|
This section is for discussion and suggestions and proposals for how we as a community deal with the planning issues that now face us.
If you have a comment or suggestion, send us an e-mail message and we will post your feedback on this page. Please keep your comments short, and respectful. Include your name and area of Placitas in which you reside.
Planning for Placitas - By Stephen M. Barro July 17, 2008
Issues and Schedules - By Stephen M. Barro July 27, 2008
Comments on the Seavy/Cashwell Amended Rezoning Application - By Stephen M. Barro 18 April 2009
COMMUNITY COMMENTS:
POSTED 18 APRIL 2009
COMMENTS ON THE SEAVEY/CASHWELL
AMENDED REZONING APPLICATION
By Stephen M. Barro
Revised, April 18, 2009
In May 2008, Mr. Knight Seavey, acting as agent for the Cashwell family, submitted to Sandoval County an application for master plan (MP) rezoning of that family's 103 acre parcel located along Highway NM 165 in the center of Placitas (the "Cashwell tract"). The proposed development, especially its commercial component, drew massive community opposition from the outset—opposition that intensified as the Placitas planning process proceeded. Reflecting the community's views, the County Development staff wrote into the Area Plan the recommendation that future commercial development in Placitas be limited to three existing commercial areas and, consequently, that such development not be permitted at the Cashwell tract. After multiple hearings and much discussion, during which Seavey and the Cashwells were afforded extraordinary opportunity repeatedly to press their case, the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission voted to support the County planners' and the community's conclusions and not to support any commercial activity at the Cashwell property. That result has now been confirmed by the County Commission, which, on April 16, 2009, adopted the Area Plan as written, leaving the commercial development recommendation intact.
Thwarted by the rejection of the commercial elements of their original proposal, Seavey and the Cashwells now have submitted an amended application (in the form of a letter from Seavey dated April 9, 2009) that would be even more deleterious to Placitas and its residents than the initial version submitted last year. What is particularly noteworthy about the new version is that the amended residential portion of the application now rivals the commercial portion in its potential to degrade the character of Placitas. The specifics are as follows:
1. Commercial Development. Although Seavey/Cashwell seem to suggest in their amendment that they have abandoned the retail/commercial portion of the rezoning application, in fact they have merely deferred it. They have now affixed the label "reserved" to the 14 acres previously designated for retail/commercial uses, but their letter indicates that they will seek a future zoning amendment to let retail/commercial development proceed. A subsequent letter sent by the Cashwells' attorney, John Myers, to the County Commission (April 16, 2009) is illuminating in this regard: In one sentence, it declares that the request for commercial uses has been deleted; then, in the immediately following sentence, it requests that the Area Plan be modified so that commercial development would be allowed. Clearly, the Cashwells intend to persevere in their battle for approval of commercial uses. It is important, therefore, that the P&Z Commission and County Commission act to unequivocally reject such uses when the amended application next comes before them. Otherwise, Placitas residents will have the threat of commercial development hanging over their heads for the indefinite future.
2. High-Density, Small-Lot Housing. The type of residential development that the amended application now proposes, clustered housing units on 7500 square foot lots (i.e., six units per acre), is both radically different from what was proposed initially and totally out of keeping with the character of Placitas. Lots of that size are appropriate in dense urban areas, not in our semi-rural (or, some would say, low-density suburban) community. In comparison, the only residential structures proposed in the original May 2008 application were two kinds of single-family homes, some on two-acre and some on one-acre lots. (It may well be, however, that this is not really what was intended—see item 4, below.) It should be noted that the amended application says nothing about what kinds of housing units would be built on the proposed tiny lots—that is, whether they might be townhouses, patio homes, or other multi-unit structures rather than unattached single-family homes. Moreover, it appears from the map attached to Seavey's letter that some of the clustered housing units could be sited along the property's ridge tops—something that residents strongly oppose. Any residential development with the indicated characteristics would deviate sharply from what is appropriate in the Placitas setting. As Seavey correctly observes, the proposed development would add diversity to the Placitas housing stock, but it is a destructive form of diversity that Placitas would be much better off without.
3. Abuse of the Area Plan's New Cluster Housing Provision. The proposal to build six housing units per acre demonstrates how easily the Area Plan's new, vaguely written cluster development provision can be abused. Approval of the amended application in its present form would effectively cede to Seavey and the Cashwells the power to write an important section of the about-to-be-revised Sandoval County Zoning Ordinance—that is, the section defining the forms of cluster development to be permitted in the Placitas area. This is a power that should be exercised by the appropriate County bodies—the Development Department, the P&Z Commission, and the County Commission—with full participation of the Placitas citizenry, before either the pending Seavey/Cashwell application or any other application involving cluster development is considered or approved.
As to the specifics of clustering, because the new Area Plan provision is vague, it is subject to conflicting interpretations. My own reading of the Plan language ("development should be allowed to cluster on 50% of the total predevelopment parcel…") is that the intent is to allow permissible lot size to be halved—i.e., to allow one-half acre rather than one acre lots in a cluster, provided that 50 percent of the whole parcel remains open space. I do not read it as permitting anything like six units per acre. However, the absence of some key specifications from the Plan—e.g., minimum lot size in a cluster, or even a limitation to unattached, single-family homes—allows others to read it differently. This lack of specificity invites the kind of preemptive, self-interested interpretation we are now seeing from Mr. Seavey.
