was in July last year. And then when was the stop work order issued? Um let me see. It was in the Nov my Let me grab my I believe Mr. Ruiz I'm looking at the NOV that's dated January 14th. Is that is that when the stop work order issued this year of 24? Maybe 25. It says 24. So yeah, thank you, Commissioner. Um, I noticed that there was a a pre-application neighborhood meeting, but was there a pre-application

meeting with staff before a permit was issued? There was yes no there was hearing officer just for clarific I mean Mr. Chair, just for clarification, there was a technical advisory committee meeting and there was also a neighborhood meeting. Any other questions of staff from any of the commission? Yeah, I have a question to follow up on the stop. Thank you. Uh uh so the stop order that was issued on January 14th. I was looking here at the hearing officer meeting minutes and uh looks like some of the um a couple of the people that that came to this in opposition had mentioned that the um that the applicant had continued doing work when staff was there. Were any pictures taken and where was the status of the construction at the time that the stop order was placed and do we know whether construction did continue or not? So I believe they were issued as stop work but since the house was on um cheat sheeting they they were allowed to protect the materials. So that that's the only construction that continued after that just to protect the materials. So the trusses and etc were already in place. Roof sheeting was already in place at the time. Correct. And just if I might follow up on that. So the protection it appears to be there's Tyveck or whatever the roof membrane is before you put the actual roof on. That's what I understood the additional work was. It wasn't adding new sheeting or continuing the work. It was basically just putting that we used to use tar paper in my day but now it's some kind of um submembrane for the roof. Is that correct? That's correct. Got it. Thank you. And there was, as I read in the record,

there was some communication with staff to allow that to be applied. That's correct. On the last hearing, we allowed them to do to finish the the protection of the material. Protection of the material. Thanks. And so if I were go to the site right now, it would look like the photos where the OSB is exposed and there's white plastic on the roof for That's correct. Thank you. Uh yeah, furthermore, I guess I just have a question with the staff as far as like because I know um going in for permitting, one of the first things, you know, staff generally does is just look at the zoning map um the NSLtc interactive map, you know, you can just pull it up on an address and it comes up with the information as far as what the overlay zone is, etc. So, um I guess I'm just curious, you know, how often this kind of potential error happens by staff and if what is there that staff and county can do to make sure they improve moving forward because that is one of the simplest things that should be the first thing staff does, right? So I don't have an exact number on permits on that area but we have average about 30 permits a year on that tetresa roy and there's different variables according on the depending on the zoning of the residents um it was again an oversight um I Mr. Chair, commission members, just for uh clarity on that as well, we rarely make this type of error. Um we do have a new map link which we were utilizing and did not pull over overlays. Um and could have been the possibility that when it was the permit was reviewed, they utilized that map link instead of our ARGIS mapping, which does break down the zoning district. So, it's a good possibility that occurred

and went through the process. But these are very minimum. We see maybe one every seven to 10 years that happen. Any further questions from commissioners? Commissioner Pava and thank you for Mr. Ruiz. in this area within the uh boundaries of the Tris Royals plan. Would staff happen to know how many other structures exceed the 18 ft height limit uh or if there are any other exceptions. I have not looked into that, sir. Mr. Chair, commission members, there are approximately four to six pre-code structures that exceed the height limitations, but there's one directly north and east to that structure that is also a twotory. This is not a two-story. This is a singlestory, but the other residence is a twotory. Whether it's a one or two story, it would still under current under the turo overlay, it would still be 18 feet. Mr. Chair, Commission Member Pava, that is correct. And um is there have other variances to height been granted to our knowledge? Interest Royos, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Pava, we are I believe there has not been. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Pra, just for clarity, there is an individual that lives next door to this property which was granted a deviation of about a foot and a half above the 18 height max limitation due to drainage concerns uh rolling into her into her garage. So,

she needed a level um area. So, that way one portion of the residence exceeded that height 18 height and went a foot 8 in above that. Was that done administratively? Mr. Chair, Commission Member Pava, that was done administratively. The reason I asked these questions is when I looked at the the aerial of the surrounding area provided in the in the staff packet in the for us. Um there's not a huge number of homes anywhere in the vicinity. Um the one you mentioned perhaps. So it's it's still a sparsely developed area at least from the view that was provided to us. Mr. Chair, Commission Member P that is correct. And also I just want to note for just for the board for rec for geographical reasons uh just north of this is what is um I believe the one of the what is the care facility? Um I can't think of it but it's a the senior care facility. senior care facility which is a three to three story unit the legacy development near all day there familiar with that my daughter worked there for a while so yeah um and then you have on the city side you have a some fairly high apartments that's the city different jurisdiction different zoning I get all that and this does have a the treseros overlay which is specifically designed by people uh a few decades ago uh to keep the certain aesthetic in mind. So I get that. Mr. Chair, for better lack of luster, commission members, we do have portions that are in the Awaka overlay across the street from 599, the interior portion. Um the other side's threshos, so there is some mix and match. You do have twotory units on the right hand side. You have this one unit along with several others that are there on the left hand side, which is county jurisdiction. The intent was so that you

didn't have this huge corridor with double twotory structures and um just for clarity and so you guys understand the logistics of the area. One following final followup would staff happen to know if if I know there are some state land parcels out there and those state land parcels are being advertised by the land commissioner as being available for development along the 599 corridor. Are these parcels very close to Trace Rooyos or are they further away? Anybody can answer that. Mr. Chair, Commission Member Pava, there are several state land offices as well as city uh um properties, I'm sorry, as well as city properties that are fairly close to Tresyos and not quite implemented because they have their own jurisdiction. Um, but once they become I would I would think that the county would amend their ordinance to include those properties as they'll be under county jurisdiction. Yeah. Thank you. It it kind of reminds me um long ago I was a planner in Albuquerque. We did a a plan for Kors Corridor and I'm talking about 40 years ago. So that dates me. But um there there were places like Tris Aoyos. There's a place called Alburn Hills uh that when you drive by it today there are minimum five acre lots and there are development requirements. It has not changed. Well, everything else around it certainly has changed as things have evolved. Um so it's seems to be kind of a natural factor with growth and development. Any other questions of staff from the commission? Um just one kind of follow up on that just just clarify. So only four to five structures prior to the SOLDC that are higher than 18. Mr. Chair, uh Commissioner Member Crawford, that is correct. That's to staff's knowledge. There may be some

more tucked back in the back, but and um is staff by chance aware whether I know that sometimes these overlay districts get revisited. Um I know they're doing that like up in the Suka area etc. So just kind of curious is there any anticipated uh yeah just that you know that the zoning district is being revisited by the community to potentially adjust any of their regulations. Mr. Chair, Commission Member Crawford, we the county typically the planning department usually updates plans every 10 years, 8 to 10 years, some sometimes sooner. Um, I believe this one's very much up for update and uh this is something that could affect uh surrounding properties and that they could change the the legit logistics of this area. Thank you uh commissioners. Any further questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, is the applicant or is the applicant here? Yes, he is, Mr. Sher. So, would you like to make us u make a statement? If so, please be sworn in and come on up. Yes, sir. David Anchundo 4300 P de Lasia please please proceed Mr. So, I like David uh stated, you know, I applied for the permit. I tried it was a pretty long uh process, but I tried to have everything in line. Uh everything seemed that was

