ORDINANCE 2010-02 Draft Version – November 20, 2009

ORDINANCE 2010-02 Draft Version – November 20, 2009

Linked: Draft Animal Control Ordinance 12-21-09

Animal Control Ordinance: Rio Grande Sun

County Should Pass Tougher Animal Control Ordinance

By R. Braiden Trapp

Published:

Friday, November 6, 2009 9:12 AM MST

To read the complete editorial: Click here: Rio Grande Sun. Thanks! Support our local media!!

It’s hard out there for an animal control officer.

The two hardy souls who take on that task for Rio Arriba County are fighting a losing battle. Loose, uncontrolled, un-spayed or un-neutered dog packs roam much of the County and there’s not much David Gasca and Cipie Maez can do about it.

The County is preparing to pass a tougher animal control ordinance but the task will still be daunting. Two men, one county the size of New Hampshire.

Add to that there’s really nothing they can do except write a citation that a judge won’t fine them on or the offender will get it tossed with the aid of elected officials.

Assistant county planner Louise Pocock couldn’t have said it better. “It’s a politically unpopular thing to do,” Pocock said. “The commissioners don’t want you going around citing their relatives.”

Add to that, their voters and you’ve got a big problem no one wants to address. And it comes back to how the majority of County pet-owners refuse to spay, neuter, care for and protect their animals. Letting an un-spayed or un-neutered dog or cat run around loose all day and night is not proper care and that’s what Gasca and Maez are trying to address.

For the full article click here: http://www.riograndesun.com/articles/2009/11/06/opinion/editorials/doc4af1a1616eb0a128997044.txt

1996-02 Control and Care of Animals Ordinance

Here is link to the current RAC Control and Care of Animals Ordinance

1996-02 Control and Care of Animals Ordinance

Solid Waste Ordinance or Nuisance Ordinance?

Here is a link to the RAC County Solid Waste Ordinance

1997-04 Solid Waste Ordinance

and a link to the DRAFT Nuisance Ordinance

Draft Ordinance - Nuisance

How will these be merged?

Correction: Sept. 30, 2009 Meeting

FYI – Rol Murrow requested that the following changes be reflected in the meeting minutes.

NOW =

Rol mentioned that there was another local man, Mr. Connolly, that had developed a book discussing the best design and construction techniques for roads.

CHANGE TO =

Rol mentioned that there was another local man, Mr. Conley, who helped develop a book discussing the best design and construction techniques for unpaved rural farm, ranch, and access roads. The recommendations could be very useful to those contemplating new development. Perhaps the County could make this information available as part of the permitting process.

November 2009 Task Force Meeting TO BE ANNOUNCED

The taskforce will now be meeting on an as needed basis as opposed to having regularly scheduled meetings. We are currently working on an animal control ordinance with the Animal Control Division and our next meeting, which we anticipate to be in late November, will be on that topic. Please contact us if issues come up around the County that you think we need to address at the taskforce level.

Thank you,

Louise

Taskforce Meeting Notes: Wednesday, September 30, 2009, 12-3 pm

Rio Arriba County Comprehensive Plan

Attendees:

Louise Pocock, RAC

Lucia Sanchez, RAC

Gabriel Boyle, RAC

Steven Gonzales, La Puebla, New Mexico Economic Development Department, Northern Representative

Rol Murrow, Lindrith, Private Landowner

Don Diego Gonzales, Velarde, Private Landowner and Hydrologist

Henry Ochoa, El Rito, Planning and Zoning Committee, Chairperson

Phil Kilgour, Chimayo, Planning and Zoning Committee, Member

Marie Markesteyn, Abiquiu, Planning and Zoning Committee, Vice-Chairperson

Randy Cordova, Gallina, Land and Small Business Owner, Planning and Zoning Commission Member

Darlene Schmitz, Lindrith, Land and Small Business Owner

Tony Schmitz, Lindrith, Land and Small Business Owner

Tony Schmitz, Jr., Lindrith, Land and Small Business Owner

*LUNCH*

On behalf of the Comprehensive Plan Taskforce Members, the Planning and Zoning Department would like to extend a big thank you to the Nielson’s and their neighbors and friends who hosted a wonderful luncheon for Taskforce Members before the meeting. The Nielson’s hosted the luncheon at the restored, historic Lindrith School House located on their property and we were happy to be using the School House as a place for community gatherings as it was intended.

Sign-in, Welcome, and Introductions: Location – Lindrith Fire House

Rol called attention to the facility in which the meeting was being held, the Lindrith Firehouse. The Firehouse has been recently established as a result of strong community effort and support, including the raising of over $24,000 from the community to support the initial funding efforts. Since the Firehouse’s recent establishment, there have been 11 first responders trained in the community, and the Volunteer fire department, as the areas first response team, was credited for saving the lives of two crash victims over the weekend. The establishment of the Firehouse, has dramatically increased the availability of trained medical and emergency responders in a community that had little access to those resources in the past.

Old Business: Health and Human Safety Ordinance

Louise explained that since we have discovered provision relating to the storage of materials, particularly litter, in the County’s Solid Waste Ordinance, we are going to refocus the departments energy on enforcing the existing storage provisions in the Solid Waste Ordinance and at the same time, still keeping in mind the necessity of creating a health and safety/ environmental hazards Ordinance, to address the issues the Taskforce has discussed in the past. The P and Z department still has legal authority to abate issues that cause an immediate health and safety concern, and the taskforce will reconsider the issue when the department has a more developed draft in the future. The P and Z department is in the process of updating several of its Ordinances, and that needs to take priority over the creation of new ordinances.

Appendix P – Land Subdivision

Staff presentation:

Louise explained that in the eighties, the state began to mandate Counties and municipalities to enact land subdivision regulations to regulate the process of local land subdivisions, which up to that point had received little oversight and was proliferating unplanned land subdivisions which didn’t have to adhere to any sort of standards.