There is one particular aspect of clustering that the Plan does address with some specificity, however, and in a manner not consistent with what Seavey is proposing. In calculating the number of allowable clustered units, the Plan says (p. 63), "undevelopable area such as slopes greater than 40% as well as arroyos should not be considered as part of the gross parcel." Of the 75 acres in what Seavey calls the cluster residential zone, a considerable portion appears, because of steepness, to fall into this category of undevelopable land. That acreage needs to be subtracted from the gross 75-acre residential parcel, reducing the number of allowable units (at one per acre) well below the 75 called for in the amended application.
4. The (Hidden) Residential Density Bonus. Mr. Seavey's April 9 submission says that all aspects of the original application not addressed in the amendment remain the same as initially presented in May 2008. One item in that initial presentation was the statement that "the developer may seek the gross residential density bonus provided for under . . . section 11(D) of the [Sandoval County Zoning Ordinance]." Under this bonus provision, the County can approve construction of as many as three residential units per acre in a master-planned district if the project satisfies a set of stated criteria, most of which are of a subjective/aesthetic nature. This means that if Seavey/Cashwell applied for the bonus and the County granted it, they could build not just 75 units but as many as 225 tightly clustered units on the 75 acres they have designated for residential development. We do not yet know if that is their intent; nor has the relationship between the new cluster provision and the existing bonus provision been defined. It seems implausible, however, that the Cashwells would be satisfied to forever limit residential development to only the 12.9 acres stated in the amended application, while leaving the rest of the 75 acre residential zone as permanent open space. It would be essential for the community's protection, therefore, that, in the unfortunate event that the amended application is accepted, it be modified to state explicitly that no MP density bonus will be sought or approved.
5. The Proposed "Municipal Zone." The five-acre "municipal zone" called for in the amended application is not unreasonable per se, but it is inconsistent with the just-adopted Placitas Area Plan. The Plan calls for a public facilities campus to the west, not the east, of the existing fire station—that is, not on Cashwell land. It does not call for some of the kinds of facilities that Seavey proposes to accommodate. What we would need to guard against, therefore, is the possibility that Seavey/Cashwell, lacking public ("municipal") occupants for structures on that part of the tract, would seek a future amendment allowing them to put the facilities on the market as commercial office space.
6. Specificity and Closure in the Zoning Process. This final comment pertains to the zoning process in general as well as to the Cashwell matter. Placitas residents were told during the planning process that specificity was not needed in the Area Plan because the details would be filled in during redrafting of the zoning ordinance. Now it has been suggested that some issues need not be resolved at the zoning stage because they can be dealt with in reviewing a later subdivision application. But there is no reason to kick the can down the road in this manner (pardon the cliché), and doing so would impede rational land-use decisionmaking. County officials cannot adequately evaluate either the Cashwell application or any other application for master-plan zoning under the current ordinance because so little detail about a proposed MP development is now required from an applicant. Fortunately, however, future decisions about land use in Placitas will not be controlled by the code's existing provisions; rather, the County, with public participation, is about to write new zoning rules applicable to the Placitas area. There is no preset limit on how specific these new rules can be. In fact, some parts of the current Sandoval zoning ordinance already are extremely specific; they just don't happen to be the parts that apply to a master-planned district. But this can be remedied as the rules are rewritten. I mention here only two areas in which more information clearly is needed to assess an MP application like the one now pending, although quite a few others could be cited:
- First, the revised ordinance should require an application for MP zoning to include a full, detailed site plan, not just a conceptual plan (such a requirement already exists, for example, for SU zoning under the Bernalillo town zoning ordinance). In the Cashwell case, the "conceptual" sketch map attached to Mr. Seavey's letter reveals nothing about what kinds of structures would be built or where they would be placed, leaving County officials no way to judge whether the proposed development is suitable for Placitas.
- Second, and at least as important, the rewritten ordinance should require proof of adequate water supply as a prerequisite for rezoning, not just for subsequent subdivision approval. The situation regarding water at the Cashwell tract is that a preliminary water study attached to the Seavey/Cashwell application of May 2008 presented inconclusive, somewhat negative findings. The amended application does not mention water at all, and certainly gives County officials no reason to be confident that the apparent deficiency has been addressed. It would be troublesome, to say the least, if the County were to approve MP zoning on the basis of the skimpy information provided by the applicants, only to learn later that available water will support only a fraction of the approved number of homes—thus implying that zoning approval would have been granted in error.
The point is that the new Placitas zoning provisions, to be written in the coming months pursuant to the newly adopted Area Plan, should be structured so that the major land-use issues raised by the Seavey/Cashwell proposal or any similar future proposal can be resolved at the zoning stage, not deferred to some later point in the process.
POSTED 17 FEBRUARY 2009
Todd Hathorne’s response to
A Dialog between between
Chris Huber, Commissioner Todd Hathorne and Orin Safier
POSTED 10 FEBRUARY 2009
In this ongoing dialogue, I am operating under the assumption that all are operating under honorable intentions, and I would like to thank those involved in this process for both their willingness to risk and their restraint in efforts to defame.