in my favor until I actually was like a year after, you know, I mean, starting this year, the building, I guess, was too high. Obviously, it was too tall and it seems like it upset some neighbors. So I mean I understand it's somewhat in between views or something but I feel like it's just a a matter of you know community growing as well. You know I think uh if this would have been done I mean if I would have been known that hey you can't build a house this tall I would have taken it everything back. But right now, I'm in a really tight situation because I mean, where are the funds going to come from to relope the house, bring it down? I'm not talking about just cutting the roof. I mean, we need to buy new trusses. We need to redeck the house. I mean, all the the sheeting, you know, up on the roof. So, I mean, like I'm all for being compliant, but which is why I'm here applying for the variance obviously, but like I said, I was trying to do this the smoothest and easiest way to not have, you know, neighbors upset, uh, you know, anything like that. And just to do it the best to, you know, just as a community as well because I'm going to be living there. So, I wouldn't want to be on any neighbor's bad side either, you know. So, that's pretty much it. Like I said, uh I think the introduction was pretty self-explanatory. I applied for the permit. It was signed and provided for me. And to me, that was done the right way. You know, I everything out of that after that is just out of my hands. And I think that's pretty much

all for me. Thanks. Thanks very much. Um, so I think I read in the materials that we had um that this house was actually designed for a different site but acquisition of that property fell through. Can you describe Yes. what happened there? Thanks. So basically I had purchase I mean having a set of plans is not cheap. I'm pretty sure you guys understand. So, I had the plans for a couple years already, which was designed for another uh lot, but it just fell through. So, I came across this property back in 2020. So, when I purchased it, that's when I intended to do. And and so just to follow up, so did the same person who designed the house for the other property um prepare a site plan and do that kind of stuff to make it appropriate for this property or did you just have the plans and then someone else did that for you? Well, I basically just provided the plans and we fitted them onto the like uh you know the scale or I don't know what it's called really, but you know where it the actual lot. Yeah. Yeah. So, usually the first sheet shows the site plan, where is this like the elevations and stuff, all that? Um, so, so you had the designer prepare the plans for a different location and then when that purchase fell through, you used those plans for this, but you didn't have that designer still. You didn't still have him on board with No. Okay. Thanks very much. Commissioners, do you have other questions for the

applicant, Commissioner Buger? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mondo, um, who uh who is the architect of record who did these plans? I would have to go back in my file because I don't have the name off the top of my head. Okay. Okay. I know his name is Mark, but I don't know how his business is named. Okay. Uh, did uh did you get a building permit from C for this? Yes, you did. That's why I stated that it was reviewed by two different buildings, you know, or, you know, offices basically with the county and C. Have uh have you done any worst case projections as far as what the cost would be to comply? No, I have not. Is it I assume it's a lot. Yeah, it's I mean it's I would not even want to get into it because I mean it's just out of my budget and it's not something I'm willing to, you know, do. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, commission members, I I just wanted to bring up I think it was um Commissioner Crawford that had asked about um you know items in place to kind of assure that this doesn't happen in the future. Um I can let you know that I am part of the uh staff that's building the online permitting system for residential permits and I have implemented a uh second workflow so that way more eyes can see these projects after the initial review. So, we are implementing um some practices to help us with this in the future to make sure

this doesn't happen again. Thanks very much. Any other questions from any of the commissioners for the applicant? Commissioner Trujillo. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I'm looking at the photos here and to cut this in my opinion, I do do building as well, but the idea is to cut this building by five foot. Is that correct? That's what I understand it to be. I am what I was thinking was that the county officers had told me it was about 3 ft and a couple you know so cuz it's sitting at 23. They said that I have like a I don't know foot of a I already I'm bad with the names, but I guess I mean we just need about 3 ft and a half. That was for the variance, but to cut it, it's going to be at at least 4 feet. Commissioner Trillo, I believe there's a 10% variance that staff can administratively apply. So that gets the 18 to 18 1.8. Yeah. So just to clear that up. Thanks, So, I apologize for being in here late. I really do. And so, as I understand this case is that this was approved by the county and permits were obtained by the county and CD construction started and you had called CI for all the different steps from foundation to plumbing uh inspection, slab inspection, everything up to this point. Yes. So, the house, like I said, it's been it's just framed right now. There's no extensive construction other than the slab, the foundation, and the, you know, framing of the house. Uh, I drived in the roof, which was the extra work that the, you

know, neighbors had said that I was doing. Uh, but like I said, no, there's uh I mean to answer your question, there's really I mean I don't even know what to how to put it, but I totally like can you just repeat the question again? What was it again? Well, so up to this point, you've as you've built you've obtained all the proper inspections by CID to get you to this point. Oh, yeah. Everything has been done the proper way. Yes. Okay. And as I look at this structure, I see the slope of the lower roof and whatever that slope is a 512 or 612, 412, that's the same contin contiguous slope that you have on that higher pitch. And so it's that's what adds the attraction to the home. I mean, in order to re to to lower this, uh, it's going to change this whole dynamic and and really look awkward for something that you've been spent a lot of money and time and investment for I'm assuming is for you and your family, correct? And so I do look at this and I realize how much work's gone into this. And so I have a deep appreciation for this. Uh looking at it feasibly to try and cut this down whatever the number is 3 and 1/2 ft um will certainly be a lot of work and it's really not that easy. And so I just from that perspective I'm just looking at this and trying to understand the whole thing. But I appreciate your your testimony today. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any any other questions from commissioners for the applicant? Commissioner Crawford. Yeah.

Um, so thank you for um answering some of the questions because I was trying to also figure out the architect scenario on this, you know, because obviously this is a pretty large house, you know, 5,500 square feet and stuff. It's obviously going to be a very expensive house to build, you know, so you've got, I know, a lot of money invested in this. So I and looking like I said um just like Mr. Trujillo, Commissioner Trillo mentioned um definitely a lot of time effort put into this and I think you're kind of stuck in a really difficult situation with this. Um but I'm trying to look at it and wondering you know so you had some set of plans my understanding you had some set of plans that were developed by an architect for a previous site. Um so I guess you did not uh acquire a local architect or another architect at the time for the permitting of this structure. Correct. It was the same guy that the same guy that made the plans back in 2019. I he did make them uh he basically I took them back to him so that I didn't have to pay the whole amount for the set of plans. I just had him basically switch the location to Okay, gotcha. Uh so I'm looking at the plans too and I don't see a stamp on there. So, was this a licensed architect that you hired or just an architectural drafter or designer? He is should be a I mean, I think it is a an actual architect. I mean, like I said, I can provide the name, but I don't have it off the top of my head right now. I would have to look into my email. And that's where I'm I mean, this is where I have kind of a potential issue on my end is that yeah, if you've got an architect involved, that is the first thing. I'm an architect. So that's the first thing we do, right? Is we look at dimensional standards and that's basic stuff. You know, when we're looking at uh you know, we're going to build building in a particular area. If you've got a professional involved, that professional

