Laurie
- Hits: 1359
I would rather be anywhere but here right now, but you repeatedly unlawfully violate our rights as property owners and I’m here with my neighbors to tell you stop it. In three minutes I can share only the tiniest fraction of the extreme unpleasantness I‘ve experienced here. I’m doing this to illustrate to you and my neighbors your corruption in action.
Ms Stout rejected my first home plans. She said I was building two houses because my attached casita had a kitchen and bedroom. She demanded hallways connecting all rooms and if I didn’t do it…I’d never get my F’ing permit. Well I didn’t do it. Instead I resubmitted the same floorplan but without a kitchen or bedroom. Ms Stout still declared it to be two houses and you all agreed with her in your official findings of fact.
You seriously declared an office, workshop, and bathroom to be a separate house only because I didn’t put in Stout’s hallway. And Get This Neighbors: less than three weeks before our rejection they approved someone else’s plans with a casita. Not connected by Laurie’s hallway. No, it had an outdoor 20’ breezeway. Different rules for different folks is straight up corruption in my book. But you didn’t stop there.
I wrote a legal analysis responding to your findings of fact concluding you have no right to demand hallways in anyone’s home. And did you respond to my unassailable conclusions by arguing the merits of Laurie’s hallway?
No. You lied! In contradiction with your findings of fact, you changed your story to the judge. You told him that both our applications had a kitchen. But there was no kitchen on our second application so you manufactured BS. You told the judge that my wife testified at your council meeting that we still had a kitchen and bedroom on our plans, regardless of what the plans actually said. The fact that Laurie had rejected our application before we said a single word that night didn’t temper your BS at all! You attacked my wife with your BS! You lied about what she said and you lied about her being under oath. You lied about what we submitted and you lied about Joe’s approval. You lied about when Laurie rejected it and you lied about why.
But the judge ruled in your favor. I lost. Apparently he’s your buddy because he allowed you to violate the laws of appeals in order to insert false testimony not in the record at the very end of our case and he neatly recited your BS declaring both plans had a kitchen.
That is Corruption in action.
The village deserves better and those of us here tonight demand better. Firing Stout is the required first step on the long path of your rehabilitation.
- Hits: 275
I'm here to address my recent building permit rejection by laurie and the inappropriate link the council has made between your short term rental issue and new construction. Your current rules are like treating a grasshopper problem by banning alfalfa.
My wife and I bought 4 acres on the North East end of Corrales road. We have a barn under construction and On friday I submitted a plan for a 4400 sq ft 3 bedroom home and a 4 car detached garage, both are permissive uses under part 33 of section 18.
As a part of our design we have a 600 sq ft area I called a casita on the plans.
It is connected to the house between the garages and is centrally located to the barn and there is a kitchen, bedroom and small work space on the plans.
Our application was rejected by Laurie yesterday and a resubmitted version that has no bedroom or kitchen in it was just rejected a couple hours ago.
My first issue is the manner of the rejection. Laurie - not Joe - flagged the kitchen in our attached casita and the fact that the casita was not in her mind 'connected enough' to our main house. She directed me to add a hallway to connect the casita to the house and Her last words before hanging up on me were 'when you give me something I can approve I will approve it' - wow so helpful. Section 45 suggests a more helpful coaching approach but I certainly didn't get it. And when I raised a request to the Mayor, she only redirected me back to Laurie who doesnt take my calls anymore.
It feels to me like you all are on a witch hunt and I'm wearing the pointy hat.
We had intended and designed our casita to facilitate our farming which will generally be a lot dirtier than the rest of the house. The kitchen would be where we clean, render,stage, dry and other preparation of our crop - aka food. Wouldn't all of you rather can 500 lbs of tomatoes somewhere other than your main kitchen?
We had designed the kitchen in the casita to do this so we weren't hauling hundreds of pounds of produce through the house - but this runs afoul of your new rules. All kitchens are not created equal - is an outdoor bbq a kitchen? You seem to want to force us to do all our food processing in our main house - just because we might rent our casita out someday - does that really seem fair to you? Wouldn't it be better to just tell us we can't rent our casita rather than tell us we can't build it the way that works best for us?
