Los Alamos Planning and Zoning Commission receives training on quasi‑judicial procedures, standing and ex parte rules

The Los Alamos County Planning and Zoning Commission on Feb. 12 heard a training session on quasi‑judicial procedures from Assistant County Attorney Larissa Breen and staff attorney Katie Burrell, who reviewed how the commission should treat standing, evidence, exhibits, site visits and outside communications during land‑use hearings.

Breen opened the training by explaining the commission's role in public hearings: "You are the lawyers, the judges, and the jury," she told commissioners, urging members to treat the written decision criteria in Chapter 16 as their governing standard. She said commissioners have the discretion to develop information in hearings by asking follow‑up questions and that deliberations should be tied explicitly to the criteria in the staff report and the record.

Why it matters: Breen and Burrell emphasized that quasi‑judicial proceedings involve due‑process protections for applicants and other interested parties; failing to maintain a clear, admissible record or relying on outside communications can expose decisions to appeal and reversal. "If you don't hear it or if you don't have a transcript of that record, it might as well have not happened," Breen said, urging commissioners to state reasons on the record for accepting or discounting testimony.

Commissioners focused on practical limits for public participation and evidence. Burrell summarized the threshold test for who may be treated as an interested party: "Standing is kind of the threshold question as to whether or not you should let them speak." She said notice to people within 300 feet of a site creates a presumption of standing but New Mexico case law allows a broader, fact‑based inquiry for others.

Commissioners asked about edge cases. Commissioner Marlon Brown asked how the commission should manage testimony from people who live just outside the 300‑foot notice zone: "And if that process was being in front of us now, what is the process we do when we hear that testimony and they live 301 feet away?" Breen and Burrell said the commission can decide on standing based on the testimony presented and should put that determination and its reasons on the record so it is clear on appeal.

On evidence and credibility, the attorneys stressed that feelings and general objections are not substitutes for proof. Commissioner Stephanie Nockley queried whether a claim that property value would fall by $20 would count as an "immediate pecuniary and substantial interest"; Burrell said the commission must weigh whether a claimed pecuniary loss is substantial under the local code and may require supporting evidence.

Breen reviewed several recurring procedural issues: the commission may recall witnesses while the record remains open; exhibits introduced at hearing that were not in the staff packet should be formally admitted if the commission will rely on them; and chairs have authority to limit redundant or irrelevant testimony but should be cautious to avoid excluding material evidence. The training repeatedly referenced Chapter 16 and the commission's procedure summary table (Table 49) as the primary guidance for notice, decision‑maker designation and appeal routes.

Both attorneys warned members against off‑record communications with staff, applicants or other parties once a quasi‑judicial case is pending. Burrell and Breen said county code and New Mexico case law bar such ex parte contacts. As Burrell explained, "until a final unappealable decision has on the matter has been reached, members of the hearing body shall not ... communicate directly or indirectly with any party or party representative in connection with the merits of any issue involved." They recommended that commissioners who have factual questions about general procedures ask staff outside the context of a pending case but defer case‑specific questions to the hearing.

The training also covered site visits: commissioners may view a property on their own, but any observations or measurements made privately are not evidence in the case and should be raised on the record during the hearing so parties can respond. The attorneys advised that, if a group site visit is held, it should be noticed so interested parties may attend.

The training closed with administrative reminders and an invitation for further focused sessions. Staff announced near‑term department items: a variance hearing scheduled for March 12 and two site‑plan hearings expected March 26; interview activity for a planning manager candidate was scheduled the next day; and the building division planned a workshop titled "Before You Sign Your Lease" at 3 p.m. in Room 110. County Councilor Ren Herman introduced herself as the new council liaison and gave a brief legislative update.

Votes at a glance: The commission approved the meeting agenda and the Jan. 8 minutes by roll‑call votes during the opening of the meeting; both motions passed unanimously. The meeting ended by unanimous vote to adjourn.

The training underscored recurring themes for future hearings: anchor deliberations to Chapter 16 criteria, admit and label evidence properly, document standing and credibility findings on the record, avoid ex parte contacts while cases are pending and use chair authority sparingly to manage decorum and cumulative testimony. Breen and Burrell offered to return for deeper sessions on narrower topics on request.