Orin Safier states that things in Placitas work for the most part. Granted. The Planning and Zoning Commission is saddled with problems of dealing with those parts that do not work, and, thus, the planning process. Let’s be a bit more specific about the things that do not work. Water. I said that water is the start of the planning process and that it would be a major portion of the ending of this process. Mr. Safier states that things work in Placitas. If we all wish this to continue to be true, we must work on water. The area plan addresses this issue. In fact, it is the testimony of many people who currently live in Placitas that require action on the issue. While I understand that the request is that the County keep its’ collective nose out of people’s business, I also hear that we are responsible to regulate those portions of undeveloped land. Look at the conservative estimates undeveloped acreage in Placitas. This is evidence of the need for the process. I grant the press that a change in the status quo requires that an applicant must meet a burden of proof. That applicant has the burden and the Commission provides the elements of due process in notice and hearing. It is not the Commission’s responsibility to meet a burden of proof in a hearing. The problem is the balancing of interests. So I posit. Exhibited next is the evidence that growth will be. One can see evidence in the number of building permits issued as included in the plan. See also growth projections offered by Mid Region Council of Governments. I would argue that because there are developers who own land in Placitas, the Commission is right to engage the public in solving these problems. Mr. Safier artfully points out that adjustments must be made. It would be irresponsible on my part to pretend that there are no parts that are broken. Here is where I hope to move the conversation forward. The Commission and staff have worked diligently to meet the current residents’ expectations. We are trying to keep the things that work. It is a difficult balancing act. In some cases, the analogy that works is a high wire act in the middle of a war zone.
I meet the burden of proof required for a change. I exceed any requirement providing adequate documentation. Now it is incumbent on opponents to provide proof that growth will not come. It is merely not sufficient to make an assertion with no evidence. Allow me to suggest that when I meet the burdens of proof, the opposition then must respond to meet the burdens of refutation. I provide facts, empirical evidence and application of the argument. No evidence requires the reader to conclude that change must happen. I have intentionally ignored the area of fiat powers of the government, but would be happy to engage there, should one desire.
In regard to the weighting of position based on who articulates the position. First, I do believe that the messenger is just as important as the message. That acknowledged, I want to highlight the fact that truth is articulated by a variety of people in this process. The same can be said of statements that do not meet the high standard of truth. Commissioners have been pelted by this problem on any number of occasions, by any number of participants representing any combination of influences. I am simply chalking this part of the process up to experience. I have found truth in statements made by the most pedestrian to utmost sophisticate. I also do not claim to be the tryor of all fact. I have amended my positions any number of times, starting with stones thrown in my direction because, to initiate some higher level of dialogue on specifics, when I mentioned a steakhouse or microbrewery. Some believed that this would be the next enterprise to apply for a commercial permit in Placitas, simply because of a brief mention in passing conversation. My expressed and implied intent was to engage. I achieved that goal as we began hearing many talk about art studios and other ongoing enterprises. That works for me. Mr. Safier proposes a process or formula that seems akin to voting on every issue and allowing the majority to be the answer. I suppose that, waxing philosophical, I can see circumstances where there is a majority of one. I would hope that this attitude lends itself to the proposition that a well crafted argument, supported with evidence and couched in the structures of impact and relevance will persuade. Therefore, I flatly reject the assertion that Cashwell, or Seavey or any other single party out weighs. I am considering all positions. Mr. Safier’s position also assumes that there is no record of comments by the public by staff or the County’s vendors. This is not true. While it does not, as asserted, provide any measure of weighting, Community Sciences did and still does maintain a record of comments. I simply choose not to characterize that record. On this issue of weighting of message, I can only speak for myself here. It may be wise to listen carefully to the comments of other commissioners as we move forward. I will say that I have a high level of confidence that all on the commission seek to do well in all efforts for this body and the public at large.
And to quote a famous bard, “The game is afoot.” We broach the subject of price on a particular parcel. I do not care what price is paid for the community’s attempt to control development for a particular property. That is a private matter, and as it should be. I am certain that this line is easily drawn by both ethical and practical standards. I will grant that a zone change does present a set of requirements on behalf of the applicant, remembering both the detriment argued by one is the benefit to a different applicant a different time. Mr. Safier cuts to the chase by questioning the requirement of payment/purchase to ensure control. If the community leaves it in the hands of the Commission there is no strong argument for him not to be able to use the land under current ordinance. In fact, one could sue and win on such a denial. True enough that the applicant must meet his burden for a zone change, but, in examples in Placitas in the last 60 days we have seen the Commissions choice not to be in a place of dealing with an applicant that has met all of the requirements. We must follow the law.
In regards to Mr. Safier’s characterization of my position of “expanding” commercial uses, this is untrue. My goal is to encourage those uses that work well. In fact, I would characterize my position as restricting nonresidential uses. Current practice is to grant any conditional use. There are very few useful guidelines. Every use must be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The policy, if enacted, would be to create permissive uses. These uses would assist in providing both current and future land owners with some predictable responses from the County. It will also reduce lawsuits and make application a more efficient process. We do want efficient processes, right? Specifics here are really for the codification process and I will encourage, again, your spirited participation. We also need to be cognizant of the fact that some of the goals requested by the residents of Placitas cannot be met under the present code. Really, I have to concede here. I think that I may be describing a distinction without a difference. Definitions on home occupation will be changed. They will meet the requirements of restricting what can and cannot be built. Work with me on the definitions. We cannot allow the present practice or we could end up with something no one likes.
That brings up the next area of concern: policy versus regulation. Two simple sentences I hope will serve and solve. The work of the people of Placitas will not be in vain. Specifics required by those who have labored with us will show up in regulation.
