Chairman Garcia informed the parties involved of the appeal process and added depending on the decision made tonight the next level of appeal (if need be) would be to the Town Council. Chairman Garcia stated there are no Council Members in the room.
Mr. Floyd Lopez stated he would like to mention that the Town of Taos Mayor is not present at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting.
Chairman Garcia reiterated that the Mayor is not present.
Mr. Richard Bellis, Town Manager/Acting Town of Taos Planning, Community and Economic Development Director as Code Administrator presented his decision to deny the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Home Occupation at 404 Mora Lane. Mr. Bellis read into the record the Letter of Determination denying the Home Occupation dated November 24, 2014. Mr. Bellis added there is an affidavit included as well as pictures subsequent to the letter based on inspections by Mr. Bellis and other town employees and is evident by the traffic that the continued occupancy of the property continues to this day.
Commissioner Pollard’s concern was the validity of the appeal in reference to the appeal notice that was in the Commissioner packets the appellant states "the decision is incorrect and wrong at every level", the code requires that the written notice of appeal states specifically each and every decision from which the appeal is taken.
Mr. Bellis believes that it does not satisfy the criteria for an appeal and that was reflected by staff to the property owner however the property owner indicated that is his appeal. Mr. Bellis asked Ms. Gonzales if the fee for the appeal has been paid.
Ms. Gonzales stated no.
Commissioner Pollard asked Mr. Lopez, Town Attorney if he believes they have a valid appeal.
Mr. Lopez read from the Town Code section 16.12.080.3, how to appeal. Letter A states all appeals should be initiated by filing a written notice of appeal with the Code Administrator on a form the contents which has been approved by the code administrator and accompanied by the fee established pursuant to appendix A attached to ordinance 99-5 which is the fee schedule. B states a written notice of appeals should state specifically each and every decision from which an appeal is taken. Mr. Lopez stated he believes it is within the Commissions discretion to decide whether those conditions have been met and added if they find that the conditions have not been met as set forth in the ordinance then they can make findings of fact with regard to each of those whether they have or they haven't then the commission ruling should be pursuant to those findings.
The Commissioners had a lengthy discussion on whether or not they should proceed with the appeal hearing. The Commissioners agreed to proceed with the hearing.
Mr. Sam Herrera, Attorney for the appellant, addressed the appeal, he informed the Commission that he thinks it was properly done and that the notice only requires that they provide notice of appeal and added the notice of appeal shall state specifically each and every decision in which an appeal is taken, the purpose is to give notice of what they are appealing, it doesn't say they have to give an explanation as to why they are appealing it, it just says they have to tell you why. Mr. Herrera stated the appellants notice of appeal states they disagree with the decision, there was one decision which is the denial of the permit and added on their notice of appeal they attached the decision that they disagree with the decision each and every point, if they would have known the Commission wanted an explanation point by point they would have done that but statute doesn't require that.
Commissioner Patterson asked Mr. Herrera if his client paid the fee.
Mr. Herrera stated he paid the fee but he didn't come prepared with the receipt.
Staff reiterated he has not paid the fee.
Mr. Sam Herrera and Mr. Erminio Martinez were sworn in.
Commissioner Patterson asked Mr. Martinez if he paid the fee.
Mr. Martinez stated well the process for the applicant procedure requirements for a public hearing does not state that there is a fee and added that he had a chance to visit with Dinah Gonzales on several occasions and he is not sure that she would have given him the instructions to not to proceed with his appeal. Mr. Martinez stated he took everything that was properly required he has his application and it doesn't state a single fee on the application to appeal.
Commissioner Patterson asked Mr. Martinez if he paid the fee.
Mr. Martinez stated he thinks he did and added he is pretty sure he did.
Mr. Herrera stated Mr. Bellis is claiming his client violated the building code by not getting a permit and Mr. Bellis says the covenants do not allow a home occupation or any commercial activity in this subdivision. Mr. Herrera stated the covenants do no prohibit it which means it is allowed. Mr. Herrera presented a copy of the covenants to the Commission and a copy to the town and stated there is a restriction within covenants for commercial activity but the covenants expire after twenty five years and so none of the restrictions of covenants are valid.
Mr. Herrera stated his client did obtain a building permit from the town and a permit for the electrical and plumbing and added the work has been completed over two months ago. Mr. Herrera stated the plumbing and electrical have already been inspected and they are waiting for the town and the town has not done it. Mr. Herrera stated the stop order was placed by the Building Official that was not licensed to do it so it is illegal. Mr. Herrera stated his client has complied. Mr. Herrera stated his client was painting, removing carpet, replacing doors and added the state does not require a building permit for any of this work. Mr. Herrera stated Mr. Belles’ complaints are all about the covenants and the building permit.