should have definitely done their job. You as a homeowner, you know, uh obviously you have some leniency there as a layman. you know, you're not a professional, so you may not necessarily know development codes, but even so, I think the onus is towards if you're going to build something, even if you don't have an architect involved, I think you should uh make sure you know and do your due diligence to find out what should be done, what's allowed uh in your particular area. Um, and uh, in particular when you're dealing with like a a large residence like this, you know, um, yeah, and I'm looking at these plants, too, and I'm like, yeah, it's hard because there's the 10% deviations. You're dealing with maybe 3 foot, two, three inches or whatever that you might have to drop down. If you get the 10% deviation, maybe you could shore up the whole entire roof line and then cut it down, but you're dealing with having to get rid of your small Claras story windows. There is that one large window or that set of three large windows on the front. So I guess another question to you is have you already ordered your window package? I do have my windows. Um so Mr. Trio might have had a comment or something to mention. I I do have a comment. Uh my comment is under New Mexico law you do not have to be a licensed architect to design and build and submit for a single family residence. And so to for this individual, he could have done these plans himself for all given purposes. And so if anybody goes to submit plans as an individual and the county stamps them in my opinion and they've reviewed them, then he's passed the mustard, so to speak, that they move on to the next phase. And now construction industry looks at these plans. And in most cases, construction industry, that's why we have inspectors because they go out

there and they look at the physical presence of us as the structure is built. And so whether an architect stamped these plans or not, because it's a single family residence, he's met what's required by code and by law. And so for that reason, I think he's done what his due diligence in this whole process is is my feeling. Commissioner, yes, I agree. Um it I don't think it matters who the architect was when they came to the county um to get the permit. Um that's when it should have been caught, right? I mean, they're that's they're the experts should have been um you know, a lot of people we say, you know, you should you read the land use plan, read the code. A lot of people don't. They should because there's a lot of really good information in it, but you're relying on the people you hired and you're relying on the county staff. you know, you did everything right. You got your permits. Um, this is just a um, you know, a mistake that doesn't happen very often, but it happened in this this time. It's, if I may, Mr. Chairman, even to this to to today, a individual can still draw their own plans in this state for a single family residence. Now, I'm not talking about commercial. I'm not talking about multif family, but they can, this gentleman could have drawn these plans and submitted it to the county and gone through the whole process whether it was him or somebody else. That's that's actually doesn't matter. He's following proper procedure at that point. And so, um, I just want to state that. Thank you. Uh, thank you. It's interesting having a builder and an architect on the commission and this particular conversation. Commissioner Buger. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And we don't need to debate this, but in any event, whoever does the

plans, as Commissioner Crawford said, whoever does it, whether it's an individual or whether it's an architect, they have or you have the responsibility to know the codes and the plans under which you operate. That's it. So yeah, there's human error, but you have that responsibility as well. So I don't need to debate it, but I I did want to add that. Sure. Uh any other questions for the applicant from the commission? Okay. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you, sir. Um this is a public hearing and anybody interested in speaking either in support of or in opposition to this application if so um please come forward to the microphone be sworn in. Thank you. Mr. Chair, Commissioner members, I do just want to address members online that if you are willing to speak on this matter, uh please remain muted until you're called upon and use your virtual hand to um indicate that you wish to speak on this matter. We do. Um, Lisa Sprout, 8 Camino, Delpra, Santa Fe 87507. Yeah, I had a question regarding this last u, you know, couple of of things said. My husband's a builder and he's built about 130 homes in Santa Fe in the city and the county both. We live in Pestadel Soul, which is right next to the house they're building. Um my husband is a designer and a builder but he he is not an architect. He has to have his plan signed by either an engineer a an engineer who has a current

stamp current dated stamp or an architect but he has to have the engineer stamp and the engineer does know the ordinances and he does know the law regarding height uh restrictions etc. So I was wondering does this is there an engineer stamp on those plants? Thank you ma'am. Please, please provide your comments. I I think the the the question you're asking, were the trusses properly engineered? No, I'm asking outside the scope. No, I'm asking about the the the the slab, everything uh all all of the the the house has to have engineering on the entire house, not just, you know, to hold up the the roof, etc. It has nothing to do with uh what you're what you were suggesting. So, the it has to be stamped as you submit. Um I can answer to a little bit to that and staff can probably answer as well. Mr. Trio is actually correct um with respect to uh New Mexico code. So you don't need to have a licensed architect involved for residential design up to two stories or unless you're actually using some sort of alternative material. uh once you're using them with ter material or after a certain um sorry after yeah after three stories um then you're required to have a registered licensed professional to do it whether that's an architect or an engineer. I think what you're getting at is that foundation systems for instance tend to be uh uh engineered by a licensed structural engineer. Um but as far as the actual set of plans, uh Commissioner Trio is correct that any homeowner can come and submit a set of plans essentially without it without an engineering stamp without a license. But what about grading and drainage plans? Those have to be done by a civil engineer. Ma'am, could you please provide your comments? Oh, I'm sorry. Rather than start I'm sorry. Thank you very much. I I feel that that engineers

also have to be held responsible for the plans too. I'm sorry. I That was your comment. My apologies. I Yeah, that was my Okay. Thank Thank you very much. Is anyone else interested in speaking either for or against this application? And I do. Anne Noble 40 kaya Santa Fe New Mexico. Um Mr. Chair, commissioners, um I have lived in the Trace Sur A Royos neighborhood for the past 27 years. I spent many hours and me with many of my neighbors working on the TAP plan which set forth the 18 foot height ordinance. So many years ago during the ensuing years, many many homes have been built in the area. They all abided by the 18-oot ordinance leading to a visually low impact rural area. I think that Mr. Anchando's home should do the same. I realize that something went wrong when the county mistakenly approved his building permit, and I feel for Mr. Anando. However, I think that he should have reviewed the county building codes for the area he was building in before he submitted his plans to the county in the first place. I think that that that is what every other builder does. And I cannot understand how he was so remiss in not doing that before any plans were submitted for review. It's a terrible situation, but it does not preclude the fact that this house should not go against the county ordinances and guidelines, and I feel that he should not allow be allowed to proceed. I hope he can work with the county to remediate the problem, but not by giving him a variance that would ultimately probably set precedents for builders to ignore the height restrictions in the future. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am.