And to our next offense - We put a bedroom in the casita. When we travel we need someone to tend the farm and the livestock and the casita bedroom is centrally well-situated - you can see directly to the barn from the bedroom and are only 75 ft away. Which also is helpful some nights if we're up all night with a sick animal. And we do occassionally have guests.
But laurie and your new rules say we can't have any of this - because we might rent the casita out some day. Do you understand now how you impact our farm operation plans - hauling hundreds of pounds of crops through the kitchen, sleeping ocassionally in our RV parked where the Casita Would have been, sticking our guests in a tiny RV? Tracking mud through the main house?
- all because you are concerned we might some day rent that casita out? Let me Be Clear - This is NOT fair to us.
I am asking two things - First, obviously I want our building permits approved. Second, I think you need to get a better handle on your short term rental problems and quit trying to fix it through building restrictions.
To me it makes no sense to manage farm land design because you are worried about short term rentals.
Address that problem head on - use quotas, higher fees, greater restrictions, anything really, I'm not interested in how you fix it,
I only want you to back off your building restrictions because we are currently collateral damage. I hope our use case broadens your perspective.
Please Let us build our farm
- Hits: 10505
We've temporarily moved our farm updates so we can focus our website on the corrupt acts of the local government. Please join us November 15 6:30PM at the council meeting to declare an end to the corruption.
11/25 council chat to fire laurie
11/9 Legal Record by Date of Submission
10/25 council chat to fire laurie
july 20 council comments. The village seriously misquotes these comments in order to justify their actions
- Hits: 248
Documentation following NMRA 1-074 procedure for administrative appeals
11/9/2022 - Judge Denies our Rehearing Request
10/13/2022 - Our Rehearing Request
10/12/2022 - District Court Opinion Denying our claims
1/1/2022 - Our Motion to correct the record
12/31/2021 - Our Certificate of Completion of Briefing
12/29/2021 - Village Response to Appellant statement of issues
11/29/2021 - Our Statement of the Issues
10/27/2021 - our objections to the Findings of Fact
10/18/2021 - Village Findings of Fact
9/16/2021 - The Record Proper - All documentation from July 19 through August 5th
9/16/2021 - Video: Special Council Meeting to Appeal Permit Rejections
- Hits: 407
***Please support the effort to hold Ms Stout accountable. We will all be in attendance 11/15 6:30PM for the next council meeting, prepared to share our grievances against the village. Please make the effort to attend***
Video of my testimony from the October 25 Council Meeting
Proof of the village's deliberate misstatements of the facts is in the record. The Record link below is the official collection of all documentation relevant to our case including our arguments and the village's testimony during the appeal. What we point out below are that the facts in the record were reported deliberately incorrectly to the district court in the village's official findings of fact document along with outright lies fabricated in order to justify Ms Stout's rejection of our legitimate building plans.
Oct 25 Council Comments:
If you don't do it, you'll never get your fucking permit
That is how Ms Stout confronted me when she rejected our first application on July 19 . The verbal F bomb over the phone is the entirety of her official act of rejecting our first submission.
I ask you: What kind of organization allows even encourages verbal assault as valid official government behavior?
I have here my final Permit. It is dated July 20. And I have here my approved plans, date stamped August second. Can any of you explain why they don't match? And why did you the council tell the judge under oath that these approvals happened July 21 when that date appears nowhere in any official documents?
I ask you: What kind of organization does not competently track the dates and specifics of their official acts?
The last time I was here was July 20 2021 6:30PM and my wife and I spoke about the two rejections from Ms Stout. Why did you the council tell the judge under oath that our comments from that night somehow justified Ms Stouts second rejection when you know our second rejection had already happened three hours before we made those comments to you. It is a problem for you that none of you can point to anything concrete stating exactly when our second rejection occurred or why – because Ms Stout’s organization doesn’t track that.