Commissioner Pollard asked Mr. Herrera to look at page four of Mr. Bellis' statement and stated he does give other reasons in his findings for the denial of the permit and added not just the building permit. Commissioner Pollard stated an example is it is not a compatible use or a use that qualifies for a home occupation.
Mr. Herrera explained the type of business his clients are proposing to conduct at their home.
Mr. Martinez gave a summary on the events that took place concerning their building permit and their home occupation application. Mr. Martinez stated they do not have clients coming to their home. Mr. Martinez stated the parents of his clients walk back and forth.
Commissioners asked the appellants questions concerning the home occupation, the clients that come to the home, the bridge and the parking lot the appellants built in the property behind their property, whether they are bail bonds men or solicitors.
The following people were sworn in by Mr. Lopez:
Mr. Joseph Caldwell was sworn in and spoke to the Commission concerning the neighborhood residents protesting the home occupation, the nine different advertisements advertising the business at 404 Mora Lane, the reason the appellants were evicted from their last place of business, Bail Bonds man business is a twenty four seven business, Tony Madrid lent the appellants the money to buy the property and has a mortgage on the property, a bail bond business must be operated in the name of the bail bonds man at a street address named for the bail bonds man not a solicitor, the covenants are in effect from the date they were recorded which was May 25, 1991 (they are still in effect) and the loss of value of the neighboring properties.
Mr. Mark Cowan was sworn in and spoke concerning the value of property in neighborhoods where a bail bonds business is located; it will have an adverse impact on the value.
Mr. Jose Carreño was sworn in; he is a neighboring property owner and has a tenant in his property that has expressed his concern of all the wanderers around the neighborhood. Mr. Carrion’s tenant informed Mr. Carreño he will move out if the business is granted. Mr. Carreño read sections from the Town Code regarding safety. Mr. Carreño also spoke concerning Mr. Cunnynghams letter giving Mr. Martinez permission to use his property for a parking lot for his business. Mr. Carreño stated this has nothing to do with race.
Mr. Reynaldo Garcia was sworn in. Mr. Garcia has lived in the Casitas del Rio approximately thirty years. Mr. Garcia has thirty eight years’ experience working with the judicial system, he worked twenty five years with juvenile probation, he directed adult drug court, was hired by the judges to oversee the drug court clients in the district in Taos and Colfax County, he has experience with the type of services Mr. Martinez wants to operate. The neighborhood has been quiet until Mr. Martinez started to operate his business, the business continues to operate.
Ms. Peggy Stahl was sworn in. Ms. Stahl stated her concerns about the home occupation that is proposed by Mr. Martinez and Mrs. Romero. Ms. Stahl stated they have had people knocking on doors at all hours, looking in neighbor’s windows, parking in the street and hanging out at the house. Ms. Stahl added the home was remodeled into an office with a bridge built across the Rio Fernando to a piece of property they do not own and they continue to work out of the home even after their home occupation was denied. Ms. Stahl no longer feels safe in her home.
Mr. Terry Evans was sworn in. Mr. Evans stated he has been a parole and probation officer for thirty three years he is aware of a bail bonds business runs twenty four hours a day and there will be clients coming to the home business.
Mr. Douglas Bachtel and Mrs. Nancy Bachtel were sworn in. Mr. Bachtel gave the Commission a copy of the deed restrictions on the warranty deed for 404 Mora Lane and stated it refers to the covenants and added number one of the covenants states that the lots be used for residential purposes only. Mr. Bachtel read sections from the home occupation regulations from Town Code. Mr. Bachtel stated they have been personally attacked by the appellants and they continue to do business out of that location. Mr. Bachtel googled EMTZ Tracking Systems and he printed the nine ads that came up.
Mrs. Bachtel stated they have lived in the Casa del Rio Subdivision for twenty six years and it was a quiet place they have put a lot of time and money in their home and added she thinks if a bail bond, alcohol monitoring, drug monitoring business was allowed in their neighborhood much of the money they put into their home would dissolve. Mrs. Bachtel stated part of the town code is to protect the health, safety and welfare and property values.
Janet Conte was sworn in. Ms. Conte is very concerned about her personal safety and welfare. Ms. Conte read sections of Pavel Lukes statement. Ms. Conte spoke about the change in her neighbors, they are scared because they have had people knocking on their doors and looking in their windows.
