Rio Rancho council rejects Orchard Park master plan amid concerns over ‘holdout’ lots and pocket parks

The Rio Rancho City Council on a voice and roll-call vote rejected R24, the Orchard Park master plan, after an extended debate about ownership claims, park acreage and design quality.

Director of Development Services Rincon presented the plan as a roughly 43-acre proposal north of Northern Meadows that would seek R4 zoning for medium-density single-family lots. Staff described the plan boundary, phasing, a proposed roadway layout and an estimated parkland calculation of about 2.2 acres; the applicant said the plan provides 2.4 acres and includes additional open space and trail connections.

Sergio Lazzoia, the applicant’s agent from Tierra West, told council the project would deliver about 278 single-family lots and meet minimum lot standards. Lazzoia said the project team continues to pursue purchases of interior “holdout” lots and has reached additional acquisitions since the plan’s prior presentation.

Multiple councilors pressed staff and the applicant on a recurring issue: several lots inside the drawn master-plan boundary are shown as “not included” (holdouts). Council members said that excluding interior lots from the formal boundary creates a loophole that allows applicants to claim near-100% ownership while leaving private parcels subject to different standards. "I think to claim that this is anywhere close to 100% is kind of preposterous," Councilor Linnentine said, criticizing the schematic holdout pattern and asking how adjacent sidewalks and access would be ensured for those properties.

Councilors also criticized the proposed park configuration. Staff said parks under three acres would be HOA-maintained under the city’s Development Process Manual (DPM) and that recreation requirements for play equipment generally begin at three acres; council members called the plan’s fragmented park parcels "piecemeal" and questioned whether the smallest pieces could serve as meaningful play areas. The discrepancy between staff’s 2.2-acre park calculation and the applicant’s 2.4-acre figure was noted during questioning; staff said they would re-check the exhibit and underlying plan.

After more than an hour of questions and comments from council, the council took a motion to approve R24 and then voted. The motion failed on the record and the mayor announced the item was defeated.

What’s next: The staff and applicant indicated they will continue to work on parcel acquisitions and technical changes at the preliminary plat stage if the developer pursues amendments. The record shows the Planning & Zoning Board had previously recommended approval, but the council’s concerns about holdout lots and park configuration were determinative at this hearing.