Is anyone else in the room interested in speaking either in support of or in opposition to this application? I do. Carrie McBride, 35 Camino Espeo, Santa Fe 87507. members of the board um and Mr. Anando uh just want to say as a neighbor that this is a really unfortunate situation and we all really feel for Mr. Anchando. Um we met in February on the street whole group of neighbors and some of the information today is a little bit new for me. I uh recall Mr. Ranchando sharing that um the architect didn't pay attention to the the code and that wasn't his fault and now I've learned that it was actually a design for a different plot of land that then was just applied to the current existing land. But um nonetheless uh the discussion was held around the architect's uh responsibility to know the height restrict restrictions and also I may be confused but I thought Mr. Anchando is the builder. He mentioned that and so we had discussion that day that as a builder we you know you need to know the code as well and so it was unfortunate um that he did not know that there was the var the height restrictions. Um so nonetheless this is a very unfortunate situation. It's a terrible mistake, a grievous mistake made by the county staff and I would urge you all to uphold the um recommendation of the hearing officer

who's saying to deny the variance. Um thank you so much. Thank you ma'am. Anyone else in the room interested in speaking either for or against this application? How about online? Do we have any folks interested in speaking? Yes. Uh, Mr. Chair, commission members, we have Tom Tur Turwillinger online. Tom, please unmute yourself. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes. I I need to swear you in. Do you swear or affirm that your testimony will be the truth? Yes. Okay. And also provide your name and address, please. Thomas Cer williger, 68 Camino, Espo, Santa Fe 87507. Please, please proceed. Thank you. I was the leader of the Aaro de Piente planning group and this planning group met for about a decade. Um had members from around the tap area, some coming from as far as south southern New Mexico. The planning group operated by consensus. So everyone had to agree on all aspects of the plan and anyone could participate. A key vision of the plan is to preserve the rural character of the community. The 18t height limit was agreed upon and was part of that plan. The plan was presented to the entire community at public meetings that were announced to all property owners in the TAP area and in news releases in June

24th and 30th of 2015. It was approved by the county and is a county code as of 2015. The proposed variance is a 5-ft increase in height above that 18t limit. And the house as it's been built illustrates that 18t was actually a very good limit. Viewed from 599, the big highway, the part that's over 18t sticks up above the skyline. The house towers over all the neighbors, even dominating the neighboring pre-code house that is a little over 18 ft. It's quite far from the senior center and not visible at the same time from 599. It is clearly inconsistent with the vision and the code of the TAP plan. The applicant did hold a public meeting as we heard earlier on in February. He stated as he did again today that if he had known of the 18T limit, he would have been fine with it. After the variance meeting in April, the applicant told several of us that he first had the house designed and then decided afterwards where to put it. This is what we just heard again. He added then that he had not researched the building codes for the site when he where he decided to build the house. So if the variance is approved, I believe it would be cause permanent harm to the community by changing the character of the area. Not just this house, but the many variances that will surely follow using this one as a precedent. People won't remember that this one was an exception for a special special reason. A variance is clearly contrary to the public interest. County staff argues as they made a mistake in permitting, a variance should be approved. However, the fundamental mistake was that the house was built out of compliance with county

code. The clerical error on the part of county staff only delayed the county becoming aware of this violation. I feel very sorry for the applicant as others have stated as well, but he made a serious error, but the county staff did not notice it and that's very unfortunate. It's not reasonable to ask the TAP community to suffer just because the county staff inadvertently allowed the applicant to start building when they should have denied the permit. I encourage you to decline uh this appro this um variance. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else online who wishes to speak either for in support of or opposition to this application? Yes, Mr. Chair, commission members, there is Toby G. Toby G, please unmute yourself. Hello. Can you hear me? Um, um, I am unmuted. Can you hear me? Hello? Yes, we can hear you. Um, please identify yourself and state your name. Toby Gas, G SS68 Camino Especo. Toby, I'm I need to swear you in. Do you swear or affirm that your testimony will be the truth? Yes. Thank you. Please proceed. I am here uh digitally as a 30 plus year resident of the area covered by the TAP plan and I support the hearing officer's recommendation. The TAP plan was many

years in the making with considerable investment by many community residents and county staff. The staff report in the packet for this meeting says that the four speakers at the earlier hearing were concerned about the views from the neighboring properties and does not mention any other concerns voiced by the speakers. I encourage you to revisit the hearing officer's summary and the transcripts of the meeting where you will see that the views were mentioned but were not the major issue. The major issue was honoring the TAP plan and its objectives. One of my main concerns is for the precedent that granting this variant could set. The Anchonda home is not only 23 ft high, it is also on a high point in the landscape. The closer pre-code house that also exceeds the 18 foot height limit is on a low point in the landscape, making one extremely visible from the surrounding area and the other barely visible at all. Granting this variance in violation of the TAP plan requirements would create a very visible non-conforming structure that would encourage others to build something similar. Last year, a request for a 10% administrative variance for a nearby property was denied. When the property owner saw the roof line for the Anchondo structure, she came back to the county to complain and her 10% variance was granted. That is the neighboring variance that Mr. Ruiz mentioned. So that variance has only been granted in specific response already to the Anchando House. It is the first step of a likely domino effect that would pressure the county to consider more and more variance requests within the TAP

boundaries. Fundamentally, we have to ask why we are talking about a variance in this case which we all understand is very unfortunate for Mr. Anando. The county made a mistake by issuing a permit for a structure that violates county code, which is an administrative error. Another error was likely made when Mr. Anando was allowed to do additional work to quote unquote protect his investment when a tarp or a tent might have done the job. where the code talks about variances for exceptional circumstances or hardship. I don't think it is referring to situations resulting from administrative error. I believe it is referring to unusual construction needs perhaps for accessibility for a disabled individual or something related to the site conditions or historic preservation. It seems to me that the question of the variance should be considered as if that permit had never been issued. Suppose the building were not now under construction and Mr. Anchando were requesting a variance for this 23 foot high building to accommodate the dormer windows. Does this building meet the criteria for issuing a variance? As far as I can tell, it does not. The purpose of the variance process is to address particular construction situations, not to remedy administrative error. This situation likely should have been handled very differently and sent through different channels from the time the permitting error was discovered and it should be sent through those channels. Now, for these reasons and those presented by others today, I support the hearing officer's recommendation and request that the variance be denied. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am.

Mr. Chair, planning commission members, we have an additional uh member online who wishes to speak on this matter. Um, all there is is initials E and R. if you will please unmute your unmute your mic. Hello, my name is Edward Rivera. I live at 10 Kayak Carla. I am um Sorry, Mr. Mr. Rivera, I need to swear you in, please. Sure. Can you swear or affirm that your testimony will be the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. So, I'm sorry to say that I think the variant should be denied. Um, I keep hearing that uh this is the fault of the county. Uh I but I also believe that due diligence due diligence was not completely followed through. It is the responsibility of the owner, the builder, the architect, and the county. So, I'm sorry to say, but I think this variant should be denied. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else online interested in speaking in opposition or in support of this application? Mr. Chair, there is not. Uh, thank you very much. We'll now close the public hearing. Uh, commission, let's discuss. Commissioner Pava Okay. Um, thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me. Um, I have a couple questions for staff now that we've heard staff presentation and that of the applicant and those uh those comments

