Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Notice Policy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission adopts Open Meetings Act resolution and discusses expanding public‑notice radius, signage standards

3289670 · May 13, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Planning and Zoning Commission approved its annual Open Meetings Act resolution and discussed draft language to expand mailed notice for zoning entitlement cases from 100 to 300 feet, add certified mail and standardized on‑site signage requirements, and require signs be "visible to the public." Staff will return with a formal resolution.

The Sandoval County Planning and Zoning Commission approved its annual Open Meetings Act resolution by voice vote during the meeting.

Commissioners then considered draft language for a proposed notice‑of‑public‑hearing resolution intended to expand and standardize how the county notifies property owners about zoning entitlements (conditional uses, variances and zone map amendments). Dan Beaman, planning and zoning director, presented the draft and explained the principal proposed changes: increase the mailed certified‑letter notice radius for zoning entitlement cases from 100 feet to 300 feet and require applicants to post on‑site notice signs placed a minimum number of days prior to the hearing and removed within seven days after.

Beaman said the intention is to ensure a broader and more consistent public notice process countywide. "My recommendation, based on the feedback that I got was that the notice of the mailing ... We have existing right now 100 feet for the zoning entitlement cases. And so I think I heard 300 was 1 number that I heard, so I put that there," Beaman said.

Commissioners discussed how to make on‑site signs effective and enforceable. Commissioner Victor (recorded only by first name in the transcript) urged language to ensure signs are placed where the public can actually see them — for example, at the driveway entrance facing the roadway — rather than a location on the parcel that a passerby would not notice. Beaman noted the draft already allows the zoning officer to designate sign locations; commissioners debated whether to codify a visibility requirement or rely on the zoning officer's discretionary designation. One compromise adopted for the draft was to add the phrase "visible to the public" so posted signs must be in a location the zoning officer determines is conspicuous for public notice.

Commission discussion also addressed sign durability and standards, with commissioners noting signs should be sturdy enough to withstand wind and weather and suggesting language that signs conform to "industry standards." Commissioners discussed color options (yellow/orange/green) and decided to leave specific color and material details to implementation, while asking staff to incorporate a reference to industry standards in the resolution.

Beaman said staff has accounted for expected additional mailing costs in the planning and zoning budget and will return the draft as a formal resolution at the next hearing for commission approval before forwarding to the Board of County Commissioners for final adoption. The draft remains subject to further editing and formal vote in a future meeting; the transcript records discussion but not a final county ordinance on notice changes.