When the County enacted the land subdivision regulations in the late eighties, they were the strictest in the state and are still considered very comprehensive, requiring detailed, and professionally engineered submittals demonstrating the land’s suitability for future use and development. However, the land subdivision regulations, Appendix P, allows for a summary review process for Type III and Type V subdivision types which are subdivisions of less than 5 lots of 10 acres or less in size, or less than 24 lots of 10 acres or more in size, respectively. The submittal requirements for the summary review process are significantly less detailed and there is no public hearing requirement for the application unless the Director deems it necessary. Because the requirements for the full-blown subdivision process are so expensive and cumbersome, most people tailor their subdivisions to fit through the summary process. Because the summary process has fewer requirements, there have been subdivisions created without adequately assessing or disclosing the suitability of the land for development, and without requiring the adequate infrastructure and planning – such as fire protection plans, drainage and erosions control plans, etc. People who buy property in these subdivisions have flooding and erosion problems, have trouble installing septic systems, experience road problems etc. Our subdivision regulations are leading to sprawl development and are straining County infrastructure. There is also a need for an increase of information required in the disclosure statement so that people buying property have a better idea of what they are buying.

Hence, we need to amend the summary process to reflect higher standards of disclosure development. The ordinance also needs mechanisms that the department can use to hold the developers accountable for required improvements and the maintenance of such infrastructure, such as roads etc. The department is considering the use of bonds and development agreements to better and legally ensure that improvements that the developer has committed to make are actually being made.

We would like the revisions to the summary process to still allow locals and others with smaller budgets to subdivide and earn money off of their land, but we need to make sure that land is suitable for development. We would also like to incentivize density in subdivision design, creating smaller denser lots and leaving open space, which is also makes infrastructure more cost effective.

We would like to increase the submittal requirements for summary subdivisions so that we can be assured in the application that the land is suitable for the proposed development and process them administratively which is less cumbersome.

Group Discussion

Henry stated that the disclosure statement should include information about road grade and quality.

Louise explained that the disclosure statement is a legal description of the land and any restrictions on development on the land. It is required by law and it is the document that informs the buyer of what they are buying.

Gabe suggested we need a soils report as a required submittal to show what the soils will support and that should also be disclosed. Flood plain is also something that should be required to be disclosed and has not been in the past.

Gabe said other things that need to be included are information about waste disposal and fire protection.

Phil suggested there should be information about who is responsible for maintaining the road.

Gabe said they should also distinguish between public and private roads.

Rol stated that there is quite a bit of controversy right now in Lindrith over which roads are public and private and who should now be responsible for maintaining them.

Henry suggested that in addition to information about how the lot buyer will be protected if the developer should go bankrupt, there should also be information about what would happen to any open or common space that might be in the development.

Louise said that we want to include a lot of language like common space in the Ordinance revisions to try and put ideas in potential developer’s head about the kind of development the County is trying to encourage.

Gabe said we also need to require more submittals such as a fire protection plan and drainage plan no matter what size the development is. Gabe said that some submittals can be obtained easily, such as the fire plan, and some will require more investment, such as an engineered drainage plan, but we have to require some of them even if they are expensive because you are putting other or future property owners at risk if you don’t put in the right kind of infrastructure and planning.

Someone asked if there was a requirement for a title search. Louise and Gabe explained that there is a requirement for the last three years of property information, but generally the title and ownership review would happen at the plat review level. Gabe argues that this ordinances functions mainly as a plat review right now and needs to be expanded to include some development standards.

Phil mentioned that some subdivisions are taking place on lots that were previously subdivided or have false ownership.

Gabe said that sometimes it is challenging to do title searches and obtain information because there is not always good or easily accessible information available about the property. There is a similar situation with the roads as is being seen in Lindrith.

Rol stated that there will be another community meeting, in November perhaps, about the roads to allow people express their concerns and once and for all sort out the naming of the roads and get all of the addresses correct. Lindrith will invite the County to the meeting.

Gabe said there is a need to complete a road atlas for the County. Public works is in the process of GIS mapping all of its infrastructure. We need to make sure the address are correct for emergency response. Sometimes historic names cannot be kept because they do not correspond to the emergency information.

Gabe moved the discussion on to design submittals and what requirements for design and development should be included in the Ordinance?

Gabe would like to encourage shared wells, metering of wells, and developing a standard for what an acceptable water footprint should be.

The lights went out in the fire house and Rol commended the County for its night sky protection Ordinances which is helping to keep the skies dark. The lights came back on shortly thereafter.

Louise asked Tony and Tony Jr. Schmitz if he had any suggestions for developing road construction and grading standards for the Ordinance. Tony Jr. stated that they generally follow the BLM Gold Book’s standards for construction.

Rol mentioned that there was another local man, Mr. Connolly, that had developed a book discussing the best design and construction techniques for roads.

Gabe mentioned that while this ordinance has no roads standards, the full blown subdivision standards require too much. Curb and gutter is not really an appropriate development style for most of the County.

Phil mentioned that you need to look at the percent of grade, the degree of the turns, whether or not it is surfaced, and the length of the road, because all those affect the function and safety of the road.

Gabe also wants to discourage long roads that dead end – better to save money for the developer, build denser, and spend less on the road. Leaving open space is also important for maintaining the integrity of the local ecosystems and continuing to support native ecosystems.

Rol mentioned that people can have financial incentives and tax breaks to create conservation easements.

Gabe would like to do a County study of where our wildlife corridors are or should be.

Don Diego suggested that the Ordinance does not do enough to require the applicant to justify water availability and quality for the future of the development. He stated that there needs to be better hydro analysis of the area and require as much detail as possible, shared wells. Water quality and quantity analysis needs to be done thoroughly and by someone that is qualified – not be the well driller necessarily. He did not agree that 40 year water prediction could possible be really accurate. He suggested that it be lowered to 20 year prediction with a requirement to reevaluate the prediction at that point.

Gabe mentioned that that was interesting because the Comprehensive Plan was now advocating a 100 year prediction.

Don Diego stated that the prediction will be affected by new development that comes into the area after the fact.

