Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sdp Hopsbury topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hopsbury owner seeks village sign‑off after state liquor review; commission hears sketch review but takes no action
Summary
Owner of Hopsbury (7222 4th St NW) told the Planning and Zoning Commission he built outdoor dining areas during COVID under a village fence permit and was recently told by state alcohol enforcement to obtain village sign‑off; staff said village records do not show an approved site development plan and confirmed a change over 20% in the service area typically triggers an SDP amendment.
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque received a sketch review July 8 from Jimmy Scholl, owner of Hopsbury at 7222 4th Street NW, after state alcohol enforcement asked the business to produce a current floor plan and secure village sign‑off for outdoor alcohol service.
Scholl said Hopsbury has operated outdoor seating and service areas for about five years and that the village issued a fence permit for outdoor seating in April 2020. He told the commission the outdoor areas were constructed during the COVID period when outdoor service was the primary way restaurants could operate. ‘‘We did receive a fence permit from the Village of Los Ranchos that issued that in April 2020...They knew that it was for outdoor seating,’’ Scholl said.
Planning staff (Brennan Williams) said the sketch review is the first of three steps in the SDP process and that staff could not locate an approved site development plan on village records. Staff explained that under the comprehensive zoning code changes to a property’s service area that exceed roughly 20 percent normally require an SDP or an amendment. Staff asked the applicant to provide any documentation of an approved SDP the business might have; if no prior SDP exists or if the service area increase is confirmed, Scholl’s business will need to proceed through the formal SDP steps.
Commissioners questioned whether Hopsbury’s current outdoor areas represented a substantial change in service area and whether material changes such as replacing gravel with pavers could trigger a return to the formal review process. Scholl maintained that the physical configuration has remained as it was for five years, and that the state’s recent request for documentation — and the village’s sign‑off on the liquor license paperwork — was the reason he appeared before the commission.
Because the sketch review is advisory, the commission provided feedback and did not take formal action; staff noted the commission may provide preliminary, nonbinding feedback and that the applicant would return if a preliminary application is filed.
Next steps: applicant to supply any existing SDP documentation to staff; if none exists or if staff confirms a greater‑than‑20% service area change, the applicant will need to submit a formal SDP application and proceed to preliminary and final review stages.
