[PAGE 1]
A G E N D A
Administrative Review Board
City Council Chambers
800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, NM
March 5, 2026 - 6:00 p.m.
1. Call Meeting to Order
2. Approval of the Agenda
3. Approval of Meeting Minutes from December 4, 2025
4. Presentation – Inspection of Public Records and Open Meeting Act. Presented by City
Clerk Jones
5. Petition ARB 26-02 – A request for a variance to Section 2.8.1 of the Unified Development
Code (UDC) requiring a 5-foot interior side setback from both side property lines. The
applicant is requesting a 4-foot interior side setback from both the north and the south
property lines. Located at 6103 McKinsey Ave. Presented by Senior Planner Safrany. (Pg
11)
6. Business from:
• Floor: (Comments are accepted in person, limited to three (3) minutes and to
items that are not listed on the agenda. No formal action will be taken at this
meeting relating to comments provided from the floor.)
• Chairman:
• Members:
• Staff:
7. Adjournment
ALL DECISIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD ARE FINAL
UNLESS APPEALED IN WRITING TO THE CITY CLERK‘S OFFICE WITHIN 15 DAYS.
ATTENTION PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES:
The meeting room and facilities are fully accessible to persons with mobility disabilities. If you plan to attend a meeting
and need an auxiliary aid or service, please contact the City Clerk's office at 599-1101 or 599-1106, prior to the meeting
so arrangements can be made.

[PAGE 3]
Minutes
Administrative Review Board
December 4, 2025
The Administrative Review Board met in regular session on Thursday, December 4, 2025 at 6:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers, 800 Municipal Drive, Farmington, New Mexico.
Members Present: Chair James Denis
Brad Ballard
Carl Winters
Paul Martin
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Mike Safrany
Derrick Childers
Joaquin Gonzalez
Tamra Spencer
Others Addressing the Board: Paul Bastien
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chair Dennis and there being a quorum present
the following proceedings were duly had and taken.
Approval of the Agenda
Board Member Ballard made a motion to approve the agenda for the December 4, 2025
Administrative Review Board, and Board Member Winters seconded the motion. The motion
passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0.
Approval of the Minutes from the October 9, 2025 Regular Meeting
Vice Chair Martin made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 9, 2025 regular meeting.
Board Member Winters seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0.
Swearing in of Witnesses
Tami Spencer, Administrative Assistant swore in all parties that wished to speak.
Petition ARB 25-77 – The applicant is requesting a variance to three of the locations,
number and size standards outlined in Section 5.8.7.A.(15) of the Unified Development
Code (UDC): Off-site signs and billboards.
Senior Planner Safrany presented the following:
1

[PAGE 4]
Variance Request
• Petitioner is Taylor Baumgardner of Summit Locations, LLC
• Address is 3301 E Main St.
• Zoning is Industrial.
• Request is for A VARIANCE TO three requirements found in Section 5.8.7.A (15) Off-site
signs and billboards standards of the Unified Development Code (UDC), to allow for a
31.5-foot high billboard, 199.5 square feet in size, at 3301 E Main St.
• The proposed billboard will not be advertising for the existing business at this location, but
will be advertising for businesses and services at other off-site locations.
Zoning Map
Aerial View
2

[PAGE 5]
Vicinity Map
Current Plat
3

[PAGE 6]
Major Thoroughfare Plan
Street View
Main St. with Approx. Sign Location
4

[PAGE 7]
Street View
20 St. with Approx. Sign Location
City of Farmington Unified Development Code
5.8.7.A (15) Off-site signs and billboards. Such signs may be placed along principal arterial streets
as shown on the city's major thoroughfare plan, except along the designated Native Heritage
Trails Byway (U.S Highway 64, including Murray Drive), which have a minimum right-of-way width
of 200 feet, but only:
a. Having a total area of not more than one square foot for each five lineal feet of highway
frontage;
b. Having a total area of not more than 200 square feet;
c. Having a height not exceeding 26 feet;
d. Being at least 750 feet from any other off-site sign and shall include both sides of the
street; back-to-back parallel faces shall constitute one sign; and
e. Being at least 100 feet from any on-site, freestanding sign or residential building; such
distance shall be measured as a radius.
Three Variances to 5.8.7.A (15):
(15) Such signs may be placed along principal arterial streets which have a minimum right-of-way
width of 200 feet.
East main St. is a principal arterial street, however, the right of way at this location is
approximately 165 feet.
(15) a. A total area of no more than one sq. ft. for each five lineal feet of highway frontage.
5