Phil said it was very important to concentrate on water quality.

Gabe asked if there was an acceptable standard level of water consumption per household or per person that could be agreed upon as the water footprint standards to be included in the ordinance.

Don Diego said that one set standard would be very difficult to achieve because it will be very site specific. Both quality and quantity will vary. Water analysis should be site specific. He suggests that it wouldn’t be too hard to develop some general hydrological data to get a general picture across the County and then put the onus on the developer to demonstrate water availability. Adjustments can be made to the water usage limitations on a development after twenty years another evaluation of water availability is made and it is determined that current usage is unsustainable.

Rol asked if we should include some guidelines or standards for developing liquid waste systems that protect groundwater from nitrates and other pollutants. What about guidelines for composting toilets?

Don Diego stated that nitrates are a serious problem and the County and taskforce need to push alternative liquid waste systems and community waste water systems.

Gabe and Don Diego stated that contamination, pollution, and erosion are negative impacts of roads.

Louise asked how we can incentivize and encourage the development features that the County wants.

Gabe said one of the biggest incentives we have is predictability, uniformity of process, and speed of process. If we make our ordinance clear as to what we are looking for in development, applicants that submit, will already have a better developed application which will be easier and faster to process.

Marie reiterated that site specific evaluations of applications is very important to keep in mind.

Henry said that it needs to be emphasized that the submittals need to be more site specific because right now some of the submittals do not relate to the specific site, but give an overview of a much larger area.

Phil stated that it may cost more, but the water availability and quality can vary immensely from one lot to another and it is pertinent to have that information.

Gabe asked Don Diego to think about coming up with water data from both hard and soft aquifers and a range of what he thinks reasonable per household water consumption would be. Gabe stated that we would like to have extensive data on aquifers and hydrology. We can try and get these developers to subsidize some of this data collection. Gabe said there should be two processes – one for conventional development, and one for model development implementing best management practices.

There was a discussion as to why most people choose a mobile home in Lindrith compared to building a house – speed, money, and availability of labor and supplies.

Phil had a last comment on the subdivision revisions and asked whether it would be possible to create a special tax district out of developments that go bankrupt and keep up their infrastructure, the tax would cover the cost of the County to do it.

Louise asked if there were any Lindrith specific land use issues that needed to be addressed.

Darlene said they are having a problem with the changes in NCSWA services. They now only pick up on the highway when before they were picking up at people’s houses. There are concerns that people will now just start dumping because it is easier, or that trash will get spread along the roadsides before it is picked up.

Tony Jr. said it wouldn’t be too big of an issue to bring the trash the highway, but they need to provide a receptacle for people and they haven’t done that.

Louise responded that unfortunately we do not have much sway over the NCSWA operations, in the meantime, people can build their own receptacles and that the County needs to coordinate better with NCSWA to make sure that service is adequate.

Discussion about Taskforce Form and Function

Staff suggested to the taskforce, that unless there was any major objection, we would prefer to convene taskforce meetings on an as needed basis as opposed to having regularly scheduled meetings. The reasoning behind this shift is that there are not always work items at hand on a monthly basis and we risk losing interest from participants if we hold meetings without work items. It would be more efficient and effective to convene the group when the Department has a tangible product or topic that they need the taskforce to review and comment on. The Department will notify the Taskforce of any upcoming needed meetings on an as needed basis.

This shift in taskforce form was agreed upon by the group. It was also clarified that if taskforce members felt there was an issue of concern, they could also contact the department to convene a meeting to discuss the issue.

Rol mentioned that Lindrith was in the process of reorganizing the Lindrith Llaves Area Community Association. He is hoping that this reorganization will help share some of the burden of work and will also enable the LLACA to rally more quickly and reach a greater number of people when certain issues need addressing.

The Next Meeting will be regarding the proposed animal control ordinance that the Planning and Zoning Department is helping the Animal Control Division to complete. We will email the taskforce with the time and date but we are expecting the meeting to be late November sometime.

If there are any issues in the County that taskforce members feel need to be addressed at the Taskforce level, please contact our office and we can convene a meeting!

Thank you all for your hard work so far!

Rol Murrow: Task Force member

BIO for Rio Arriba Task Force

Rol Murrow

William Rollins Murrow ("Rol") is a native of West Los Angeles, California. He has a wide-ranging background in high technology, management, media, and aviation. From initial work assisting in aerospace acoustics he has proceeded through his education and a career in film and video production, theatre operations, and management. Along the way his enthusiasm for aviation led from avocation to advocacy of local airports to vocation.

In the 60's Rol worked at Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, an acoustical research firm, then during and after film school worked on crews for various productions. He was a member of the multimedia group the Single Wing Turquoise Bird HYPERLINK "www.swtb.info" www.swtb.info, which produced the visuals for the Pinnacle Productions concerts and which later gave many performances at the Cumberland Mountain Film Company studio.

During the 70's he (as company president) and his partners founded and operated one of the nation's most celebrated repertory film theatres, the Fox Venice Theatre in California. In addition to presenting thousands of films from the entire history of the cinema, the theatre featured performers such as Bonnie Raitt, Mose Allison, Jerry Garcia and the Legion of Mary, the Mystic Knights of the Oingo Boingo, the San Francisco Mime Troupe, and many others.

His production company, Cumberland Mountain, has provided a wide range of services in feature, documentary, and educational productions (titles include Dennis Hopper's "The Last Movie" (Edited in Taos, New Mexico) and National General's "The Baby Maker"), and has also participated in aviation accident investigations and in preparing audio-visual presentations for legal cases.

In 1989 Rol completed a special project as Phase I Managing Director of the Museum of Flying at Santa Monica Airport, guiding it through its final construction, the development of a strategic plan, design and installation of aircraft and exhibits, and startup.

As an aviation advocate Rol was a leader in preserving Santa Monica Airport, serving as its association's President, and later acting as Regional Vice President of the California Pilots Association and Southern California representative for AOPA - the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association HYPERLINK "www.aopa.org" www.aopa.org. In California he was a member of the ShowHawks (an entertainment industry aviation group) and of the Experimental Aircraft Association.

