Planning board rejects subdivision text amendment after developer objections; DPM update postponed to July 22

The City of Rio Rancho Planning and Zoning Board on June 1 voted down a proposed text amendment to Chapter 155 of the Rio Rancho Code of Ordinances that would have updated subdivision standards, and later postponed consideration of the Development Process Manual (DPM) update to July 22 after extended public comment from developers and builders.

Michelle Castillo, planner with the City of Rio Rancho, presented the proposed text amendments, saying the changes would update Chapter 155 (Subdivisions) to reflect new terminology, clarify definitions, and align the subdivision code with provisions in the DPM. Castillo said proposed changes include renaming "open space" to "parks recreational," adding definitions for developed and undeveloped park area, reducing the acreage threshold for when a subdivision may pay payment-in-lieu of land dedication from 25 to 10 acres, and adding a half-mile, ADA-accessible walk requirement to the nearest park for all new subdivisions. "SOP recommends that the planning and zoning board recommend approval to the governing body subject to the following findings of fact," Castillo said.

The proposed changes drew immediate and repeated opposition from local developers and industry groups in public comment. "I would actually speak in opposition to the subdivision ordinance updates," said Scooter Haines, a local developer, citing concerns that changes increase development costs and that some stakeholders had not been adequately notified. Jared Leiker of AMRAP Southwest said his firm and others received no timely notice and asked the board to continue the item. "We believe that community outreach and feedback should have been done," Leiker said. Several developers and the Home Builders Association of Central New Mexico asked the board to delay action and conduct further stakeholder meetings, raising specific objections about park sizing, the half-mile walk requirement, appraisal timing for cash-in-lieu, and master-plan thresholds.

Developers said the proposed park rules would force many small subdivisions to build pocket parks that an HOA must maintain because the city will not accept parks under 3 acres. Jared Leiker and other speakers argued this would increase costs per lot, reduce affordability and encourage small, fragmented development to avoid the new requirements. "This would force the development to have an HOA maintained park and then force an HOA fee," Leiker said, adding that HOA fees can affect first-time buyers' affordability. AMRAP's Brian Aragon and others flagged a provision that would require a certified appraisal for fair-market value after platting and before approval; they said appraisals at that stage could artificially raise land values.

Michelle Castillo and other staff, including Amy (Development Services), responded to questions about outreach and legal references. Castillo said the DPM update and companion changes had been the subject of 33 meetings, open houses and outreach efforts over several years and that staff had distributed drafts to stakeholders in September, October and December 2024, followed by a 30-day public comment period in April 2025. "We have been working on the DPM for roughly three years," staff said, and noted meetings with the Home Builders Association and developers. Staff also said they would verify fire-code references with the fire marshal and that some language came directly from the DPM draft.

After extended public comment and board discussion about outreach, park maintenance and the master-plan thresholds (including a contested proposed requirement that master plans be prepared only when at least 75% ownership of the study area is held by the applicant), the board took a roll-call vote on the Chapter 155 text amendment. The motion to approve item 8 failed (majority of board members voted "no").

Later in the meeting, on a separate but related agenda item, the board considered adoption of a resolution updating the Development Process Manual. The board voted to postpone that item to July 22 to allow additional review and stakeholder engagement. The postponement motion passed by roll call with board members voting to continue the item.

Speakers from multiple development firms and associations — including AMRAP Southwest, the Home Builders Association of Central New Mexico, NAOP/NAIP, Braso Homes, and local agents — emphasized that the proposed changes as written would add time, cost and uncertainty to development approvals and urged further technical meetings with staff and consultants before any code changes move to the governing body. City staff committed to return with additional clarifications, responses to public comments, and, if requested by the board, targeted outreach or a workshop addressing park maintenance, master-plan thresholds and appraisal timing for cash-in-lieu.