Ms. Marilyn Grainger was sworn in. Ms. Grainger stated she has had cars turning in her driveway with lights shining in her windows, she has had people knocking on her door at four in the morning, (she did not open her door to see who was there). Ms. Grainger stated there are four single elderly women that live in that area, their home should be a safe haven, it was comfortable but now it is not.
Ms. Amy Romero was sworn in. Ms. Romero stated she is the one that lives in the home with her family. Ms. Romero stated she was going to clarify a lot of things that had been said that are misconstrued. Ms. Romero stated she is a bail bonds man and it is a twenty four seven job with ankle brackets, sober link scrams and added they are monitored on a computer and cell phones. Ms. Romero stated she does not bring these people to her home because of her kids. Ms. Romero stated she worked for her dad from Denver and monitored the clients by computer and cell phone, her dad placed the devices on the clients at the jail. Ms. Romero moved back to Taos because the business became more active. Ms. Romero stated she is a bail bonds man she is licensed through the state. Ms. Romero stated from August to December the traffic to the home was from the contractors they hired to do cosmetic fixtures to the home like replacing toilets, sinks, painting and the people they saw coming in were people that saw the windows they had taken out, toilets, fixtures and cabinets that they left out and wanted to use them, it was not the offenders or the families of the offenders. Ms. Romero stated they changed the carpet and added there was nothing cosmetic done except to change the garage door into French doors. Ms. Romero stated the business is not run out of the home she has the files and equipment there. The bridge was built for their personal use and they do not intend to use the property in the back for parking.
Commissioner Pollard asked Ms. Romero if she was saying that at no time in the future will she will have clients, visitors, or people of a business nature visiting the building.
Ms. Romero stated no.
Commissioner Pollard reiterated there will be no visitors coming to the building and nobody needs the parking.
Ms. Romero stated no, it is not necessary.
Commissioner Patterson asked Ms. Romero if the nature of the business and the number of people visiting has changed since they moved from the previous location.
Ms. Romero stated no.
Commissioner Patterson asked Ms. Romero if at the previous location if clients visited that location.
Ms. Romero stated they did. Ms. Romero stated Pavel’s affidavit is false.
Commissioner Patterson asked Ms. Romero if somebody wanted to find them would they find them addressed to 404 Mora Lane.
Ms. Romero stated they do not have it listed and she would like to see where that was listed.
Commissioner Patterson stated they just saw copies of advertisements listing their business.
The advertisements listing the business at 404 Mora Lane were made part of the record.
Commissioner Patterson stated just for the record he just did a search on his phone for bail bonds and 404 Mora Lane comes up.
Ms. Romero stated she was not aware of that.
Commissioner Debay asked why they don’t move the business to a different location.
Ms. Romero stated she turned in the paperwork three times and the Town lost it and that it is a nonstop circle. Ms. Romero stated Mr. Bellis told her he would give her the CO if they drop the business license and added she felt that was a threat.
Commissioner Romero asked Ms. Romero if CID was going to come in and issue a CO if the town doesn’t act on it.
Ms. Romero stated yes
Mr. Urban Romero III was sworn in. he is a stay at home mom and he remodeled the home with a friend of his, he is not part owner of the business and added they tried to work with Mr. Bellis. Mr. Romero’s concern is his home.
Mr. Bellis gave his closing statement and submitted to the record pictures of the work that was done to the home located at 404 Mora Lane which were taken by Mr. Rosales at the time that the red tag was placed for doing work without a permit.
Mr. Martinez and Ms. Romero gave their closing statements and submitted current pictures of the home located at 404 Mora Lane.
Chairman Garcia asked for a 5 minute recess at 8:55 p.m.
Chairman Garcia called the meeting back to order at 9:00 p.m.
Chairman Garcia asked the Commission if they have any comments or discussion.
The Commissioners did not have any comments or discussion.
Commissioner Durham made a motion to deny the appeal to Case No. PZB2014-35 with the following findings of facts. We have an appeal application that is incomplete and that includes both unpaid fees and failure to address the points of the original letter that denied the home occupation; the code specifies that the points are to be addressed. Further findings of facts, non-compatibility with an R-4 Residential neighborhood, and construction of parking for the business when the home occupation portion of the code specifically requires that parking must be contained on the existing site. Further findings noncompliance with the requirements of the home occupation, the use does not meet the definition and finally violation of the residential covenants recorded in 1991 and still in effect.
Commissioner Debay seconded the motion. The motion was Passed. Those voting AYE were: Commissioners: Pollard, Patterson, Garcia, Durham, Debay
Those voting NO were: Commissioners: Romero, Lucero |