He founded and served as President of Bernoulli's Soaring Association (Tehachapi, California), and was a founding member and Director of Systems and Concepts Development for the Southern California Airspace Users Working Group, operating under the aegis of the Southern California Association of Governments and sanctioned by the Federal Aviation Administration. He worked with a team of aviation leaders to formulate a plan to redesign and reopen the VFR flight corridor over Los Angeles International Airport after its closure in 1986 and then to work on long term airspace management plans for Southern California's extremely congested airspace. He authored the working group's recommendations to the FAA for Airspace Reclassification and most of those recommendations were adopted by the FAA and incorporated in the airspace classification protocols now used in mapping and using airspace throughout the United States.

A major reason for Rol's working to preserve Santa Monica Airport in the 70's and 80's was to maintain its availability for life saving operations during emergencies, especially following Southern California's expected great earthquake. As a result of what he learned, he founded and serves as President of EVAC, the Emergency Volunteer Air Corps HYPERLINK "www.evac.org" www.evac.org, a national group promoting volunteers assisting in rebuilding airports and providing voluntary transport services after disasters or during major public emergencies. EVAC works to encourage pilot groups such as volunteer pilot organizations and airport associations to prepare and adopt disaster and emergency preparedness programs. He is also a founding member and Chairman of the Air Care Alliance HYPERLINK "www.aircareall.org" www.aircareall.org, a support group for more than sixty aviation groups engaged in volunteer pilot based public benefit flying nationwide and internationally.

He helped found the Connecticut and New York State Aerospace Education Councils and assisted other state councils. He is an officer of the National Coalition for Aviation Education HYPERLINK "www.aviationeducation.org" www.aviationeducation.org, a central source for information and collaboration involving more than fifty associations, agencies, companies, and trade groups. He was awarded the Crown Circle Award for achievement in aerospace education at the 2006 National Conference on Aviation and Space Education.

From 1990 through 2000 Rol worked as a management and media consultant and as Northeastern Regional Representative for the 415,000 member Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), advising agencies and officials and assisting pilots, owners, and aviation groups in a seven state area ranging from New York to Maine. He worked with state and federal aviation agencies on planning issues and helped develop noise abatement programs at a number of airports.

Currently Rol serves as Executive Director of the Wolf Aviation Fund HYPERLINK "www.wolf-aviation.org" www.wolf-aviation.org, a nonprofit foundation which provides grants and disseminates information supporting general aviation and improving the public's understanding of it.

Other: Rol earned a B.A. in Theatre Arts from the University of California at Los Angeles Motion Picture and Television Division and an M.B.A. in Entertainment Management and Management Information Systems from U.C.L.A.'s Anderson Graduate School of Management. He also attended Santa Monica College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is a 3000 plus hour pilot and has earned commercial, flight instructor, and glider certificates. He flies a restored 1958 Cessna 172 Skyhawk. In the late 90’s he lived in the former thread mill town of Willimantic, Connecticut, and now - thanks to internet communications – enjoys living and working in the ranching community of Gavilan, New Mexico.

Initial Nuisance Ordinance Meeting – Wednesday, August 26, 2009, 1-3 pm

Rio Arriba County Comprehensive Plan 

Taskforce Meeting Notes

Initial Nuisance Ordinance Meeting – Wednesday, August 26, 2009, 1-3 pm

Attendees:  

Louise Pocock, RAC

Lucia Sanchez, RAC

Gabriel Boyle, RAC

Ken LaGattuta, San Pedro, Retired LANL

Jose Villa, Abiquiu, Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area

Steven Gonzales, New Mexico Economic Development Department, Northern Representative

Chuck and jean Nielson, Lindrith, Private Landowners

Rol Murrow, Lindrith, Private Landowner

Don Diego Gonzales, Velarde, Private Landowner and Hydrologist

Henry Ochoa, El Rito, Planning and Zoning Committee, Chairperson

Phil Kilgour, Chimayo, Planning and Zoning Committee, Member

Marie Markesteyn, Abiquiu, Planning and Zoning Committee, Vice-Chairperson

Michelle Martinez, NCSW 

Sign-in, Welcome, and Introductions: Location – Onate Center, Alcalde

Discussion on Draft Ordinance

Louise proposed to begin the discussion with discussing actual violations and asked what people thought about limiting the number of inoperable vehicles based on lot size.

Ken asked how the number of cars per lot was decided.

Louise explained that it was basically arbitrary and based on the rough size of a vehicle compared to the size of the lot.

Ken suggested this might not be the best way to do it because it is arbitrary and it is hard to justify why people can have three vehicles and not four.

Louise suggested that perhaps a variance procedure would enable people to get around the numerical standard.  She also suggested that another way to enforce lot line standards is to have geographic set back standards which would implicitly impose some restrictions by lot size because people could only store materials to the extent that they can satisfy the setbacks from lot lines, waterways, easements, etc. 

Ken suggested that it might be too stringent to require people to drain fluids and remove doors as well as specifying how many cars they can have- the standards go beyond just trying to enforce health and human safety protections. 

Chuck Nielson suggested that rather than try and impose numerical limits, we need enforce standards that are strictly and clearly related to health and human safety standards.  Focusing on violations that are hazardous to the environment is a much easier position to defend.

Louise explained that we would like to work with NMED, because they ultimately would be the ones to enforce any regulations related to environmental releases, but it will require setting up a process with their office so that each of our agencies can handle the new responsibilities in a timely and effective manner. Our agency needs to be trained on how to gather environmental evidence so we can refer violations to the NMED. 

Phil Kilgour noted that the current definition of inoperable vehicle could include mobile homes or recreational trailers and they wouldn’t leak fluids, so how would we asses them as a health and human safety violation?

Chuck Nielson suggested we approach abandoned buildings/structures from a fire hazard standpoint and evaluate them based on those standards.