To the offensiveness of the provocative position of asking Placitas to be more self reliant, I first of all, apologize if the position offends. The facts are relatively clear though. What does Placitas do with its’ trash? Is Placitas contributing all it can to the County’s gross receipts tax base? First, I have offered evidence to prove that Placitas has an issue. No counter is offered. I do not have specifics on the tons of trash that comes from Placitas, but we can go there if you wish…. Second, I also offered evidence of supplemental services, albeit in anecdotal form, in press coverage during the “Placitas County” campaign. A qualified person in the form of the County Manager was quoted as saying that Placitas receives about “$2 million dollars” more in services than it provides in property taxes. Again, no counter to that evidence. As to the location of where money is spent, you bet I am willing to sacrifice a trip across the river bridge or even across the I-25 intersection at 165. I site the Mid Region Council of Governments sponsored study in April of 06 giving a grade of F to the facility during it’s’ study of the 550 Corridor. I will extend my argument in that spending on the other side of the river adds to the problem rather than solves it. I would suggest that we go back to the place that we once were where Placitas began to show that a recycling unit was an asset and the Merch could be useful. What other ways can we be a part of the solution?
Mr. Safier poses good challenges. It is incumbent upon the residents to work on a wider sphere of influence. I, too, am a resident of the County. I have presented the problem with a suggestion that some things need to be handled differently. I have provided evidence for each of my positions. Show me something that creates rather than rejects.
A Dialog between between
Chris Huber, Commissioner Todd Hathorne and Orin Safier
Chris Huber’s Op Ed:
The question for Placitas today is who is going to decide your future?
You or Sandoval County Planning and Development? For several months community workshops have been held to build consensus among all Placitas residents to create a unified list of goals and objectives for our area.
As each phase of building a Placitas Master Plan through community input has been fulfilled, it is disconcerting to watch the Sandoval County Commission including Michael Springfield review our several months' efforts by diluting our wishes to keep Placitas zoned RR & A and the extant C-1 zoning that is already in place preserved without any further changes. Our entire community input has been firm on this. However, at least one Commissioner has suggested he doesn't like the term "C-1" commercial zoning because it has a bad connotation for Placitas, a community he doesn't even live in. Instead, he would like to replace that designation to "non-residential" zoning, though such a designation is not listed on the Sandoval County P & Z Web site. Makes you wonder.
It is also disconcerting that an ABQ development group wishing for a zoning change from RR&A to C-1 in order to develop well over 100 acres near the Placitas Fire Station appears for months to have the ear of the Commission -- to the extent that this outside group is continuously invited to participate in Placitas goals and objectives agenda throughout the process. Legally, the process is supposed to involve only the Placitas community input, not outside groups. It makes you wonder again.
So, Placitans, be vigilant because it's either you or Sandoval County who will decide your future quality of life. I suggest participation now more than ever in Commission meetings. Do not let outside forces with influence supersede the value of our several months of work to protect the place we live in and above all, the voices we have raised as a community to define what we want -- because a Commission that has no representatives from Placitas doesn't hear us unless we act.
—Chris Huber, Placitas
-----------------------------------------------------
Commissioner Hathorne’s response:
Thank you for your input. I do wish to point out a few things. First, the "development group" you refer to in your letter represents a land owner who has owned property in Placitas for nearly 30 years. Why is it that their input should be ignored? If, indeed, we did ignore their positions, do you believe the commission could be seen as fair? I have consistently advised that Placitas can absolutely control what happens to any of these properties: simply buy them. Corrales did exactly that. Second, do you have no opinion as the fact that the Commission pushed their original request for a master plan into this planning process? Shouldn't we get some credit for concerns about those residents' concerns for such a large tract submission? It seems that you may have missed our effort to get such a large parcel to fit into the area plan by exposing our neighbor to the process of opinions of the community. Just a little inside baseball here: We, as a commission are struggling with region wide pressures to reduce emissions from vehicles, localize some services to reduce traffic, maybe even demonstrate that Placitas carries some of its' own weight (ie garbage that is handled in Rio Rancho.) I can take from the nearly 7 months of testimony that Placitas needs to review its' standards for nonresidential activity. I would think that acknowledging that some commercial activities could be managed inside the planning area. I do not seek to punish anyone. In fact, I seek to sustain commercial activity that is helpful to the county and to Placitas.
A couple of principles that I want to adhere to in this process.
- The commercial activity in Placitas currently seems to work best when people of Placitas own and operate those properties. The evidence is overwhelming here. Many examples of successful commercial operations are owned and operated by those who live in Placitas. In fact, it has been the testimony of professionals hired by the Cashwell's that inadvertently highlighted this fact.
- The changes in definitions to the code are focused on being able to limit what would otherwise be allowable under C-1. This is in direct response to requests from every group. I hope this principle is understood.
I appreciate the concern of the groups concerning commercial activities, more than most. Attacking me as an outsider doesn't seem to fit. First, I am hardly the outsider. Native New Mexican, Other than Ralph Martinez, Henry Street, I think, and our newest commissioner (from Placitas, the third in just under a year, I might add. Which also means that you do have representation). Any research would reveal a series of opportunities that I have chosen to speak up in public as a member of the public. I respect that right. I also believe that developers have rights as well. You would not want me to engage in a process without that recognition, would you? Lawsuits are expensive. Definitions can solve for both. I am attending a meeting tomorrow morning to deal with the aftermath of a developer who chose not to disclose their intentions in my neighborhood. Care to see me on your side of the fence? I would be happy to have another soldier.