[PAGE 8]
The allowable sign area would be approximately 96 square feet. The petitioner is requesting a
variance of up to 199.5 square feet.
(15) c. Having a height not exceeding 26 feet.
The Petitioner is requesting a variance up to 31.5 feet in height.
Staff Analysis
1. That a Special Condition or Hardship exists:
The existing property is a 1.18-acre (51,400 sf) commercial lot, with a frontage of 478 feet along
East Main Street, which is designated on the city’s major thoroughfare plan as a principal arterial
street. The East Main Street right-of-way varies, and can be up to 170 feet wide in the direct
vicinity of the subject property. The right-of-way width is typical and does not meet the 200-foot
minimum right-of-way width required for the placement of a billboard. There appear to be no
special conditions or circumstances causing the right-of-way to be restricted or limited, or that are
peculiar to this area or property.
This criterion IS NOT met.
2. A literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms
of the Code:
Free-standing signs and wall signs are permitted along much of East Main Street which typically
advertise on-site businesses for single or multi-occupant properties. A billboard is defined in the
Unified Development Code (UDC), Section 11.1 as a sign which directs attention to a business
or service offered elsewhere than upon the same lot. A billboard must meet more restrictive
criteria, such as placement along a minimum 200-foot right-of-way, to be permitted. This is not
common for many properties along East Main Street.
This criterion IS NOT met.
3. The applicant demonstrates that the request is a minimum easing of the Code
requirements, making possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure.
This request is not a minimum easing of the Unified Development Code and would allow for a
199.5 square foot billboard, 31.5 feet in height. The allowable size per the Unified Development
Code would be 96 square feet, 26 feet high. The proposed square footage of 199.5 square feet
would be over two times the allowable size per code.
This criterion IS NOT met.
4. That the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general interest, the general
purpose and intent of the Code, and is not injurious to the neighborhood or
otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
The proposed variance is injurious to the neighborhood. The intent of the Unified Development
Code (UDC) off-site signs and billboards regulations is to limit the locations, number and size of
signage within the city. The placement of billboards along Main St. is not a common practice and
6

[PAGE 9]
is not in harmony with typical free-standing signs advertising on-site commercial businesses along
this principal arterial street.
This criterion IS NOT met.
5. That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the
underlying district.
Granting of this variance would not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the industrial zoning
district.
This criterion IS met.
6. That no nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the
same district and no permitted use of lands, structures or buildings in other
districts has been or shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance.
No nonconforming uses, structures or buildings in the same district have been considered as
grounds for this variance request.
This criterion IS met.
7. That the applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance requested
were denied.
The business at this location is permitted free-standing signs and wall signs to advertise the on-
site business. Not allowing the variance would not place an unnecessary hardship on the property
owner and would not limit the maximum utilization and potential of this property within the terms
and intent of the code.
This criterion IS NOT met.
Public Input
Letters were sent out to property owners within 100 feet and the property was posted with a sign.
At the time of this report no input has been received.
7