from the public. Uh I'm looking at exhibit C, page A1, which does show me uh a representation. It's the plat. And this lot is about a more or less a,000 ft long and 135 ft wide. It's it's not atypical in Santa Fe. We have situations like this from former land uses and how land was divided and all of that. So my question is when you look at the elevation gradient the differences this lot ranges from uh 6726 feet to um if I've got this right 6748 there's a 22t difference in elevation on this lot from south to north and um I one I want to know what the code definition of defining the mean elevation to determine the variance would be because even if it was the mean and there's a 22 foot difference or 20 22 foot difference you may have an a 11 ft to play with. Um I know that the house has been built on the highest spot. Um I'm wondering because of this if we interpret the code strictly is there uh the possibility that this structure need not have a variance at all based on the mean elevation of of the lot or are we strictly talking about no matter from where it's actually located which pretty much is is the highest elevation on the lot. Um and you're measuring it only from that spot because this lot varies greatly in its uh elevations. Mr. Chair, uh, planning commission members and commission member Pava, there's a couple of features on this lot that prohibits buildable area. And that one is to the back end of it, which is open space, and that's a low-end point

where it starts to drop off. While this house does sit on the highest point, it does not it is not prohibited to put that house where it is unless it's was labeled as a ridgetop. So, yes, it's the highest point. I do understand your question about the height standards and so the way height's taken is from any elevation of the uppermost point of that structure to the lowest most point of that structure is the height of that elevation. Should that elevation exceed the limit requirements then there they need to address that. Um, but any house, whether it been a mobile home or a a single family residence that was 5,000 square feet and sprawled out on this property rather than upward or, you know, for the clear height, ceilings would have required um would have been allowed on this lot, no matter where you placed it if they met all the right um code requirements. Thank you for the clarification. It's just a very unusual lot with a lot of elevation difference and other codes and other times I've seen different interpretations personally that I've made. So I wanted the clarification as specific to this case in Santa Fe County. Mr. Mr. Chair, Commission members, there are many lots that are long and narrow on this stretch here, and that was due to the the when 599 came through, a lot of these lots got spread, separated, and they were already long contiguous lots that created all the way into all of Fria's area. Thank you, Commissioner Pava. Any any questions? Commissioner Buger. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh question for legal on this one. Uh some of the public testimony that had been raised was uh mentioned that if a variance was approved in this situation, even if it's an extraordinary situation,

it could set a precedent that others could use um to build in excess of 18 feet. Is there a way to uh guard against that or if this variance is approved for whatever reason then the precedent has been set? It seems to me it's two issues. one what happens in this situation which is just flatout difficult for everybody and the second thing is what happens in the future if others say Mr. Anondo did it I can do it is there any way to guard against that well generally speaking uh Mr. Chair, Commissioner Buger. Um, you know, president is based on the facts and circumstances of of any individual case. So, for a a future property owner to um successfully rely on this as president, if if you were to approve this application, the circumstances would need to be identical or very similar. And obviously the most important factual uh aspect of this situation is the mistake by by the county. So without as so long as a decision if it were to uh grant the variance, if the decision were to make it clear that the uh that your motivation for that decision is in fact the error by the county and the reliance of the applicant on the the approval the permit that was granted. other parties would not be able to rely

on that as president to simply say we should be allowed to go to 23 feet under any normal circumstances. Does that answer your question? So, Mr. Chair, can I follow up on that? So, so Roger, you guys have the the the code that you're following and there's other HOAs all over Santa Fe County that have their specific HOA rules. And so now, is it the county, shouldn't an HOA be responsible for looking over the plans before they bring them to you or give some sort of approval? because now at this point you're not only responsible it's it's for the SLDC code you're responsible for every other HOA code across the whole county and it seems seems could seem kind of unreasonable for your staff to be responsible for all of that. It seems like some of the ownership should be on the HOA that has to go through some sort of approval process and say yes this does not meet these requirements. If I understand your your question, I I think you're absolutely right, Commissioner Trujillo. Uh the county as as a general broad practice does not enforce private covenants against individual land owners. The county only enforces the SLDC with respect to those types of covenants. And uh just as a matter of common sense and personal knowledge, it's my impression that most active homeowner associations do have a procedure and a process in place by which a a landowner hoping to or intending to build a residence on the

parcel is expected to take the plans before the the HOA. a or an architectural review committee of the HOA and and get approval of those plans in advance. Uh if a if an owner is required to do that and doesn't do it and again that's not a county enforcement issue. That's privately enforced as between the homeowners association and and the land owner, but the the county's obligation is is solely to enforce the dimensional standards set forth in the SLDC. So that that's where I've had a little aa here is because we kept saying the county's fault. The county's fault. And I I don't purely look at this as the county's fault. Let me ask you just one quick question. In the in the hearing officer's report on number nine, it says staff, I testified there were several structures in the vicinity of the property that also exceed 18 ft in height. Is that within this own HOA uh area? Just I want to get something straight. My understanding is this is not an HOA. My understanding is that the the neighbors got together and created a an overlay district to be apply applied as part of county coding. So zoning. So it's a little different. Just want to get that clear. Thanks. So So then let me just ask you question number nine. Staff testified there are other several other structures in the vicinity of the property that exceed 18 ft in height. Is that correct? Uh Mr. Chair, Commissioner Trio, can you repeat that question? So, in the in the hearing officer's recommendation number nine says staff testified there are several other structures in the vicinity of the property that also exceed 18 ft in height. Mr. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Trill, there is two other structures that are located

adjacent to this parcel and about a good 12 that are opposite side of 599 which are within the AA Fria zoning district and those are pre-overlay district. Those were constructed pre-overlay district as I read the materials. So Mr. Chair, just for clarity, the ones on the Thresh Royal side are pre, but the others on the Aafria side are but they're outside the district. So, Got it. Thank you. Sorry, Commissioner, but No, no problem. So, Mr. Chair, if we're ready, I'm ready to to to Yeah. Uh, just Commissioner any Commissioner Buger. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I wasn't quite ready that the uh I'm sorry. Just just just a comment that uh thank you Mr. Chair for stating this is this is part of the uh this community district overlay is part of the code. Uh and uh if I understand correctly that that was created as part of a community plan that was done that people participated in. Um And it's uh uh it's this a difficult situation because if we want people to participate in community planning efforts that result in something like this, it's uh um it's important that some of the restrictions are acknowledged. So, uh this is an unusual situation, but still it's a it's a real issue. That's my comment. Thank you, Commissioner. Yeah, I I would agree with you if they came in with um plans to have a 23 foot house, but they said, "Oh, no, you have to do 18 and then they

okay, then they can, you know, revise their plans to accordingly." But this happened after they received a permit and the house is built. To me, that is totally different. I've reviewed a lot of projects and you know, sometimes they come in and they're not correct. you know, you catch those before someone actually builds a structure and then will cost him a lot of money to take down. I understand about the community overlay, but and about precedent setting, but if someone wants to come in, they'd have to come in again and they'd have to apply for variance and have to go through, you know, all all of this discussion that we're having with this. So, I just think this is an unusual situation that isn't fair on any level. Thank you. I I have a question for I have a question for Roger if I could. One of the online commenters indicated that extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions of the property really only relate to conditions of the property. But the way I read that sentence is where due to extraordinary and exceptional situations stop or conditions of the property stop. I see those as two distinct um two distinct elements to apply and I I I I disagree with the commenters's um interpretation that it's all about the property or access or something like that. I just want your off the cuff admittedly but your opinion on how you read that phrase in the code. Uh certainly Mr. Chair, I do think there can be different interpretations given to whether the phrase extraordinary and exceptional choose to modify situations only or does