Phil Kilgour also noted that we need to tailor our ordinance to local standard – so even if you use a numerical standard, which is arbitrary, it should at least conform to the local standard.

Rol suggested we approach the ordinance from the standpoint of, what is it we are trying to solve?  He brought up problems with the inoperable vehicles definition and also asked how the ordinance impacted materials stored inside. Rol also mentioned that we need to define “covered” and raised concern about the loss of vintage vehicles and the damage of draining fluids out of cars that might be restored at one point. 

Louise said the ordinance reads that materials stored under structures with less than three walls, it should be covered.

Gabe talked about the car as a status symbol in RAC and how it will be difficult to regulate such a strong cultural image/concept.  He also mentioned that health and human safety violations are also vectors – mosquitoes, vermin etc.

Phil asked, at what point does an inoperable vehicle become a nuisance?  Where is it stored etc,.

Gabe said it generally follows, out of site out of mind – we don’t get complaints about storage that is not out in plain view.

Ken suggested that if we do rename the ordinance as a health and human safety ordinance, these quality of life issues, or the aesthetic issues we are discussing will have no place in the ordinance.

Louise suggested that the ordinance could be simplified to only address environmental releases, presence of vectors, and perhaps a few other clearly defined health human safety standards and have the same standards for all types of storage/collections of materials – and then reinforce the environmental protections with geographic setbacks – such as no storage of materials on wetlands.

Ken asked how covering things with prevent any kind of health and human safety hazard.  

Louise agreed that requiring the covering of materials may not be the most effective way to prevent health and human safety issues associated with storage. 

Rol asked how this ordinance would apply to someone like his neighbor who stores a Chevy from every year on his property with the hopes of restoring them.  

Louise stated that the goal of the P and Z Department was to have a flexible ordinance that would work with people.  Our goal is to abate health and human safety violations, not to make people get rid of their stuff. 

North Central Solid Waste Authority Presentation

Michelle Martinez, Assistant Manager with NCSWA and _____________, General Operations Manager of NCSWA presented to our group on what they do:

NCSWA is a local public body formed through a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the City, County, and Pueblos. Through the JPA they are able to operate and enforce certain portion of the Joint Powers agreement, but not all. They do not address the collection of materials/trash on private land - that falls under the jurisdiction of code enforcement (News to the Planning and Zoning Department! – But good news because this problem should be pretty easy to address)

All people have to pay the garbage fees even if they do not have home pick-up.  The payment is for the system, not the service.  If you do not have pick-up you need to use the transfer station.  There are very few garbage carts available, but you can have your trashed picked up without one if you are on the trash route and you call NCSWA to be added to the pick-up list. You can put the trash out in your own container. There is recycling available for pick-up within city limits, and people can recycle at all of the transfer stations. 

They have a difficult time keeping their records updated and being able to charge everyone fairly because there is now system currently set up that would inform NCSWA of new address and people that move into the County and people that transfer landownership – there are some 14,000 new address in the County that they are not sending a trash bill to.  We need to establish a better system of communication so the P and Z Department and the Assessors Department are sharing all the relevant information that NCSWA needs.

There was discussion about community clean-up days in certain communities and the discarding of large materials – appliances/furniture cars.  There may be some hazardous materials issues with the cleanup and disposal of certain materials such as gasoline and motor oil.  Phil suggested we do cleanup days where we bring a bunch of material to one site and have them disposed of.

This segwayed into Louise Pocock’s proposed mobile home cleanup days. She spoke about how expensive it was to dispose of a mobile home and that if the County could do a consolidated and voluntary program for people to dispose of their old junk mobile homes that they would like to discard of.  There is a possibility of turning this into a larger program accepting appliances and cars etc. 

The discussion turned to why people were not better utilizing the disposal and recycling service already available (it was mentioned that Gallegos Scraps will currently come and pick up your junk car and take it away and in some cases they will pay you for it.  Jose summarized by saying that it looked like there one a disconnect of communication among local agencies and service providers which was hindering effective and efficient service provision, and on the other hand, there were communication challenges with communicating with and influencing the behavior of communities.  He suggested we try doing more outreach through churches and schools. He stated that we need to tailor our message so that it appeals to peoples best interests.

Discussion of Draft

The discussion returned to the Ordinance.

Rol asked if we should add the word environmental to the ordinance.  

Louise noted that health and human safety was sufficient because environmental violations jeopardize health and human safety and we have other ordinances in the works that deal with the environment and development and we want to keep them clear and separate.  

Ken said that even if we focus just on health and human safety violations, we shouldn’t loose sight of the aesthetic and quality of life issues because we may need to come back to them down the road.  

There was some discussion on the complications of enforcing noise standards – it was determined that this is something we definitely don’t want to address at this point. 

Louise asked how the group felt about storage of construction materials. 

Phil talked about the definition of construction equipment and whether or not cranes/backhoes etc. are construction materials. 

It was determined that unless these types of equipment begin to pose some sort of documentable/enforceable health and human safety violation they won’t be addressed in the ordinance. 

Gabe talked about the difficulties of drafting and enforcing this type of ordinance because we don’t have an environment department or natural resources department to provide the expertise. 

Louise suggested that the action plan for the ordinance should be to for now, focus on health and human safety standards, mount an education and clean-up campaign to address the aesthetic issues.

Gabe agreed we might better address the aesthetic issues through public information and educational encouragement rather than through ordinance. 

Mr. Nielson reiterated that trying to address both health and safety and aesthetics because the aesthetic issues are too nebulous to address. 

Gabe explained how enforcement is challenging because we do not have a formal citation process right now which leaves us the only option of having the Sherriff enforce the ordinance and issue the citation or file criminal complaint in court and right now the code enforcers are not very familiar with either process. 

Ken asked whether or not we could find out more information about what kind of violations Espanola code enforcers take to court.

Louise asked how we should address abandoned buildings and she noted that we need to work in the fire hazard inspection to the ordinance.

Phil Kilgour suggested we just require that the building be secured without specifying exactly how.