So, while I appreciate you position, I believe we can achieve exactly what you are looking for. You are right to urge others to be vigilant. This is not, nor has it been, an us versus them fight. Be specific. You provide counter definitions. Prove that specific definitions presented are harmful. Bring case law regarding definitions we are considering. That would be productive.
—Todd R. Hathorne
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Orin Safier’s response:
I appreciate both Ms. Huber’s spirited piece regarding perceived problems with the Placitas Area Plan process, and Planning & Zoning Commissioner Hathorne’s articulate response to her statements. This type of dialogue benefits those of us involved in the planning process, since at the public meetings there is only limited time for the public to express its views, and even less time to engage in discussion and debate with the county officials. Commissioner Hathorne is to be commended for taking the time to engage in these discussions, exhibiting a commitment to the democracy of these proceedings. The following is my response to what Commissioner Hathorne writes, and I would welcome both his response and those of others in the Placitas community and the county to further this discussion.
First I would like to lay down a common sense principle that I believe should apply throughout the planning and zoning process: Many residents in Placitas feel that what we have here works for the most part. Perhaps we are wrong, either generally or specifically, since a lot depends on what “works” means. Circumstances do change, and policies need to adjust to deal with those changes. But if at present things are seriously broken in Placitas, it is not immediately evident to most of us who live here. So anyone who proposes fixing Placitas has an obligation to specify just what needs fixing, and exactly why. We who are reasonably content with how things are in Placitas should not have the burden of proving our case. So we should not have to cite case law to defend our position against those who propose to change the character of Placitas. Indeed there is already law, represented by the Sandoval County Zoning Ordinances and its Comprehensive Plan, which specifies what development is and is not allowed. Those who wish to substantially change that law need to make their case.
Commissioner Hathorne makes the point that the Cashwell group has owned land in Placitas for nearly 30 years, and so is entitled to participate in this planning process. No one would seriously deny that point, as regards them or any other property owners. What can be disputed, however, is the weight the wishes of this one property owner should carry in the process, especially if those wishes go counter to the majority of property owners in the area. One of the most frustrating aspects of this planning process has been the failure of the county to report on consensus positions regarding various important issues. When Mr. Cliff Spirock was hired to facilitate the Area Plan process, one of his announced tasks was to make just such a report at the end of his efforts. We assumed that this would involve taking each major issue, stating each opposing position adopted by some members of the community on the issue, then supplying some sort of weighting as to the degrees of consensus regarding those various positions. Only in this way could the county officials assess the wishes of the community as a whole. Just to say that some people hold one position and others hold another, without providing this consensus weighting, would be too vague, and so effectively useless. But at the last meeting that Mr. Spirock attended he declined to report on any consensus. He offered instead only his own recommendations regarding what should be in the Area Plan. As a result there still does not exist a useful assessment of consensus regarding the main issues. This allows Commissioner Hathorne to treat the Cashwell position as if it should have weight equal to that of a large group of Placitas property owners. The fact that the Planning and Zoning Commission postponed decision on the Cashwell rezoning application until the Area Plan process was concluded should not be viewed as a great favor to the Placitas community, but rather as the county’s clear obligation, given that it had already committed to producing this Area Plan in order to comprehensively guide development for that and other undeveloped areas of Placitas.
Commissioner Hathorne states that the community’s remedy for a possible rezoning that could change the character of the area is to buy the property in question. Now, this might be a reasonable suggestion if the community objected to the property being developed according to its present zoning. Suppose, for instance, that the community wanted that property to be a permanent open space, though it is zoned for residential. Then it would indeed be the community’s obligation to pay the property owner adequate compensation for what could have been earned had the property been developed according to allowed residential zoning. But in this particular case the property owner wants to change the present zoning, so as to accommodate commercial and possibly high-density residential, for which it is not presently zoned. It makes no sense to suggest that it is the community’s responsibility to compensate the owner for what he might have earned if the zoning were different than it presently is. Instead, it is the property owner’s responsibility to show why the proposed zoning change would not be detrimental to the community. And the county officials should recognize that the burden falls squarely on the owner to prove this point, rather than on the surrounding community to show why zoning that is working well should be changed, let alone to put up money to prevent that change. Were this not the case there would be little reason to have zoning ordinances.
Commissioner Hathorne writes: “I would think that acknowledging that some commercial activities could be managed inside the planning area.” But the community does acknowledge this, which is why we have supported the County Long Term Planner’s recommendations for 3 commercial nodes in Placitas, around La Puerta Realty, around the Homestead Shopping Center, and along the highway in the Historic Village. All of these have considerable undeveloped area that could accommodate more commercial enterprises. We do believe, however, that some parts of the Placitas area are suitable for commercial enterprises while others are not. That is the very reason why there are different zoning classifications for residential and commercial zoning. Commissioner Hathorne wants to expand the scope of “non-residential” activity in residential areas. But beyond the present allowance for Home Occupation in residential areas, further restricted in individual subdivisions by covenants, the Placitas community has expressed the wish to keep residential subdivisions strictly residential. Does that violate sound planning or zoning practices?