it also modify conditions of the property as as you read it and you for emphasis inserted a comma after after situations which is not an unreasonable reading in fact. And so I that's all I'm asking really is that a is that one one reasonable way to interpret that that an extraordinary and exceptional situation might be this administrative situation rather than it must be tied to the property that's at issue. I'm just trying to understand whoever wrote this what were they you know am I reading this properly? I I think your your reading is is certainly reasonable. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much, Commissioner Pava. Yeah. My final last comment, I promise. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For Mr. Pino, um this is a quasi judicial hearing that's appealable to the county commission, right? Yeah. Yes, that is correct. So whether we vote to deny or whether we vote for approve, those affected parties can then make an appeal to commission. Presumably that that's accurate. Thank you. I'll uh I've got some things to say, I guess. So uh on a general comment, uh Mr. Trio is you bring up an interesting point. This is more again like a planning and zoning department scenario, but we do have these overlay zones which are not HOAs, right? But they are essentially have been established by the community to determine these regulations that everybody in the community has decided to enact. You know, it's interesting though with your, you know, your comment as far as like whether there is a venue for these overlay zone districts to have their own uh quasi, you know, agency to be able to review stuff that's coming

through that's being done in their particular district so that all the onus of review is not strictly on the staff, which I think is kind of an interesting to just bring up as something that maybe planning should consider uh for future. But that's one comment. Um uh the other I guess the other um comment that I have is with respect to uh precedence you know so some of the people that have been against this has mentioned that this is setting the precedence with respect to the height and I don't me personally I don't think that's necessarily my concern is not the precedence for this particular height in this particular overday district but for me I'm worried about setting the precedence of the fact that we as a board would essentially or could approve something just based on a staff error. That means that anybody in the future could submit something incorrectly because uh like you know commissioner mentioned is like yeah people don't look at the code. Uh they don't review it. You know I've got I'm hearing people say hey it's not necessarily the onus of the individuals to necessarily review it. Um, which means that this could happen often. If if we are not putting the onus on individuals to submit something and look at it themselves, whether they have a professional or they're they're submitting it themselves, then that means that we're putting the onus on staff to essentially review that and either make an error or not. And that's a precedence that I don't necessarily agree with, you know, and uh and uh and a legal question, I guess. um is you know how protected I guess is the county with respect to like the torque claims act uh that's a question for you Roger more so if this was to be denied because obviously there is some legal ramifications to any one of these uh decisions that we make potentially well I will not hold myself out as a litigation expert or an expert in the

DOR claims act but yes you're right it is out there um it does provide broad protection ctions to the county for for assertions of damages. The other uh potential uh claim or cause of action could be something for not damages necessarily, but a claim of a stople or reliance. And whether that would succeed or not, obviously I'm not in position to appine on and and don't think it would be appropriate to opine on that p in public. But those types of claims are not prohibited against governmental entities necessarily. So that's that is something that's out there be aware of. Okay. Um and yes, so that's really I guess my concern partially is the president's with respect to you know error on staff should not necessarily mean that you know there would be an approval of a project right that's something that shouldn't necessarily be a fact I mean the regulations are in place so that people should actually meet this and I'm standing here I'm a rookie here right this is my second meeting here um you know but uh I kind of am looking at this as a community member right it's like this is a community scenario. We are looking at the public interest. Uh you know there are individual I have to look at this as an individual case because I totally I mean I feel like Mr. uh the applicant here um is in a in a really difficult situation you know um but if I look at this as a community we've we've got an overlay zone we've got several people have uh come against uh this particular variance and I think one of the key things and one of the uh the people that mentioned Toby she mentioned something about the fact would

the variance have been approved if it was not under construction already right that's something that I thought was kind of kind of interesting, you know, and and should a variance be approved based on staff error? And those are a couple things that I'm just trying to think about because this is a difficult situation, but I do think that uh there's uh yeah, there's definitely some um you know, someone Mr. The applicant, I think, is going to be in a really bad shape if we deny it, obviously. Um, and I'm hearing some approvals towards approval, too. But those are a couple, I guess, comments that I just wanted to mention uh on on my behalf, I guess. So, thank you, Commissioner. Uh, what is Commissioner Trill? Yes, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion that we approve variance case 255090 with staff recommendations of number one for do pass. I will second. So we have a motion and a second. Um can we get a roll call vote please? Mr. Chair, before we get further, was that with both conditions of approval? I I believe he indicated that it was with staff conditions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes. Yes. Yes. Uh no. No. Yes. Thank you very

much. That concludes this case. Thank you. Next, we have case number 25-5040, Ridgeline Manufacturing Conditional Use Permit Application. Good evening, Mr. Chair, planning commission members. Dominic Jis Neto, spilling and development supervisor with the growth management department. Ridgeline Manufacturing Conditional Use Permit CUP Matias Royal applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to operate a manufacturing business from their 67.10 acre parcel. The property is zone residential estate in the rural commercial overlay zone. Chapter 8.11.2.4 4 states that a manufacturing business is a cup within the rural commercial overlay. The subject property is located at 3236 NM41. The applicant proposes a to construct a 2800 ft accessory structure garage on this property to operate a manufacturing business and utilize the second floor as his office. The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit for a manufacturing business to manufacture parts for Sandia and Los Alamos Laboratories. The use of the structure will be for operating CNC machines, materials, metals and plastic com uh composits and small tool storage. There will be one non-resident employee and the operating hours will be Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. There will be approximately four visits per month from clients as all deliveries

will be coming through the partial deliveries such as USPS, FedEx, and UPS. The existing residence on the property was built prior to 1980 and will not require permitting. The stables as well were built prior to 1980. No permits were found for the existing carport as well as the existing garage. During a scheduled site visit by staff on March 4th, 2025, it was identified that the applicant had started grading without a development permit. The subject property is zoned residential estate in the rural commercial overlay zone. Chapter 8.11.2.4. This zoning allows for manufacturing business as a cup within the rule commercial overlay zone. As per residential estates, there can be one dwelling per 2 and a half acre base density. The applicant addressed and staff reviewed the applicable design standards as per chapter 7, sustainable design standards of the SLDC. Building and development services staff has reviewed this project for compliance with the pertinent SLDC requirements and any relevant ordinances and has found that the facts presented support the request for a conditional use permit to allow a manufacturing business. The use is compatible with the current development within the affected zoning districts. The use will not impact adjacent land uses and the applicant satisfies the submitt requirements set forth in the SLDC inclusive of the conditional use criteria set forth in chapter 4 section 4.9.6.5. The review comments from staff county fire and review from county staff have established findings that the application is approved to allow a manufacturing business is in compliance with the state requirements and SLDC including the pertinent design standards. The hearing officer heard this case on April 10th, 2025. At the hearing, no

people spoke in support of the case and no people spoke against the case. The hearing officer memorialized findings of facts and conclusion of law and in a recommended order on this request. The recommendation of the hearing officer and staff's re recommendation is for approval of a conditional use permit to allow the use of a manufacturing business subject to the following conditions. Chair, may I enter these conditions into the record? Yes, please do. The report and exhibits listed below are hereby submitted as part of the hearing record. I stand for any questions. Thank you. Uh, commissioners, do you have any questions for staff? Uh, I guess I do. Commissioner Crawford. Uh, yeah. Just just a quick clarification because I I was looking at this and it's like as far as the wells are concerned, I know this is not a planning and zoning uh you know jurisdiction for us, but I'm just curious um because there was some discrepancy there. So uh my understanding when I was reading is that there's two wells, two current existing wells. Is that correct? And there's that's the is there one of them is being used as a shared well between the residences and then there's also some comment about a commercial well that would be uh that would be I guess requested by the by the applicant. So I'm just trying to clarify is it is there just one well two wells three wells? The uh Mr. Chair um Commission Member Crawford that is correct. There are two wells on the property. And so they're are they applying for a separate commercial well? Uh that is correct. They will be applying for a separate commercial well or a third well? No. No. That's using one of the wells to to convert one of the existing domestic wells to a commercial well. Was one of those wells can I comment on this?