Gabe said the CID would need to perform our inspections for buildings

Louise said the other half of this ordinance that ahs to come through is setting up processes with other agencies such as NMED, RAC Public Works, NM Construcion Industry Divisions, etc.  Many of the provisions of the Ordinance will have to be verified or enforced by an outside agency.   

Louise asked the group to think about their own piles of materials and what would they consider as the health and safety risk posed by that material.  Are nails sticking out of lumber piles a health and human safety hazard that we should address – again, there is a fine line between what we determine to be a violation and what is just an unavoidable hazard.

Staff handed out Appendix P and Q and asked the group to review for next meeting.  Appendix P is our summary subdivision process – it applies to smaller land divisions and doesn’t have as many requirements as the full subdivision process.  There is concern that this has been a  loophole for some developments and enables subdivisions to get passed without ensuring adequate service provision, water and waste water requirements, and terrain management requirements. 

Appendix Q address development standards for irrigated agricultural lands that requires ¾ of the lot remain open space.  Unfortunately, it is not really achieving that.  We need to amend the standards so that people follow the intended development pattern.  

Participation reflection and assignment of action items

STAFF:

Get a sense of what types of violations Espanola prosecutes in court

Work with NCSWA to develop a better system of information exchange

Rework nuisance draft 

Start drafting informational booklet

Taskforce Participants:

Read Appendix P and Q

NEXT MEETING:  Wednesday, September 30th 2009

Lunch (Burgers on the Grill) 12:00-1:30pm at the Nielson’s School House

Meeting 1:30-3:30pm at the Lindrith Firehouse

We are also trying to arrange a tour of the charter school, so this schedule is subject to amendment – but we will let you know beforehand!

DRAFT VERSION DATE: August 21, 2009 Nuisance Ordinance

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

OF RIO ARRIBA COUNTY, NEW MEXICO

ORDINANCE NO.

ARTICLE 1

GENERAL

AUTHORITY, APPLICABILITY

PURPOSE 

DEFINITIONS

Easement:

Animal Refuse:

Inoperable Vehicle:

Material:

Garbage:

Litter: See Garbage

Uninhabited Building:

ARTICLE 2

NUISANCE DEFINED

INOPERABLE VEHICLES

 Inoperable vehicles stored on a property must be drained of all fluids.

Inoperable vehicles stored on a property must be at least ninety (90) percent covered.

For lots less than one (1) acre, there may only be no more than three (3) inoperable vehicles stored on the premise at any given time. 

For lots greater than one (1) acre, but less than five (5) acres, there may be no more than seven (7) inoperable vehicles stored on premise at any given time.

INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

Do we want to try and tackle this?  

EASEMENTS

There shall be no collection of material of any kind within public easements which include, but are not limited to, acequia easements and public access easements.

STORAGE OF MATERIALS (this will relate to litter, but the County already addresses litter in the solid waste ordinance, so we have to think how to make this provision work with the ones that already exist).

Any material stored outside or under any structure with a roof and three or less walls must be at least ninety (90) percent covered, unless the site is an active construction site. 

There shall be no storage of appliances of any kind without first removing the door of the appliance, removing any and all liquids and hazardous substances from the appliance.  All appliances stored outside must be stored according to the guidelines set forth in Section 2.4 (A) of this Ordinance. 

UNINHABITED BUILDINGS

All uninhabited buildings must have a secure lock on all doors and board attached over the windows.   

MISCELLANEOUS 

No person shall create or maintain any collection of water in or on which mosquitoes breed or are likely to breed.  

Dumping in water

Disposal of animal carcasses

ARTICLE 3

ADMINISTRATION OF COMPLAINT

COMPLAINT PROCEDURE

A complaint, notifying the County of a health and human safety violation shall be filed in the Planning and Zoning office by filling out a form(s) to be prepared by the Director.  Complaints are public record under the law and cannot be made anonymously. Complaints filed with the Planning and Zoning office shall require, at a minimum, the following information:

Name and address of complainant;

Name of the property owner for the property where the violation is said to be occurring; 

Location of the property where the violation is said to be located including the road number, house number, and any other relevant location information; 

Description of the supposed violation; and

A Suggested Abatement Plan to be filed in accordance with the standards of section 3.1 (B) of this Ordinance.

A Suggested Abatement Plan (SAP) is an opportunity for the complainant to suggest to the owner of the property, where the supposed violation is located, a means of voluntary abatement that satisfies the complainant.  The suggested abatement method outlined in the SAP must comply with all applicable federal, state, and county regulations.  The decision to comply or not comply with the SAP is completely voluntary and at the discretion of property owner where the supposed violation is occurring.  The property owner may choose to abate the health and human safety hazard by another means so long as that abatement method is in compliance with the standards of this Ordinance and any other applicable federal, state, and local regulation.    

INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINT 

The Planning and Zoning Department will have seven (7) days, from the date of receipt of a complaint to complete an investigation of the complaint.

WARNING OF VIOLATION

If it is determined that there is a violation occurring, a Warning of Violation will be posted on the property and another copy will be sent to the property owner of record.  The Warning of Violation will contain the following information:

Description of the violation including a citation of the specific County Ordinance that is being violated;

Location of the violation;

Acts necessary to abate ordinance;

A copy of the complainant’s SAP; and

The date by which the violation must be abated.

The property owner will have thirty (30) days from the date that the Warning of Violation is posted to contact the Planning and Zoning Department, submit an Abatement Plan, and abate the violation.  

The Director of the Planning and Zoning Department, at their discretion, may approve a written request from the property owner for an extension of the thirty (30) day time period, so long as they submit the following materials in writing:

Justification or explanation of why the property owner cannot abate the violation within the given thirty (30)    

An Abatement Plan explaining when and how the violation will be abated.

  

Upon expiration of the thirty (30) Warning of Violation period, the Planning and Zoning Department will re-inspect the property to verify whether or not the violation has been abated.  If the violation has been abated, written statement indicating compliance with County Ordinance will be sent to the property owner of record and the complainant.  If the violation has not been abated so that the property owner is now in compliance with all County ordinances, the property owner will be notified pursuant to Section 3.4 of this Ordinance.