[PAGE 10]
Conclusion
The Community Development Department concludes that approval of ARB 25-77 is not a
minimum easing of the code, does not meet the intent of the code and is not a property that has
special circumstances to allow for a 31.5-foot high billboard, 199.5 square feet in size.
Recommendation
The Community Development Department recommends denial of Petition ARB 25-77 from
Summit Locations, LLC for a variance from Section 5.8.7.A (15) Off-site signs and billboards
standards of the Unified Development Code (UDC), to allow for a 31.5-foot high billboard, 199.5
square feet in size, at 3301 E Main St.
Discussion
The Board and Senior Planner Safrany had a discussion regarding possible shared access
between the car lot and the City of Farmington, if the city ever needed to gain access to their
property through the car lot property.
The Board also asked Senior Planner Safrany to explain how the variance request has changed
from variances requested in the previous petition. The petitioners came down on the size, they
went from 300 sq. ft. to 199.5 sq. ft. The first petition had four variances, this has only three.
There was also a discussion regarding the UDC and right-of-way width and why a variance is
required.
Petitioner Representative, Paul Bastien, 427 Harbor Station Dr., Long Beach MS:
Mr. Bastien stated that after the last petition was denied. They made the size of the sign about
31% smaller, and adjusted the height of the sign. It is a digital face on the front and static on the
back. They do not advertise alcohol or marijuana and feel it would be a great place for a digital
sign for local businesses to advertise on. The city would be able to use the sign for free to inform
the public of city held events.
The Board inquired on how Farmington was picked by Summit Locations LLC for digital sign
placement. Mr. Bastien stated that their company has a research team that looks at state, county
and municipality ordinances to see where a sign can be placed with no variances needed. Some
locations where they think a sign would be beneficial may need a variance, like this location. They
placed 350 billboards in 16 states last year.
8

[PAGE 11]
Rendition Provided by Petitioner
With no further public comments, Chair Dennis closed the public comment portion of this meeting.
With no Board discussion needed, Chair Dennis called for a motion.
Motion
Vice Chair Martin made a motion to DENY Petition ARB 25-77 as recommended by staff. Chair
Dennis seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-1.
AYE: Chair Dennis, Vice Chair Martin, Board Member Winters and Board Member Ballard
NAY: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
APPROVED 3-1
Roll Call
Aye Votes
Vice Chair Martin voted aye because he agrees with staff on their reasons for denial. He doesn’t
want Farmington to end up looking like Potterville.
Board Member Ballard voted aye, he agrees with Vice Chair Martin and he does not like the
location, he thinks it needs to go back 20-30 feet.
9

[PAGE 12]
Chair James Dennis voted aye, he agrees with Vice Chair Martin and Board Member Ballard. He
also agrees with the staff recommendation. He does not like the idea of big billboards along Main
St. He also feels there may be a better spot for a billboard in the county.
Nay Votes
Board Member Winters voted nay because he supports private enterprise and with this being on
private property it should be used for private benefit. He feels that the location is great. He does
think that the sign is still too tall and too big.
Business from the Floor: There was no business from the Floor
Business from the Chair: There was no business from the Chair
Business from the Members: There was no business from the Members
Business from Staff: Staff let the Board know that Community Development is looking to hire
a new Associate Planner, and that there will be no petitions for January. Staff also wished the
board a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Adjournment: A motion was made by Board Member Winters to adjourn the December 4,
2025 meeting of the Administrative Review Board; Chair Dennis seconded the motion. The
meeting of December 4, 2025 was adjourned at 6:52 p.m.
James Dennis Tamra Spencer
Chair Administrative Assistant
10

[PAGE 13]
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD
PETITION ARB 26-02
March 5, 2026
Variance to Section 2.8.1 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) to allow for two (2) four-
foot interior side yard setbacks along the north and south boundaries for property located
at 6103 McKinsey Ave. in a SF-MH: Single-family Mobile Home zoning district.
DESCRIPTION OF PETITION
Petition No. ARB 26-02 is a request for a variance to Section 2.8.1 of the Unified Development
Code (UDC) to allow for two (2) four-foot interior side yard setbacks along the north and south
boundaries for property located at 6103 McKinsey Ave. Interior side setbacks in the SF-MH zoning
district requires five-foot interior side setbacks The existing lot size meets the minimum 6,000sf
lot size and the minimum 50-foot lot width requirements.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
‘PARK LANE ESTATES SUBDIVISION LOT 15 BLOCK 6 BK.1717 PG.532 '
6103 McKinsey Ave. – (Parcel ID R0027365)
11