I'm sorry. Was one of the wells used for irrigation like uh pivot irrigation? Uh I believe so. The applicant is not present. Um but they are online. um they they may be able to answer those questions. We'll get to you in a second, applicant, if you can hold on. Thank you. Do any do commissions commissioners have any other questions of staff? I understand the applicant is with us virtually and so if uh you could please unmute and be sworn in. Thank you. Um, hello. This is Matt Royal. Mr. Royal Ball, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're going to give is the truth? Yes, I do. And Mr. Royal, can you provide your address, please? 3236 New Mexico 41 Stanley New Mexico 870456 please proceed Mr. Royal. So, in regards to the uh the questions on the well, um I don't believe that is in your guys' jurisdiction with the state office of the engineer, which we've already made provisions with. Um but just to clarify for you guys, uh yes, the um hold on one sec. All right, I'm back. Um, so there's there are no commercial wells on the property to be uh defined commercial per the state office of the engineer. The well that's on there is an agriculture well. Uh it's a high producing well for

agricultural purposes. It runs two irrigation pivots on the well. Um there's a separate well that was so the current so in the process of this application we actually had to redrill the residential well because of lack of water. So we had to redrill it deeper. Obviously that was all permitted through the state office of the engineer and it was permitted in such a way that allowed the use of this property and that's all been confirmed with the uh SOE. So that's uh does that answer your questions in regards to the wells? Uh yes, thank you. Do any commissioners have question applicant? Are are you interested in making a statement or or um would you just like to respond to questions? Uh I I'd be happy to respond to questions. I don't think there's any other statements that are necessary. Uh, unless you guys have specific questions. Okay. I I I am I'm just wondering, so you're going to be running CNC machines and um making components for um that you will sell to Sandia and whatever. And so is there um so all the materials you're using are not at all um things that need special containment or anything? No, they're not. So we are a what we would I guess define as a light manufacturing facility. We do CNC manufacturing as well as additive advanced manufacturing. Um, we offer engineering services and and manufacturing. And we serve industries like uh the defense and energy industries that are local here in New Mexico as well as the medical device

industries. Um, we serve we make we manufacture components. So we take uh blocks of aluminum, steels uh and plastics even and we'll machine them down. very tight tolerance stuff that is in support a lot of the work we do is in support of the national labs. Um so we do uh small quantity production high tolerance type stuff. Uh our and so we're just looking essentially what we're doing is we have a facility that is located about 30 minutes from our current location. The current location is property is also my residence. We are a small business and so we're looking to kind of consolidate so that way we're able to uh just uh not nothing to do with you guys but just to manage our time a little bit better between the farm and um and our manufacturing businesses why we're looking to move this facility to our current property. Uh our current property is in a area where we're able to I mean the the the facility we're building is going to look no different than the barns that are all over around it. Uh not not on my property but everybody else's property as well. There's no impact to the outside surroundings area. Um everything is housed inside the building and we're machining things like aluminums and steels like I said. So nothing nothing reactive, nothing um uh there's there's no environmental impacts to our business really at all. And your millings are all contained and recycled or you know addressed, right? Absolutely. Yeah, we recycle 100% of our our millings value in it. So thank you commissioners. Any anyone else have questions of the

applicant? Commissioner Buger. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Royal, uh, if this is approved, will you be uh applying to construction industries division for a permit for construction for the garage? Absolutely. We already have uh plans in process with uh architects and so that as soon as this gets approved those plans will be submitted and we will begin uh construction. Thank you. And on approval of those plans of course. Okay. I think you've answered this but just ask it again for the record. Uh will any hazardous waste be handled on site? No. Thank you. Any other questions from commissioners for the applicant? Thank you. Um staff, are there any any parties in online who are interested in speaking on this? Mr. Chair, there doesn't seem to be anyone that has their virtual hand raised to speak on this matter. Okay. And I assume that you're not interested, sir, in speaking on this. I I figured that. Thank you. Um, so, uh, no, there being no comments, uh, let's close the public hearing and commissioners, what is your what are your wishes? I can put a motion out um for case 255040, Ridgeline Manufacturing. I um uh uh think we Okay, I've messed up. I've messed up my I motion to approve the conditional use

permit for case 255040 for Ridgeline MA manufacturing. Um including all of the conditions outlined by staff. Second. We have a motion and a second. Um may I get a roll call vote, please? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Mr. Yes. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Royal. Your application has been approved. Thank you. Now, uh, next case is case 24-5330, Verizon New Mexico communication facility conditional use permit. Please proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sunstate Towers LLC applicant Pinnacle Consulting agent requests a conditional use permit to allow a cell tower on 27,782 acre tract. Leased area will be 40x40, 1,600 ft. The site is within the A ranch zoning district. Table 10-3 allows for a height of 150 ft within the A rank ranch zoning district. Appendix B use matrix illustrates the new wireless communication facility within the AR zoning district is a conditional use. The site is located at 364 Lone Mountain Road SDA3 within section 6 township 12 north range 8 east commission district 3. The applicant states, "We are proposing a new 150 foot tall monopole wireless communication facility with the 40x40 by 8 tall fenced compound for for associated ground equipment. The wireless facility and mounted antenna

equipment will be painted a tan color to blend with the surrounding contacts as approved by the property owner and community members. The panel antennas will be located at on the approved facility at a centerline elevation 146 and grouped in three stories for full spectrum coverage. Each sector each sector can hold up to four panel antennas and the tower will have lease space for three additional carriers in the future collocatables placed in a vacant area with no plans for future development. This site is ideally located near existing tall utility poles and away from high occupancy areas. The construction phase is relatively fast and will be done upon receiving all necessary approvals. Once construction is complete, these end man facilities will require minimal site visits for service and maintenance, ensuring little to no impact on daily activities of the surrounding community. The applicant has addressed the cup criteria and staff has responded the to the applicant's requests as contained in this memo. On April 10th, 2025, this request was presented to the sustainable land development hearing officer. The hearing officer memorialized findings of fact and conclusions of law in a written written recommended order on this request. The hearing officer based on the evidence presented recommended approval of the applicant's conditional use permit with conditions proposed by staff. Building development services staff has reviewed this project for compliance with permit SLDC requirements and has found that the facts present support the request for a conditional use permit to construct a monopole 150 ft in height. The facility meets the proposed proposed and intent outlined in section 10172 of the SLDC. The use structures will not impact adjacent land uses and the application satisfies the

