The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 on Aug. 28 to conditionally change zoning on two parcels at the Picacho Hills entrance from D1L (low-density residential limited) to C-2 to allow development of a winery and associated uses, including a tasting room, bistro and event space, while explicitly prohibiting a set of commercial uses cited by commissioners.

Planner Albert Casillas, presenting staff analysis, said the request applies to two parcels of roughly 9 acres and 9.35 acres (about 18 acres total) out of a larger 73-acre ownership and that staff found the request met the decision criteria in the Unified Development Code (Section 203.D.0.1) and was not inconsistent with the county's Plan 2040 goals, including Goal G2.2 (safeguard desirable neighborhood character) and Goal G6.7 (support small-scale agricultural businesses). "Based on the findings of facts, staff analysis, [and] agency comments ... staff is recommending approval to the planning and zoning commission," Casillas told the commission.

Property owner Scott Bannister, the applicant, told the commission he has been planting grapes nearby and said he envisions a retail tasting room and events venue on the east side of Picacho Hills Drive and production/storage facilities on the west side. "We will have an abundance of parking, that would probably be about 3 times what is required so we don't run into the issues of clogging up that artery for the people who live there year round," Bannister said. He also told commissioners construction likely would not begin for "3, 4, 5 years" while vines mature: "we've gotta get to about 80 acres of grapes before I will ... build this."

Dozens of residents spoke during the public comment period and urged denial or limits, saying C-2 zoning is too broad. "It's not about a winery," resident Steven Mandel said. "It's about zoning C-2. It's spot zoning." Speakers repeatedly raised traffic and pedestrian-safety concerns at the Picacho Hills Drive intersection and warned that a blanket C-2 rezoning could permit uses they consider incompatible with the neighborhood's residential character.

Christina Ainsworth, director of community development, cautioned commissioners about overly narrow zoning restrictions. "If you limit a zoning district to just 1 use or just a handful of uses, it could be perceived as that zoning district being inappropriate," she said, advising that the commission can eliminate clearly incompatible uses but should not narrowly write a district to one sole use.

Commissioners discussed alternatives including requiring agritourism-related uses, limiting specific incompatible uses, and the practical difficulty for the applicant of investing in design work without zoning certainty. The commission recessed to a closed session to consider the language of a conditional approval. When they reconvened, Vice Chair Bob Czerniak moved to conditionally approve case Z25013 to C-2 while prohibiting a set list of uses; Commissioner Lier seconded the motion.

The motion as stated on the record prohibited the following uses on the rezoned parcels: hotel and motel; recreational vehicle park; gas station; retail facilities (various square-footage tiers as listed in the motion); cannabis microbusiness and cannabis producer operations; auction yard; crematorium; research/testing laboratory tied to cannabis; construction yard; mini-storage and RV/boat storage; ground transportation terminal; and several other uses expressly read into the record. The roll call returned six "yes" votes (Commissioners Lier, Garcia, Fisher, Acosta, Vice Chair Bob Czerniak and Chair Bill Zarges); no commissioners voted no.

The commission's approval is conditional and the staff will prepare an order that records the rezoning and the expressly prohibited uses. Casillas reminded the public that a decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners. The vote ends the commission's consideration of Case Z25013; further implementation (site plans, access permits, building permits and fire/safety requirements) will be handled through subsequent permitting processes. New Mexico Department of Transportation approvals would be required for any direct access to Picacho Avenue, and county engineering will issue access permits for driveways on Picacho Hills Drive.

Why it matters: The decision enables a winery and other agritourism uses at the Picacho Hills gateway while attempting to restrict uses residents identified as incompatible. Residents and commissioners focused their debate on long-term certainty: rezoning grants a property owner broader rights than a one-year special-use permit, and residents said they worry a future owner could pursue different commercial uses if the winery is not built. The commission's conditional approach is intended to allow the applicant's proposal while limiting some otherwise-permitted C-2 activities.

What happens next: Staff will draft the formal order describing the conditional approval and listing prohibited uses; future site development will need to meet building, fire, septic/wastewater and access requirements and may require New Mexico DOT review for any Picacho Avenue access. Decisions can be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners within the timeframes set by county rules.