[PAGE 14]
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant Candido Vigil
Property Owner Bobby Vigil
Location of Propert 6103 McKinsey Ave. (Lot R0027365)
Nature of Petition A request for two (2) four-foot interior side yard setbacks along the
north and south boundaries.
Zoning SF-MH: Single-family Mobile Home Residential Zoning District
Future Land Use Medium Density Residential
Existing Use Vacant Lot
Surrounding Zoning North: SF-MH, Single-family Mobile Home Residential District
South: SF-MH, Single-family Mobile Home Residential District
East: SF-MH, Single-family Mobile Home Residential District
West: SF-MH, Single-family Mobile Home Residential District
Staff Michael Safrany, Senior Planner
PUBLIC NOTICE
Publication of Notice of this petition appeared in the Tri-City Record on February 16, 2026.
Property owners within 100 feet were sent notice by certified mail on February 23, 2026. A sign
was posted on the property February 23, 2026.
BACKGROUND
Petition No. ARB 26-02 is a request for a variance to Section 2.8.1 of the Unified Development
Code (UDC) to allow for two (2) four-foot interior side yard setbacks along the north and south
boundaries for property located at 6103 McKinsey Ave. The existing property is 0.23-acre (10,018
sf) vacant lot 90 feet in width and 110 feet in depth. The property is zoned SF-MH, which requires
15-foot front and rear setbacks, and 5-foot interior side setbacks for single story structures. The
existing lot size meets the minimum 6,000sf lot size and the minimum 50-foot lot width
requirements. The applicant is intending to place a 16 ft. x 82 ft. mobile home at this location. The
mobile home is a permitted use, however due to the 82-foot length of the mobile home, it cannot
be placed on the property without encroaching the required side setbacks along the north and
south property boundaries. The applicant purchased the mobile home believing the length of the
mobile home was 76 feet. This information was erroneous. The mobile home cannot be placed
perpendicular to the street frontage due to issues with existing utilities. The applicant is requesting
a one-foot variance to both side yard setbacks to the north and the south.
PETITIONER’S JUSTIFICATION FOR A VARIANCE
The length of the mobile home was incorrect on the title paperwork causing the confusion. The
residential mobile home is an allowed use. The request conforms with the character of the
surrounding neighborhood. A two-foot variance is a minimum easing of the code. The applicant
will suffer a financial burden.
12

[PAGE 15]
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
City of Farmington Unified Development Code
2.8.1 Residential base zoning district density and dimensional schedule.
ZONING MAP
13

[PAGE 16]
SUBMITTED SITE PLAN
14

[PAGE 17]
SUBMITTED SITE LAYOUT
15

[PAGE 18]
McKinsey Avenue at South Boundary
McKinsey Avenue at North Boundary
16

[PAGE 19]
STAFF ANALYSIS
Variance Criteria – Section 8.12.4, UDC
A variance may be granted only where a literal enforcement of the Code provisions would result
in unnecessary hardship for a particular property. In order to grant a variance, the Administrative
Review Board (ARB) must make a positive finding of fact concerning each of the following or, if
a positive finding of fact cannot be made that the ARB specifically describes the circumstance
that would outweigh the strict requirement for a positive finding of fact and determine that the
variance will not be a public detriment:
1. That special conditions and circumstances exist, which are peculiar to the land,
structure or building involved and are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings
in the same district; and, furthermore, that they are not self-imposed, self-created or
otherwise the result of actions by the applicant.
The existing property is a 0.23-acre (10,018 sf) vacant lot, 90 feet in width and 110 feet in
depth. The property is zoned SF-MH, single-family mobile home. The applicant is
intending to place a 16 ft. x 82 ft. mobile home at this location. The mobile home is a
permitted use, however due to the 82-foot length of the mobile home, it cannot be placed
on the property without encroaching the required side setbacks along the north and south
property boundaries. The applicant purchased the mobile home believing the length of the
mobile home was 76 feet. This information was erroneous. The mobile home cannot be
placed perpendicular to the street frontage due to issues with existing utilities.
This criterion IS met.
2. That a literal interpretation of the provisions of the Code would deprive the applicant of
rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the
Code.
The City of Farmington zoning map shows much of this area is zoned single-family mobile
home. The proposed mobile home meets the proposed use of the neighborhood and the
comprehensive plan. The current setbacks would deprive the owner and tenant a use
common in this neighborhood and a mobile home structure common in size.
This criterion IS met.
3. The applicant demonstrates that the request is a minimum easing of the Code
requirements, making possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure.
This request is a minimum easing of the Unified Development Code and would allow for
two (2) four-foot interior side yard setbacks along the north and south boundaries of the
property. This is a reduction of one foot of setback on each side of the property. The
adjacent properties to the north and the south have existing concrete driveways with no
buildings along the property line that would affect the setback request.
This criterion IS met.
17