submitt requirements set forth in the SLDC in inclusive of the conditional use criteria set forth in chapter 4 section 4.9.6.5. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to construct the monopole 150 ft in height within a 4040 leased area located at 364 Mountain Road subject to the following conditions. Mr. Chairman, enter those conditions into the record. Yes, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I stand for any questions you may have. Commissioners, do we have any questions of staff? Okay, sir. Would you like to make a presentation for the application? Thank you. Please be sworn. do and then David Kluchnik 17755 North 89th Drive Poria Arizona KL U C is in cat Z is in zebra N I K thank you yeah so just to reiterate what he I mean as the planners have said I mean everybody's done a really good job please lift the mice up thank you yeah as the planners have said and stated right a lot of the project narrative that he already kind of you know put together was in there, but just kind of why we went on this location itself. Um, so to begin with, Verizon has identified the need for service surrounding the NM14 and the community surrounding it. Um, there's a dire need for emergency services to be able to make calls to car accidents, you know, homeowners in the area, all of those things. There's a dire need for not only Verizon, but for all wireless communication carriers in the area. Um, specifically why this location was picked on the parcel itself. We work together with the community members specifically, you know, the surrounding neighborhood and the turquoise trail to come to this location due to the

mountainous terrain in the area as well as the existing power lines and lattice lines in the area to be as least intrusive as possible for the community. Commissioners, does anyone have questions of the applicant? Please, what is the rest of the uh land um used for? It's undeveloped cattle land with no future development plans. I mean, everything looks like mostly ranching, you know, grazing land. You know, there's cowp a lot of cowpies on the land, but you know, a lot of, you know, mountainous terrain undeveloped with no future plans. Commissioner Buger. U Mr. Chair, thank you. U Mr. Cluch, did I did I get Clutch? Yeah, really close. Thank you. Uh couple questions. Uh you mentioned in the report that noise of the generator and general equipment it's very minimal like how minimal you decibb uh did you do any is it so it's it's one of it's so to begin with it's a generator for emergency purposes only of course right so it's not going to be on at all times I don't have the exact decel meters but it it's always going to be below the minimum requirements due to the fact that it's never really going to be on except for emergency situations where power is lost in the area like below 80 or yes it should be it's going to be just a normal you know the I believe in this case this the generator is going to be very minimal below that normal decibel range uh you mentioned that you would do uh geotechnical investigations uh on this uh when yes there will be yeah so we we will of course apply for those in the initial portion of the application due to you know usually those things are ordered after the approval stemmit just due to the amount of you know the cost for those things. Um, so we requested relief at the time of that for the application, but we will abide by all federal, state, and local guidelines.

Oh, and then C does the general in building inspection for this and the electrical. So in this case, what we've been informed of, so Santa Fe County will do, we'll have the building permits through Santa Fe County and then we will go through NMC as well. and MCID is usually just going to issue the electrical permits for said wireless facilities. Okay. Um that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from any other commissioners? I I've got a few. Um so I think I believe in one of the photos it indicated that this monopole is going to be adjacent to some transmission lines. Is that correct? Where you're going to be getting your power? Um, is there a is there a drop from the exist is it a distribution line that you can get power from? So, there's actually normal power lines just below those self-support lattice. So, that's where we're going to pull power from, not the massive high voltage transmission and then distribution and tap into there transform. The the other question I have is the way this works. Verizon builds this builds this and puts their equipment on and then is there like an open auction so that other carriers can kind of glom onto it or how how does that work? Good. Yeah. So us at so Pinnacle Consulting Sunset Towers will be the tower owner, right? And then Verizon will be the anchor tenant at the 146 ft center line as it would be called. The tower is built to accommodate three additional carriers on the tower. So 10 feet below that 146 will be the other three carriers. 146 is Verizon 36 sorry 26 all the way down for the additional carriers. Um I know in the area there is that's there's a small tenant poll for AT&T that would be looking to you know usually immediately get on the higher elevations so that they can increase service. Um, but of course, you know, what it comes down to

is when the need in the area is there, which we can all attest to it really is a need in the area. You know, they've identified the need as well. So, they'd be looking to get on the on the built tower as well. Got it. So, if Teemo comes to you all as the owner and says, "We would like to put our equipment there," that's something that you could accommodate. 100%. Yep. That's the reason it's built two additional uh four additional carriers, I'm sorry. So the first one's called the anchor tenant and then the remainder just kind of as the opportunity arises they Yes sir. Interesting. Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Is there anyone not in the room? Anyone online um interested in speaking either for or against this? Mr. Chair, there's no one online wishing to speak on this matter. Okay. So the public hearing is now closed. Um, what is the interest of the commission? Um, Mr. Chair, uh, I'll move to approve case number 24-5330 with all staff conditions as set forth in the staff report. Thank you, Commissioner Buger. I'll second. Thank you, Commissioner. Um, can we have a roll call vote? Uh, oh, Carl. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you, sir. Thank you guys. Have a good night. Okay. Next is petitions from the floor. Nothing there. Matters from the commission. Do any of the commissioners have any matters they would like to bring

forth? The June 15th meeting it since Junth June uh yeah June 18th 18th which is a Wednesday. Wednesday June 18th Wednesday June 18th is is scheduled meeting and I'm sorry to say you will not be there. Um any other matters from the commission? Commissioner Pava, u I'm just curious to know about uh the there was an illusion made to recent staff changes. Uh can you give us some background or information uh what you're able to inform us about and how staffing is working with the county? Are you going to be all right? And basically in general just checking in. So yes. So, so as you may know from my email, um former land use administrator Jordan Yity is no longer with uh Santa Fe County. Our director Alexandra Lad is now acting land use administrator. Um a position had been posted and closed. Um and as you can tell, John Lovato, one of the building development supervisors and myself, the other building development supervisor are kind of dual acting multi-rolls here. uh which is a lot of staff um in our department is doing as well. Um but we're getting through it. We're trying to staff up. Um we're going through interviews uh this week as we speak hopefully to try and full get fully staffed here soon. Thanks very much. Any other matters from any other commissioner? Just a general comment. So since it's the second meeting I'm here and stuff and uh so my full last name is actually Lacruus Crawford and I I want to make sure I guess that gets mentioned from future on so that way it's just not half of my last name being said. Crawford. Lacru

Crawford. Yeah. Oh, no worries. No problem. Yeah. So cool. Thank you. Um matters from the attorney. Uh nothing to bring to your attention this meeting. Thank you. Matters from staff. No comments from staff. Okay. So our next a regularly scheduled meeting is a day away from June 19th. It's June 18th. So please put that on your calendars. And sorry you can't be here, Wendy. And so may I get a motion to adjurnn? Okay. Second. And all in favor? I I Thank you.