By KIRSTEN LASKEY
Los Alamos Daily Post
kirsten@ladailypost.com
Los Alamos County Council unanimously vacated Planning and Zoning Commission’s approval of a special use permit to operate Worms and Wildflowers daycare in a residence at 113B La Senda in White Rock and directed that the issue return to Planning and Zoning for a new hearing.
The decision was made Dec. 16 during a special council meeting. Councilor Sean Williams was absent from the meeting.
The proposed daycare in La Senda stirred up questions amongst residents regarding noise, traffic and whether at-home daycare complies to the zoning of the neighborhood. Residents submitted appeals on the commission’s approval of the special use permit, which council heard Dec. 16.
The reason behind Council’s decision to reverse planning and zoning’s ruling was, in general, clerical. The notice for the June 10, 2020 Planning and Zoning hearing on the special use permit to the homeowners nearest to the proposed daycare was sent to a previous owner.
La Senda homeowner Patricia Thames wrote her appeal of the Planning and Zoning’s decision, “Due to negligence, Los Alamos County failed to give notice to the closest affected residents at 115 La Senda Road … The record shows a letter was mailed to: BAKER GEORGE A. JR. 115 LA SENDA RD … George is deceased, and the property was sold in September 2019 to DI LEVA LESLIE V & THAMES PATRICIA A. When Mr. Baker’s widow Carol Thomas moved away, she filed a change of address to have their mail forwarded … Note that the Municipal Code does not say notice shall be mailed to a particular property, but rather to the owners of that property. Clearly, that was never done … Consequently, the actual owners did not know at any time before or during the public hearing that such an action was taking place.”
County Assistant Attorney Kevin Powers said the County did publish notice about the Planning and Zoning hearing in the community newspaper, the Los Alamos Daily Post, and posted the notice at the municipal building. He posed the question if the outcome would have changed had notice been received.
The appellee and the applicant for the daycare, Denise Matthews, agreed.
“…would outcome have been different because when the hearing happened and we realized they didn’t have a chance to be a part of that hearing we went over there the next day and talked to them about it … they were part of the appeal the whole time and had a chance to voice their concerns over the last two years,” she said. “I don’t know the outcome would have been different had they been present or not.”
Thames begged to differ; pointing out had she known about the public hearing, she would have provided relevant information at the meeting.
Council David Reagor said it seems the County failed to follow its own procedure.
“Our ruling is kind of self-evident to us isn’t it,” he asked.
Powers said the procedure was followed but it had wrong information; adding that safeguards have been implemented to prevent this from happening again.
Ultimately, council agreed that the notice for the public hearing was materially deficient and as a result the commission lacked jurisdiction and its decision rendered void.
In other business, three additional parties had filed a request to postpone the appeal, which was unanimously rejected. They argued that the County Council could not hear this issue because it goes against a procedural rule that the Community Development Department (CDD) provide a complete copy of all the records to all parties and the council no later than two weeks before the appeal. Additional motions and requests for file were made after the CDD provided the materials, the appellants said.
County Attorney Alvin Leaphart said the rules were followed.
“If the appellants’ interpretation of rule 9 were accepted it would lead to an unreasonable result,” he added. “All the appellants would have to do to keep this matter from being heard and resolved would be keep filing motions. This will continue the resolution of this matter to a time determined by the appellants thereby depriving the appellee, Denise Matthews, of her right of having this matter heard and resolved …”
