Sunday, March 26, 2006

Thoughts on meeting with commissioner

Hi Mandy, just a few thoughts if you're going to ask for a meeting with us and the Commissioners: According to county landuse regs. a building permit is required (Secton VII, a). In Section IV, a. and b (under requirement for Special Use permit) density and compatibility with existing uses need to be reviewed, visual compatibility included. There is a comment period for neighbors and Neighborhood Assocs.
Under Section VI and Section V ----under Definitions- are listed the requirements of areas of notice (300 feet) and required notice to Neighborhood associations, if any. This is for non-special use building.
I didn't know if you had the Land Use Ordinance- 1997. I hope this is helpful. At the least, the neighbors and the Neighborhood Assoc. should have been notified and allowed to comment on this development.
Thanks for your work on this.
Kitty
P.S. I don't have a copy of the Ordinance passed as a result of our action. The resolution mentioned in the Taos News. Do you?

Friday, March 24, 2006

Comments on condo development

KATE: IF YOU READ THE TAOS NEWS ARTICLE ANNOUNCING THE RESOLUTION CHANGING THE ZONING LAWS - RE: CONDO DEV., I THINK IT'S CLEAR THAT WE ARE BEING STONEWALLED. COMMISSIONERS AND BLANKENHORN ARE NOT GIVING US THE STRAIGHT STORY.
THE PAPER SAYS "MONDAY'S LANGUAGE CHANGES REQUIRE DEVELOPERS TO SEEK SPECIAL PERMITS WHEN THEY APPLY THROUGH THE PD TO BUILD MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS SUCH AS CONDOMINIUMS." THE CHANGE ALSO REQUIRES NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCS. TO BE NOTIFIED OF THESE APPLICATIONS.
ALSO "ALLEN VIGIL APPLAUDED BLANKENHORN'S EFFORTS TO CLOSE THE LOOPHOLE", ACCORDING TO THE PAPER.
I THINK JIM IS RIGHT. WE SHOULD DEMAND AN IMMEDIATE MEETING WITH THE COMMISIONERS AND PLANNING DEPT. AND ASK THAT THEY BRING A COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT WITH THEM TO THE MEETING.
WE SHOULD HAVE WITH US A COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING WITH HAD WITH ALL THESE PEOPLE WHERE THEY AGREED WITH US AND PROMISED TO ADDRESS IT RIGHT AWAY - (WHICH THEY DID).
KITTY

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Update on Condos 3/23/06

Yesterday my daughter Rachel called the planning dept. code enforcement and informed them that dirt work was proceeding without a building permit. Today the County visited the site and were shown a building permit which was not posted. A worker there insisted that it was not necessary to post the building permit while preliminary dirt work was all that was happening. I have no idea if this is true. I also saw the building permit when I came by later.

This morning Nic Jaramillo called me. Andy Montoya had tipped him off that work was beginning, which was news to Nic He said that Allen Vigil had signed off on a zoning clearance for this project before Dec. 7. Nic requested that Vigil notify the neighborhood association that this had been done, so that we could file an appeal within the 30 day period allowed. Vigil replied that this was not usually done and was not required by law, but apparently said he would do it. Nic checked with the planning dept. today and learned that this had not been done. He spoke to Tom Blankenhorn, pointing out that the neighborhood association could not file an appeal if they didn’t know about the action. Nic said to me that he thought DMNA should file an appeal because we were not notified about the zoning clearance. Blankenhorn told him that the 30 day period would begin the day we first saw dirt work start – Mar.16

Later this morning, Tom Blankenhorn called. He said that Allen Vigil had to give the developers their zoning clearance because they had fulfilled the requirements before the grace period for the Land Use Ord. Amendment expired – Dec. 7. The project was then grandfathered. He said an appeal would fail, because there was no legal basis for it. He recommended not filing an appeal. I said I understood his argument, but that Des Montes Neighborhood Association might file one anyway

The 30 day window means we cannot wait until the next board meeting to discuss this. So some kind of decision made by email and/or phone is going to be necessary. The question is will this appeal benefit DMNA’s agenda in any way? As a neighboring land owner I do not see that filing the appeal would further any agenda of mine. Will it help us to be a minor thorn in the side of the County? Nic seems to think so, but maybe he was just trying to give us something to do.

What does the rest of the board think? How should we go about making a decision? As president, it might be a good idea for Kate to weigh in on this first, and we can follow any procedural process she suggests. There is a time constraint.

Looking forward to a quick reply.

Linda

Friday, March 17, 2006

Update on Condos

Yesterday dirt work started at the site and Rachel and I went over to see if they had a building permit. Michael Donleavy was there, and said that he had a building permit but that he didn’t have it at the site and would have it the next day. I asked for the number of the permit and he said he didn’t have to give me that information. Rachel then called Tom Blankenhorn and he told her that the developers had gotten their zoning clearance before Dec. 7 so that they were in fact grandfathered and would be able to get their building permit if they did not already have it. Today all was quiet at the site. So we are still looking for the building permit but we do not have any legal basis to affect the process, as I understand it.

This is another reason why writing a zoning ordinance in Des Montes is important, in the long run. In the short run, I think everyone needs to place protective covenants on their land and urge their neighbors to do so. The amendment to the Land Use Ordinance which was passed Nov. 7 only mandates a special use permit process for developers who want to build condos.

Linda

Sunday, March 05, 2006

Update on Condos

went to the Planning Dept. Friday, filled out a request for information (and got it stamped) and inquired whether the Casas des Montes (6 free standing units on 1 acre owned and developed by Michael Donleavy and Lynn Lovell) has a building permit. They told me no. Carol Cassell and Sholan Chambers have done the same over the past six weeks and received the same answer. I told Gary who I spoke to that I had been told that any building permit issued after Dec. 7 would trigger a special use permit. Gary’s opinion was that it would not, since they had already obtained other permits (sewer and water ) before the Land Use Amendment was passed Nov. 7. However, he said he had no record of a permit. I went over to try to talk to Tom Blankenhorn who is out of town until Weds. I did speak to Barbara Martinez, who has been deputy town attorney (not sure if she still is). She said that “it depends on when the project started.” What does that mean? I asked. It depends, she replied. So it sounds like there are legal grey areas here.

I have been told that they will begin dirt work tomorrow. If I see activity on the site I will go over and check to see if they have a building permit posted. If they do I will take the number. If not I will call the Planning Dept. to red tag them.

Keep you posted,

Linda.