   

NOTICE OF VIOLATION

If, upon inspection at the end of the thirty (30) day Warning of Violation period, the property owner is still found to be in violation of this Ordinance, a Notice of Violation containing the following information: ]

Description of the violation including a citation of the specific County Ordinance that is being violated;

Location of the violation;

Acts necessary to abate ordinance;

Date of issuance and expiration of the Warning of Violation Notice

A copy of the complainant’s SAP; and

The date by which the violation must be abated.

A description of the penalties and actions incurred should the violation not be abated by the required date. 

HARDSHIP WAIVER

Same as indigent process – fill out a form, must bring in (whichever is applicable) last tax return, w-2s, assistance award letter, or last 2 paystubs.  People will only qualify if they meet federal income guidelines (any other possible exceptions? Eg – unemployment?) 

People may only submit a hardship waiver during the 30 warning of violation period. 

ENFORCEMENT

ARTICLE 4

GENERAL PROVISIONS

DRAFT VERSION DATE: August 21, 2009 

PAGE  

PAGE  2

Task Force Meeting Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Lindrith New Mexico 

(BBQ lunch will be provided)

12:00-3:00 pm

RAC Task Force Meeting Anncouced

NEXT MEETING: August 26th, 2009, 1-3 pm,
Oñate Center, Alcalde

Task Force Meeting Notes

Rio Arriba County Comprehensive Plan
Task force Meeting Notes
Initial Nuisance Ordinance Meeting - Wednesday, July 22, 2009, 1-3 pm

Attendees:
Louise Pocock, RAC
Lucia Sanchez, RAC
Joy Gallion, Lindrith, Water Truck Operator
Ken LaGattuta, San Pedro, Retired LANL
Glenna Dean, Abiquiu, Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area
Gary Sauvinet, Abiquiu, Property Owner
Lynn Noel, Abiquiu, Property Owner
Lynn Cravens, El Guache, Realtor
Lorenzo Valerio, RAC Intern

Sign-in, Welcome, and Introductions

Staff Presentation: Background information on nuisance issues:
Louise explained that the County has statutory authority, through ordinance, to define what a nuisance is and control the proliferation of those nuisances within its jurisdiction..

Louise explained that most surrounding Counties, and most rural counties, have very little regulation around nuisance. In more urban areas, nuisance codes tend to focus on noise issues and the use of properties for illicit activities, rather than cars, trash, and vermin.

Louise and Lucia explained that in order to achieve consistency and real applicability within the ordinance, the focus should be on defining nuisances that are posing a clear health or safety risk to the surrounding area. Ultimately the goal of the ordinance is not to cite and prosecute, but to encourage compliance.

Group Discussion on Specific Nuisances
Glenna stated that many cultural artifacts, such as cars, building, barns, etc may appear to be a nuisance to some but are often very important physical remains of a specific culture and way of life. She suggested that the ordinance provide a means for community input on whether or not the structure is a nuisance or is a structure of historic or cultural significance, to ensure that communities have the right to protect what they consider to be important historical structures, and that there be incentives built in for people that would like to restore or preserve their historic properties.

There was extensive discussion on waste removal within the County and the responsibilities and authority of the North Central Solid Waste Authority. It was agreed that more information was needed and suggested that the County try and organize a presentation by the Authority at the next task force meeting.

There was discussion on using geography and location as standards for nuisance including looking at limiting the accumulation of cars, equipment etc., by lot size to better respect the settlement patterns of rural and urban areas. There was also discussion of establishing criteria based on proximity to waterways, public spaces, schools, etc.

There was discussion of the regulation of noxious and invasive weeds. There are existing County programs that address the proliferation of these plants and more investigation needs to be done into how those programs could be used or referenced within the ordinance.

The issue of soliciting adequate public input was raised and the general suggestion from the group was that there needs to be extensive public outreach, and that the ordinance effort should be coupled with an educational component to help inform property owners of what resources are available to them to rehabilitate housing, remove debris and inoperable vehicles, how to manage noxious weeds, etc. It was suggested that informational packets regarding these resources be developed for distribution across the County.

It was also mentioned that the Ordinance could possibly spawn economic development opportunities with the possibility of using the Youth Conservation Corp. to do low-cost housing re-habilitation, clean-up etc. Lucia mentioned that organization such as the Greater Espanola Valley Economic Development Corporation could help support these activities and the Louise mentioned that the GEVED could possibly help support a revolving loan fund for housing repair, environmental cleanup etc.

Discussion of enforcement options for proposed nuisance ordinance
Currently, the P and Z department’s code enforcement is complaint driven. Meaning, we only investigate possible code violations brought to our attention by the public or observed while out in the field. The nuisance ordinance will, for now at least, function in this same manner.

This raised the question of how to handle the situation of frivolous or unsubstantiated complaints. Louise stated she is not completely sure how that will be addressed, but she is hoping that having clear standards within the ordinance and the requiring evidence to substantiate a complaint will deter people form abusing the system.

The group agreed that there needs to be very clear procedures outlined in the ordinance that clarify the process for filing a complaint, and for resolving the complaint. There were differing opinions over whether or not complaints should be made anonymously or not.

Louise discussed the possibility of building in a sort of negotiation feature into the ordinance providing the opportunity for the complainant to communicate their desired remedy (so long as it is in accordance with the standards of the ordinance) and also providing for the person in violation to submit an abatement plan to the County outlining how they plan to come into compliance.

There was also discussion of a possible hardship exemption for people who can demonstrate that they do not have the financial means to comply with the ordinance.

Assignment of action items & Suggestions from task force members
Task force committee members were asked to continue to solicit informal opinions form community members on the issue of nuisance.

Louise will prepare an amend draft based on the suggestions and guidance offered in this meeting. The draft will be discussed at the next task force meeting.

