Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rezoning request for two parcels in Rio Rancho Estates fails after debate over future right‑of‑way
Summary
A proposal to rezone two parcels (approximately 2.64 acres) from TZ/unzoned to R3 (mixed residential) was denied after debate over future right‑of‑way demands for Rainbow Boulevard and concerns whether R3 remains workable after required dedications; the motion to approve failed on roll call.
The Planning & Zoning Board rejected a motion to approve a zone‑map amendment that would have changed two parcels in Rio Rancho Estates Unit 22 (about 2.64 acres) from transitional/unzoned to R3 mixed residential.
Tim Dvorak, planner with the city of Rio Rancho, recommended denial, citing uncertainty about whether the proposed residential zoning would function after future right‑of‑way dedications for Rainbow Boulevard — a corridor identified as a future regional principal arterial requiring a much wider right‑of‑way. "Staff finds that the proximity to the future right‑of‑way and property access does not justify a zone map amendment," Dvorak said.
Applicant Jared Leiker (Outer Rim Properties) argued the parcels should be allowed R3 zoning and presented a conceptual layout for about 20 single‑family lots. He said the engineering and right‑of‑way issues should be settled at preliminary plat and that a large right‑of‑way take should not by itself be a reason to deny rezoning. Leiker told commissioners that a 56‑foot dedication cited by staff would make several lots undevelopable and said he would rather resolve the dedication issue through engineering and platting.
Board members debated whether to postpone to give the applicant time to respond; staff said applicants typically have several weeks to submit additional material but that the ABM focused on long‑term roadway needs. The applicant declined a postponement and urged a vote.
On roll call the motion to approve the rezoning failed (two yes, four no). Commissioners who voted no cited concerns about future arterial needs and access; those who voted yes said they believed R3 could be workable with later engineering. Because the motion failed, the board did not forward a recommendation of approval to the governing body.
The applicant may choose to submit additional engineering or layout information for future consideration at preliminary plat or a later hearing.
