City of Rio Rancho staff presented proposed updates to the Development Process Manual (DPM) and matching revisions to Chapter 155 at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, prompting extended public comment from builders, development representatives and residents and a divided board recommendation ahead of governing‑body consideration.

The presentation by Amy Rincon, director of development services, explained that the DPM update (the manual first adopted in 2010) is intended to clarify procedures, consolidate design guidance out of the zoning chapter into a single technical manual, add a formal waiver process, and update standards to reflect national best practices. Rincon told the board the manual is intended to promote consistent development reviews, durable public infrastructure and clearer guidance for residents and applicants.

The proposed changes include lowering the master‑plan acreage threshold from 20 acres to 10 acres while allowing master plans with 90% (instead of 100%) ownership, moving detailed design standards into the DPM to shorten the ordinance text in Chapter 155, adding traffic‑calming language and clearer submittal and review timelines, and requiring that parks under 3 acres be HOA‑maintained unless other public park access is available within a half‑mile walk.

Why it matters: Staff said the changes reflect lessons learned during 15 years of applying the DPM, address aging streets and drainage in earlier subdivisions, and aim to give neighbors earlier notice of large developments. Rincon described “barnacle” or “island” subdivisions — small developments isolated from existing neighborhoods — and said master plans help coordinate infrastructure and park placement so residents are not left without safe, nearby public open space.

Public commenters from the development and home‑building community urged the board to delay or soften portions of the updates. Nikosha Shuttlebauer and several industry speakers said a 10‑acre/90% ownership requirement for master plans would make land assembly difficult in Rio Rancho’s area of many small parcels, slow or halt projects and raise costs passed on to homebuyers. Jared Leiker of AMREP Southwest asked for language clarifying whether the half‑mile park proximity requirement counts private HOA parks or only public parks; he also asked for flexibility in ownership percentage. Home Builders Association representatives warned ordinance changes that increase development cost would worsen housing affordability.

Board discussion focused on three recurring issues: 1) the master‑plan acreage/ownership thresholds and how those percentages affect feasibility for phased development; 2) the parks standard that parks under 3 acres be HOA‑maintained and how the ordinance should distinguish public versus private (HOA) parks for the half‑mile credit; and 3) adding traffic‑calming standards and how to bring police and DOT input earlier into the review process. Several commissioners praised staff’s outreach and the many changes already made following stakeholder meetings but asked for clearer ordinance language on exceptions and on how the city will determine whether a nearby park is a qualifying public park.

Staff emphasized a waiver process in the DPM to address unique site conditions and said the update will be revisited on a scheduled two‑year cycle. Rincon provided a breakdown of comment matrices and said staff had made dozens of changes during the outreach process, including extending preliminary‑plat approvals from 1 year to 2 years and adding a 10% flexibility allowance to the park acreage calculation in some cases.

Votes at a glance (recorded at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting):
- Item 8 — Resolution recommending adoption of the Development Process Manual (DPM): motion to approve made and seconded; the board recorded its recommendation on the item and related Chapter 155 updates; the board’s recorded disposition will be forwarded to the governing body for final action. (See meeting record for roll‑call details.)
- Item 9 — Text amendment for Chapter 155 (land development ordinance updates): motion to approve made and seconded; the board recorded a recommendation that the governing body consider denial (board record forwarded to governing body). (See meeting record for roll‑call details.)
- Consent calendar: approved by voice vote at the start of the meeting.
- Item 4: withdrawn by applicant at the meeting (requested withdrawal accepted by the board).
- Final plat approvals — Los Diamantes Phase 3 (Item 5) and Montreal Phase 2 (Item 6): both final plats were approved by the board (roll calls recorded in the meeting minutes).
- Zone map amendment for Cielo Bonito (Item 7): the board considered a request to rezone approximately 53.86 acres; staff recommended denial and the board did not approve the applicant’s motion to adopt the requested rezoning (motion failed on the record).

What staff and proponents said: Rincon and city planners pointed to the city’s recent growth — staff noted the city added roughly 5,200 single‑family homes since 2020 and that master plans and clearer standards help manage long‑term infrastructure and maintenance responsibilities once public infrastructure moves out of developer warranty and into the city’s inventory. City staff also presented a parks‑access analysis showing “park deserts” where half‑mile walk access to city parks is limited; staff said adding neighborhood park standards is intended to address that gap.

What opponents said: Home‑building and development representatives said the combined effect of lowered thresholds for master plans, ownership percentage requirements, mandatory HOA maintenance for small parks and tougher roadway standards could increase development cost and reduce housing affordability. Several speakers urged tabling the ordinances or giving staff direction to make the draft more business‑friendly.

Next steps: Staff said the recommendations and materials will go to the governing body on Oct. 23; Chapter 155 text amendments require a second reading (statutory process). If the governing body adopts changes, staff said the effective date would be July 1 of the following year (as presented by staff). The city will continue to use the DPM committee and the built‑in waiver process to consider exceptions and to update the manual on a two‑year cycle.

Ending note: The board and staff repeatedly characterized the package as the product of multi‑year work and broad stakeholder outreach; dissent focused on a small set of provisions officers and industry representatives say need clearer language or greater flexibility. The governing body will receive the board’s record and public comment before taking final action.