The department will work on arranging a presentation by the North Central Solid Waste Authority.

It was reiterated by the group that the County web site should be updated and include meeting agendas, minutes, dates and locations of all meetings related to the Comprehensive Plan and the work of the Planning and Zoning Department in General.. Updating the website is a work in progress and Lynn Noel offered to help advise the County in redesigning the website.

Meeting was adjourned-homework for the Task force:
o Read and prepare comments on the next draft of the nuisance ordinance when available.

o Identify committee remembers from their region to be champions on the regional committees and identify additional committee members form other regions - we still need more representation from land grant members, acequia commissioners, school boards, and community members from the northern regions, Tierra Amarilla, Chama, Dulce, etc.

o Promote the Comprehensive Plan to fellow community members as a tool to guide policy in their region.

NEXT MEETING: August 26th, 2009, 1-3 pm,
Oñate Center, Alcalde

Looking at RAC using GOOGLE MAPS

You may not be aware of all of the new views Google Maps has of our County and the World.

Can you find your house? Depends on how long ago some of the pictures were taken.

One of the new features is STREET VIEWS. I'll show you....

My Community: Ojo Caliente This is a high view.

A closer view...

and a Street Level View....

Other Viewing Options.

Map View

Terrain View

Preliminary Task Forch Strategic Planning Meeting, June 24, 2009

Rio Arriba County Comprehensive Plan
Taskforce Meeting Notes
Preliminary Strategic Planning Meeting, June 24, 2009

Attendees:
Louise Pocock, RAC
Lucia Sanchez, RAC
Gabriel Boyle, RAC
Chuck & Jean Neilson, Lindrith, Retired
Steve Gonzales, New Mexico Economic Development Department
Joy Gallion, Lindrith, Water Truck Operator
Don Diego Gonzalez, Velarde, Hydro-geologist
Ken LaGattuta, San Pedro, Retired LANL
Jose Villa, La Villita, Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area
Glenna Dean, Abiquiu, Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area
Rol Murrow, Lindrith, The Wolf Aviation Fund

Sign-in, Welcome, and Introductions

Discussion of what the Taskforce is and what it is meant to accomplish
Mr. Neilson opened the discussion by asking to clarify what the comprehensive plan is and what is it meant to accomplish.

Louise explained that the Rio Arriba County Commissioners recognized the importance for having a living and up-to-date plan to ensure thoughtful planning for the future of Rio Arriba County and its citizens. Thus the Comprehensive Plan was birthed. The Comprehensive Plan was adopted in May of 2009 as a guideline for future development in the County. The plan is fluid and is subject to an annual revision and five year updating to ensure that it continues to depict the desired vision for the future of the county. Strategies and goals will be reviewed periodically and are subject to implementation and revision.

Mr. Marrow suggested that a geographic map of each community would help identify zones for each goal and strategy.

While that was a good recommendation, Gabe explained that that sort of mapping is very expensive but could be a future possibility contingent on funding. Santa Fe is a county that might be able to afford such a tool, but right now RAC could not take on that kind of expense.

Gabe went on to remind us that the Comprehensive Plan is a guiding policy document that is to be utilized by all departments within Rio Arriba County. Right now, the P&Z department is taking the lead by working with communities and specific goals and strategies. Lack of participation by individuals in the communities across the region has weakened the implementation of the plan. This taskforce is meant to be a “think-tank” for implementations and public participation is critical to moving forward.

Structure of the Taskforce
Regional Committees
Taskforce members are to identify community members from their area and identify regional committee members.

Regional committees will drive and implement goals and strategies that are specific to their specific given area in the region.

Meeting timeline
Taskforce meetings will be held on a monthly basis, at different locations across the County. P&Z staff will be the convener of these meetings.

Individual community meetings should be coordinated and held on as needed basis (when we have material ready fro public feedback). Individual taskforce members are responsible for coordinating meetings related to accomplishing goals and implementing pertinent strategies in their community. Information from such meetings will be noted by taskforce members and brought back to the taskforce.

Member Responsibilities
Members of the Taskforce are to represent the goals and consensus of the community they represent.

Taskforce members are responsible for making the communities. Accept communities for what they are and what they are not, in an effort to move beyond turf and to celebrate what truly makes our region unique.

Prioritization of Goals and Strategies from Comprehensive Plan
To be discussed at next meeting…
Assignment of action items & Suggestions from taskforce members
Taskforce committee members were given copies of the Comprehensive Plan and asked to familiarize themselves with its contents and bring any questions or concerns to the next meeting for discussion.

The County web site should be updated and include meeting agendas, minutes, dates and locations of all meetings related to the Comprehensive Plan. It was suggested that a tele-conference line be used when feasible to accommodate those who would like to participate from their communities but who cannot easily travel to be present at a meeting.

Mr. LaGattuta would like to develop community-based surveys to evaluate priorities. Much discussion revolved around this idea.

Mr. Villa would like the taskforce to garnish community development and to use the planning process to do so. The need for feedback is critical to disseminating information. This feedback system should go beyond surveys---establishing inter-agency and departmental relationships is critical.

Don Diego recommended that we encourage our communities to use the Comprehensive Plan as a guideline and a tool to engage the County Commission with the conversations that are happening at the community level. Taskforce input and the Comprehensive Plan should represent the citizens of the communities it serves and not personal agendas.

The ultimate role of the taskforce will be to review, comment and provide feedback to the planning and zoning department to inform and guide the department’s activities and work focus. Taskforce meetings will be a clearinghouse where community input on key issues will be gathered and disseminated.

Mr. Nielson suggested the Taskforce need to close gaps in Taskforce member participation.
Meeting was adjourned-homework for the Taskforce:
o Read Comprehensive Plan, return to the next meeting with comments/suggestions.
o Identify committee remembers from their region to be champions on the regional committees.
o Promote the Comprehensive Plan to fellow community members as a tool to guide policy in their region.

NEXT MEETING: July 22, 2009, 1-3 pm,
Rural Events Center, Abiquiu