[PAGE 20]
4. That the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general interest, the general
purpose and intent of the Code, and is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise
detrimental to the public welfare.
The proposed variance is not injurious to the neighborhood. A substantial section of this
neighborhood is zoned single-family mobile home residential. The proposed setbacks for
a mobile home are consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The Fire
Department and the Building Department had no concerns regarding the reduced
setbacks in this instance.
This criterion IS met.
5.That the proposed variance will not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the underlying
district.
Granting of this variance would not permit a use not otherwise allowed in the single-family
mobile home zoning district.
This criterion IS met.
6. That no nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same
district and no permitted use of lands, structures or buildings in other districts has
been or shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance.
No nonconforming uses, structures or buildings in the same district have been considered
as grounds for this variance request.
This criterion IS met.
7.That the applicant would suffer an unnecessary hardship if the variance requested were
denied.
Not allowing the variance would place an unnecessary financial hardship on the property
owner and could possibly result in the property remaining vacant, depriving a potential
resident of possibly using the property as a home.
This criterion IS met.
CONCLUSION
The Community Development Department concludes that approval of ARB 26-02 is a minimum
easing of the code, meets the intent of the code and is a property that has characteristics
unique enough to allow for waiver of the SF-MH zoning setback requirements.
RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends approval of Petition ARB 26-02 from
Bobby Vigil for a variance from Section 2.8.1 of the Unified Development Code (UDC), to allow
for two (2) four-foot interior side yard setbacks along the north and south boundaries for property
at 6103 McKinsey Ave.
18

[PAGE 21]
19

[PAGE 22]
INPUT FROM NEIGHBORS:
Letters were sent out to property owners within 100 feet and the property was posted with a sign.
At the time of this report no input has been received.
NOTIFICATION LETTERS
NAME1 ADDRESS CITY/STATE/ZIP
DT Properties LLC 6102 McCarty Ave Farmington, NM 87402
Atkinson Duane and Ernestine 6105 McKinsey Ave Farmington, NM 87402
Pennington Arliss and Judy 6101 McKinsey Ave Farmington, NM 87402
Vigil Bobby 6102 McCarty Ave Farmington, NM 87402
Cash Clay and Debbie Trust 6100 McCarty Ave Farmington, NM 87401
Eaton Nestor and Jerilou 115 Candlewood Dr Hendersonville, TN 37075
Jaramillo Joseph Phillip 6102 McKinsey Ave Farmington, NM 87402
Vigil Marlene 6104 McCarty Ave Farmington, NM 87402
Nguyen Duc Chi V 4917 E Main St. Ste D Farmington, NM 87402
Ganzales Maria and Perez Rosa 6007 McKinsey Ave Farmington, NM 87402
Shelton Jackie and Donna 6006 McCarty Ave Farmington, NM 87402
Tapia John 6006 McKinsey Ave Farmington, NM 87402
Beasey Nancy L 6104 McKinsey Ave Farmington, NM 87402
20

[PAGE 23]
21

[PAGE 24]
22