Again I ask you: What kind of organization fabricates false statements and false timelines and false facts in order to justify their actions?
My time is short but you know I can go on. In fact I have. I've compiled eight misstatements you have made to the judge under oath. You can find them on my website along with the proof in the record at Badcoyotefarm,all one word, .com.
The failure to properly record your official acts,
the use of intimidation
and the willingness and apparent proficiency of fabricating facts
all point to rot in Ms Stout's organization.
I ask you one more time: what kind of organization does these things? My answer is An incompetent organization run by an incompetent administrator overseen by an uncaring or malicious government. That is the kind of organization that does these terrible things.
I strongly support Curt in his call to have Ms Stout terminated and I point to village code 2 82 and demand that you immediately call for a hearing for her termination based on mine and these other complaints before you.
Finally, I declare you the council to be in deliberate violation of NMSA 14-2-5, the public records policy that states that all persons are entitled to the greatest possible information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of public officers and employees. It is the further intent of the legislature, and it is declared to be the public policy of this state, that to provide persons with such information is an essential function of a representative government and an integral part of the routine duties of public officers and employees.
I strongly suggest you get your shit together.
Badcoyotefarm.com complete misstatement list with proof from the record. Additional proof not part of the legal record is also in our possession.
1. PZA asserts our first permit was submitted July 19
Asserted in: Findings of Fact Finding 2.
Fact: The permit was submitted July 16 and PZA testifies to this in her letter to us Page 20 of the Record
2. PZA asserts our second application was rejected after July 20 Council Meeting
Asserted in: Findings of Fact Conclusion 5 and Village’s response to our statement of issues page 8 Item B
Fact: Our second rejection happened 4:08 PM July 20, 2.5 hours prior to the village council meeting. Page 77 of the Record is the rejection.
3. PZA asserts our third application was submitted July 21
Asserted In: Findings of Fact Finding 1
Fact: Our third application was submitted July 22 and rejected again before a final submission for approval August 2nd. The email chain that captures this is at Page 85 of the record – it is a link to another document.
4. PZA asserts our third application was signed on July 21
Asserted In: Findings of Fact Finding 1
Fact: The same Page 85 of the record disproves this assertion and PZA asserts under oath that she refused to discuss any approvals until July 23 Appeal 13:50-14:10
5. PZA quoted us stating we intended to use the 2nd plans as having a kitchen even if a kitchen was not on the plans
Asserted In: Findings of Fact Finding 6 and the Village’s response to our statement of issues page 8 Item B.
Fact: Our comments at the council meeting occurred 6:30 PM July 20 - after the second rejection of July 20 4:08 PM. Our comments are irrelevant and are nowhere in the record and on July 20 we clearly stated that the 2nd rejected plans contained neither a kitchen nor a bedroom.
6. PZA asserts she rejected Sue Gerber’s plans on April 19 for this same ‘connected’ definition.
Asserted In: September 16 Appeal 1:10:28-1:12:13
Fact: Sue Gerber’s application was not submitted until August after all this was done. In oral testimony PZA ultimately agreed that her definition had never been applied to anyone else before us. It is in the Sep 16 special meeting video at Appeal 1:13:00-1:13:25. We also have Sue Gerber’s statement although it did not make it into the record
7. PZA and Council lawyer asserts our plans were designed as a townhome, with a firewall
Asserted In: Findings of Fact Conclusion 5 and Appeal 54:55-55:45
Fact: In all submissions of our plans seen in the record Page 13 and Page 18 the wall between casita and garage is a simple 2x6 wall which meets no fire wall criteria as established by NM construction standards.
8. PZA asserts her interpretation of the new ordinance was discussed and reviewed by the council prior to use
Asserted In: Finding of Fact Conclusion 1
Fact: The council never saw this definition prior to PZA application upon us. As seen on Page 20 of the Record PZA ties her novel requirements directly to our plan submission.