Commissioner Hathorne is correct in saying that better definitions can provide help to both developers and those in the surrounding communities, and in some cases can help avoid law suits. Given this, it is very unfortunate that the present planning process is moving in the direction of less definition within the Area Plan. We are told that the Area Plan will consist mainly of generalities that will establish “policy” in the area, but that the specifics will appear only when zoning regulations are written as a consequence of the approved Area Plan. The Placitas community, however, has worked hard to establish certain specifics, and we feel it is entirely appropriate that a number of these be included in the Area Plan. Though the laws governing zoning will indeed be the regulations to be included in the Zoning Ordinance, the purpose of the Area Plan should be to make adequately clear just what those regulations will be once they are written. Often the public has relatively little participation in the drafting of regulations, which requires the expertise of professional and legal staff. So if that is where the meat of this planning process lies, then our public participation will have been only minimally effective. Given what our expectations were for this process, this certainly seems to set up an “us versus them” situation. Commissioner Hathorne asks us to provide definitions. We feel that we have done so in many areas, but as the generalized Area Plan presently stands we expect little if any of this to appear in anything we can have control over. Specifically in the case of “nonresidential activity in residential areas, we have implicitly provided those definitions by supporting the definition of “home occupation” in the present Zoning Ordinance. Since this has been part of county law for quite some time, why would we suppose that case law must be provided to support its continued use?
Finally, Commissioner Hathorne states, as he has done at a number of public meetings, that an increase in commercial activity in Placitas might be required to deal with “region wide pressures to reduce emissions from vehicles, localize some services to reduce traffic, maybe even demonstrate that Placitas carries some of its' own weight (ie garbage that is handled in Rio Rancho.)” I would ask Commissioner Hathorne to provide support for the idea that providing more permissive zoning for commercial (or “non-residential”) activity in Placitas would allow the county to better meet emission standards. Some statistics need to be provided to support that statement. Also, the localization of some services in Placitas would be at the expense of merchants in Bernalillo and elsewhere in Sandoval County, where many Placitas residents presently shop. Would Commissioner Hathorne have us beef up Placitas commerce at the expense of our neighbors to the west? As to Placitas not carrying its own weight, that is a provocative statement which virtually everyone who lives here would find offensive. The purchases we make in Bernalillo and elsewhere contribute significantly to those other areas’ prosperity. We pay our property taxes. And last but not least, by working hard to preserve the unique character of Placitas, which is relatively unspoiled historical/rural/residential, we provide a place where persons from other parts of the county, and indeed those from other counties, can come for relaxation and recreation. If this is not pulling our weight I don’t know what is.
—Orin Safier
Placitas
—TOP OF PAGE—
Open Space BLM
October 13, 2008
Placitas Open Space(s) BLM
Compiled by Sandy Johnson
Placitas residents value their open spaces. Not only the open spaces surrounding residents due to the generous lot sizes, but all open spaces. The open spaces provided by the 500 plus acres of the Albuquerque Open Space plus the 6000 plus BLM acres are not included in the planning area under consideration of the county administration.
Clearly Placitas residents want to preserve the Open Spaces in Placitas. Their home values reflect its proximity and availability. Sandoval County Commissioner Orlando Lucero has passed a memorial to recognize and preserve the wild life corridors provided by the Placitas open spaces. The County has also indicated that if the 540 acres of Albuquerque Open Space were to be threatened, they would consider a bond issue to purchase it and keep it undeveloped.
The current Placitas Plan by the county does nothing to provide open space/ conservation zoning or to intervene with the BLM to secure real preservation for the remaining 6000 acres of open space. It is not include in the Placitas Planning area. It’s unclear if it were included in the Placitas Planning Area that the county could or would exercise any influence with the BLM to protect it from mining or other unwanted development.
Open spaces are valued not only for recreation opportunities, view sheds, cultural artifacts, and diversity of plant life and dessert scapes, but for the important historical wild life corridors that they provide as recognized by national conservation groups.
Placitas residents recognize that open spaces in Placitas lie in the path of the Continental Mega Linkages called the Spine of the Continent that has been developed over the past 20 plus years to link areas of wildlife migration together. National parks and private lands along the entire stretch of the Rockies are linked from Alaska to Mexico. The only major break in that spine is here at the Sandia Mountains. Local and national conservation organizations caution us that our wildlife corridors are a key element in maintaining the Spine of Continent Wild ways and to assure the genetic viability of the mid-New Mexico mountain species.
The Preserve Our Wildlife Corridors community art project sponsored by the Placitas Wildlife Pathways group and Bernalillo Schools science and art classes has been featured nationally and on local news casts as an effort to recognize the significance of the open spaces in Placitas.
Placitas residents in an effort to preserve the open spaces under BLM control have participated fully in the BLM Resource Management Process. More than 250 Placitas residents have commented to the BLM requesting that the 6000 acres surrounding Placitas to the north and east be preserved for quiet recreation and as a wildlife corridor.
More than 700 New Mexico Wilderness Society comments from around the world have requested that the BLM designate the Placitas Open Spaces as an Area of Critical Ecological Concern (ACEC) or similar designation.
Additional community ideas to help preserve the Open Spaces including:
- A mixed use arrangement with the BLM that would preserve the wilderness corridors, generate some BLM Lease revenue that could have portions set aside for future purchase and preservation.
- A mixed use that would provide alternative energy to residents while preserving the nature and use as a traditional wild life corridor and for recreation.
- A Congressional memorial to preserve the Open Space and establishment of a trustee board for ongoing preservation and management.
- Establishment of a State Park or Memorial.
- Purchase by a conservation trust.
- Investigating Inverse Condemnation opportunities.
16 October
Selected Goals and Associated Actions Presentation for Placitas Area Plan
Public Input Meeting (Click here to download PDF Slide Show Document 984K)
Friends of Placitas/Bob Wessely
12 October
Placitas Area Plan
drafted October 2008 by
residents of the Linda Placitas subdivision
We are residents of the Linda Placitas subdivision and some of its adjoining roads, located in the Northeastern section of greater Placitas, one of the least developed and most rural sections of the Greater Placitas area. Nearby areas include San Francisco Hills, Mountain View Hills, Tecolote, Ideal Acres, Vista Cabezon, and Diamond Tail. These are our responses and thoughts to the proposed long-range Sandoval County plan for the Placitas area.
We represent a group of people with a variety of backgrounds and incomes, who value the relative independence of their neighborhood and respect one another's privacy. We also respect each other's home and lifestyle differences and have a tradition of assisting and looking out for one another. It is important to us, and we think to Sandoval County, that the rural nature and ecological health of this particular area be maintained as any development takes place.
We value the area's wildlife and wish to live in a way that safeguards and respects the ecology so that we may continue to coexist peacefully with all that is natural here. Because this area is part of a larger wildlife corridor that extends from Mexico to Canada, we believe it should be respected and protected for the long-term benefit of humans and animals living in Placitas. For these reasons we support Sandoval County's efforts to add the Crest of Montezuma to be part of the existing Sandia Wilderness, whose expansion we believe would be a benefit for Placitas and for New Mexico as well.
We believe that constructing either the so-called, and often proposed, "loop road" connecting I-25 to North 14, or any "through road" coming off Camino de San Francisco, Camino del Tecolote, or Linda Placitas Road would destroy both the character of the historic Village of Placitas and the rural nature of the entire Placitas Area. In particular, it would devastate the unique ecology of our Northeast section and adversely impact the residential environments and wildlife habitats. It is for these reasons that we recommend that any long range planning not allow the construction of new roadways that would penetrate the planning area boundary. Protecting and sustaining the unique character of Placitas in general, and this area in particular, will prove to be of more benefit to Placitas, the County, and the State in the long term than will any development that radically alters it.
In Placitas, as we all know, issues of water must be given very serious consideration in all decisions concerning development. In many areas of Placitas, including our Northeast section, water availability is fragile and marginal. This fact is clearly documented by hydrology maps and studies. It is of the utmost importance to everyone that all future development be scrupulously governed by requirements that safeguard the quality and quantity of the water supply. The future of Placitas will not disregard, for any reason, the oversights or mistakes we make now in structuring our development plans.
Most residents of the Linda Placitas area have private wells and septic systems that each family is responsible to properly maintain. We are concerned that if the county permits overdevelopment that the quality and availability of water for all our residents will be threatened. Importantly, we would like to know what recourse current residents here would have if future development proves to significantly impair or decrease our water supply.
For the general safety of all residents with regard to problems of runoff and drainage, particularly during the monsoon season, we recommend that no new construction be permitted in or within fifty feet of any arroyo, and that any road that crosses an arroyo or run off area must be built with proper culverts that adhere to all pertaining county, state, and federal requirements. Any structures and roads should never block natural drainage. Developers and builders should never be allowed to build in arroyos or run-off areas and all watershed areas should always be preserved and protected. Also, we think that it is important that all new area home buyers be fully alerted and informed about the dangers for potential flash flooding before they buy properties. Consistent with our concerns about water, and to insure viable wildlife habitat, we recommend that any future development in the Northeast Section require no less than two and one half acre lots per one family dwelling and that any subdivision with cluster, "cookie-cutter" type development be prohibited here.
Also, because we feel it is discriminatory to citizens with small or modest incomes, we do not think it is fair to impose minimum square footage requirements on houses that people may want to build. Many of our neighbors started their homes from one-room houses of many kinds. We believe that Placitas should give everyone who tries to live here a chance, as it always has done. We value a diverse community of people from all income levels. We think that maintaining open space between neighbors is of ultimate benefit to all present and future inhabitants, as this will protect the existing landscape, wildlife, and views for everyone living here or visiting here for recreation. Allow us to suggest that any more ridge top building be avoided or restricted.
From a broader view in regard to the plan for Greater Placitas, our group has the following comments:
While not presuming to speak for the residents of The Village of Placitas or any other neighborhood, we would hope that any county planning would maintain the historic character of the village, preserve the reservoir and acequia system, and if this area is commercialized, that it would be done in a low-impact manner that considers the best interest of the village and surrounding neighborhoods.
The Cashwell proposal in the western end of Placitas for mixed-use development should be limited if built at all. It is our belief that strip malls and townhouses are not a good fit for any part of Placitas. The Homesteads shopping mall has continually had empty spaces and failed businesses. Why build more of the same? Any new commercial construction would increase the competitive stress among existing businesses already struggling hard to survive. Placitas has repeatedly shown little if any desire to support commercial enterprises within the area. For evidence look at the failed Windmill hardware store venture, and also remember that the restaurant that still stands where the old Thunderbird Bar once stood failed over ten years ago and has been vacant ever since. Also remember that most people chose to live in the Placitas Area expressly because it was not a commercial area. If people wanted the convenience of a commercial neighborhood and did not want to travel long distances to shop wouldn't they have chosen to live in places like Bernalillo, Enchanted Hills, or Rio Rancho?
Again, we are concerned about water issues for all residents of Placitas and want to remind everyone that the area proposed for commercial zoning near the village, as reported by hydrology maps and studies, has very little water available there and its overuse for commercial purposes may negatively impact on everyone else's water needs. Caution should be exercised to avoid shortsightedness that exploits ideas of progress and convenience for the hopes of profit.
We recommend that the county consider expanding the Sandoval Express shuttle service, which does not currently operate in the Placitas area, by providing this transportation to the Rail Runner station, and other areas such as the health centers, library, Town Hall, Bernalillo restaurants, and other businesses.
Finally, we would like to see, and would support bike trails, equestrian trails, and "natural' recreation areas that do not create light pollution, traffic congestion, or damage to wildlife habitat, but would provide recreational opportunities close to home for Placitas's children and families, and all New Mexicans.
We would ask everyone to remember that whatever resources or landscapes we lose to development, we will lose forever! The phrase "Linda Placitas" loosely translated means "pretty little places". We want the meaning of our name to remain a reality.
2 October 2008
To Whom it may concern:
On Weds., Oct. 1, we made a presentation to the planning group with respect to the fire department and emergency services protection for the Placitas area.
A question from the floor after that presentation asked the question what would it cost to replace the volunteer group with paid staff. Chief Tibbetts responded that it would take quite a bit of money and would have to be funded with gross receipts taxes collected.
Later, the chairman of the group made a statement that members of the community must decide what they want in the planning stages, not just what they don't want. He went on to use Chief Tibbett's statement that we need gross receipts, but he incorrectly made the comment that when there is a structure fire at your home, keep in mind that those gross receipts are necessary to fight that fire. He made the incorrect application of Mr. Tibbett's comment to allude that gross receipts is what funds and drives the fire department to be able to address fire and rescue needs for the Placitas community.
We do NOT use gross receipts to fund the Placitas Volunteer Fire Brigade. We are funded by the State using state fire funds derived from residents of New Mexico when they pay their fire insurance premiums. This state funding along with generous contributions from residents of the community provide the PVFB with the money to operate and have satisfactorily provided that service for over 30 years.
Mr. Tibbett's reference to the use of gross receipts was only with regard to shifting from a volunteer system to a completely paid staff. We have not identified a need to do that as we have over 30 volunteers able and willing to provide that service for no wage compensation whatsoever.
Nationwide, over 70% of the firefighters are volunteers. It is only in metropolitan areas or larger cities that paid firefighters are engaged. Placitas certainly doesn't fall into this category. Nor do any future expansion plans point to the need for a paid staff vs. the volunteer staff.
It is a mistake for planning officials to use the fear of a house fire to justify the need to develop commercial property which would generate gross receipts. The two are totally unrelated.
On the subject of Public Safety, I wish to go on record as requesting that planning officials consider the need for bicycle paths along highway 165. There is quite a bit of such traffic on a continual basis. Some of the highway has adequate room, while many sections are without a sufficient shoulder to allow safe distance between cyclist and motor vehicle travel. Let's not wait until we have a serious injury or fatality to correct this unsafe condition.
Chief Bud Brinkerhoff
Placitas Volunteer Fire Brigade
1 August 2008
There are many issues in our community that need to be addressed. But in order to not dilute our effort, we should direct our attention and energy on the Placitas Community Plan. Once this issue has been resolved, we can refocus our attention on other important issues.
—Gary W. Priester
Ranchos de Placitas
3 August 2008 (Originally submitted 25 July, 2008)
First, I love the web site. It is well done, timely and reasonably evenhanded. I have to applaud you guys for a rapidly done, excellent creation. I think it will make a big difference.
On another topic, my spouse attended the meeting in the community center. I cannot hear in that building because of poor hearing and poor acoustics, so did I not attend. However, I have a few comments based on her recollections. First, Mr. Gonzales did a plan for the Jemez Creek area north of san Ysidro. I read it and found it quite good as far as respecting the area resident's values and it seemed appropriate for the canyon. So it appears he can work with the locals. Second, according to my wife, he was subjected to a barrage of complaints and concerns that were uncoordinated and at times incoherent. She left in the middle of the meeting, thinking that nothing was happening except venting or special interest "lobbying". Perhaps things improved later?
I don't completely trust the judgement/motives of the county planning organization, and the Byzantine configuration of the study is surely unjustifiable. From the map, it appears the area available for planning is a small portion of the total area, yet does include some large tracts of pristine land that, when developed, could devastate the water table for many of the current landowners, if well permits were granted to the many potential lots/subdivisions.
Having said all that, I still think it does no good to berate Mr. Gonzales. He has done a decent job in Jemez Canyon and probably will not profit from any development here, no matter what happens. It appears the county is hurrying through what should be s careful study.
This is not necessarily entirely the fault of the staff, the county commissioners and planning commission are responsible too. It does no good to antagonize the planning staff- they are in a position to help or hurt the community, or make it quite difficult for us.
I have never been to one of these meetings ( pipeline, Escafa, energy corridor, gravel mining ...) where we have "won" by being unreasonable and unhearing. That is why I advocated, in an earlier email to Orin, that we use an attorney to present a more unified and legally justifiable position. No doubt the county is doing many of the things mentioned in the write-up of the first meeting, and that Mr. Gonzales is way ahead of himself on the authority and funding issues. But if Placitas citizens don't approach this in a reasonable, legally sound manner, we are going to be playing on their field and we will lose.
Thanks,
Al Jones
Cedar Creek area
—TOP OF PAGE—
|
