Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. I'd like to call uh the February 19th, 2026 meeting of the Santa Fe County Planning Commission to order. Um may I have a roll call, please? here.

Here. Thank you very much. Um, please all stand for the pledge of allegiance. Thank you. The next item is approval of the agenda. Staff, are there any changes to the agenda? Chair, planning commission members, there is no change to the agenda.

Thank you very much. Uh may I get a motion to approve the agenda? That's what the third case, right? It was posted to be tabled. So, I think there is no change from that post. Oh, sorry. Um, okay. I'll approve I motion to approve the agenda. Um, with the one tabled, thank you. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor of approval of the agenda, please signify by saying I. I.

I. Any opposed? Thank you. The agenda is approved. Next is approval of the meeting minutes from the January 15, 2026 planning commission meeting. Uh, may I get a motion to approve the agenda? The minutes? I'm sorry. Motion to approve the minutes. Yeah. Motion to approve the minutes.

So, we have a motion in a second. Are there any edits or corrections that anyone has noticed? I I found one thing on page nine paragraph one. The word irritable should actually be irrigable. It's about irrigation rather than irritation. So if we could make that change, um that would be great. Uh so we have a motion and a second. Please uh all those in favor of approving the agenda with that slight modification, please signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? The the minutes are approved. Uh, next we have case number 25-5260, John Kimquitch, Eugi Ununice Trillo Timquitch, and Debbie Trillo varants. Um, thanks very much, Maria. You'll be presenting Thank you, Mr. Chair and commissioners. Marie Martinez, building and development review specialist with the growth management division. Case 25-5260 Don Timovich Ununas Triill Timuitch and Debbie Triill Variance John Timkovich Unistill Timovich and Debbie Triill applicants request a density variance of chapter 8 table 8-11 dimensional standards residential community. The subject property is within the residential community zoning district res.

The property is located at 24 ceramic court and lies within district commission district 5. The lot was created by deed in 1978. The subject property is 3.271 acres and consists of five dwelling units. Evidence found that one dwelling unit was permitted 11 Trinity and the other four were not. for the structures 24A ceramic court, 24B ceramic court, and 12A Trinity Road and 12B Trinity Road or developed without permits. Although a mobile home is identified in aerials as legal non-conforming, that structure has since been replaced or modified. The property is served by a single well RG-28908 and four liquid waste systems that have been reviewed by the New Mexico Environment Department and deemed insufficient with a number of bedrooms that exist in each dwelling. Ununice Truhill Timkowitch and her husband John M. Tinkoich own the structures to the south with Debbie Trill owning the structures to the north. The applicants are requesting the density variance in order to create two lot residential subdivision. Each lot would be approximately 1.63 acres with the northern lot consisting of two dwellings and the southern lot consisting of three dwellings. The base zoning of the property resc allows for one dwelling unit per one acre. The applicants have addressed the variance criteria as follows.

Building and Development Service staff has reviewed this request for compliance with pertinent SLDC requirements and has found that the facts presented support the request for variance recommendation. On January 8th, 2026, this request was presented to the sustainable land development hearing officer. The hearing officer memorialized findings of fact and conclusion of law in a recommended order on this request. The recommendation of staff and the recommendation of the hearing officer based on the evidence presented is for denial of the request to allow a variance of density of chapter 8 table 8-11 dimensional standards RESC residential community of the SLDC which allows one unit per 1 acre. If the Santa Fe Planning Commission finds the application the application has met the variance criteria and recommends approval of the variance, staff recommends the following conditions be imposed. Mr. Chair, commissioners, may I enter these conditions into the record?

Yes, please do. This report and the exhibits listed below are hereby submitted as part of the hearing record. Thank you and at this time by Sam for any questions. Thank you very much. Uh, commissioners, do you have any questions of staff?

I have a question about So, um, I think NMED um said that um the septic systems uh it wasn't enough for the amount of bedrooms that um for all the the houses, but then one of the conditions says if this was approved, no more um septic would be allowed.

Yes. Um, Mr. Chair, commissioners, um, Mr. Tinkerich went by environmental or he spoke with environmental and they sent an updated um, email which is part of exhibit J and they're saying that after a second Condition six, applicant shall obtain necessary liquid waste permits from NMED and comply with all applicable requirements and conditions. The applicant will also need to address the concerns of the NMED on all four liquid waste permits will require amendments to reflect a new ownership property size and UPC number upon property split.

Are there any other questions? Commissioner Trill. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Miss Martinez. So just so I can understand this uh better, currently this is deed on as a 3.271 acre lot and they're looking to split it into two residential lots of 1.63. Now there is there's no restrictions there. They can do this legally at this time. Is that correct? Um, according to zoning, it it is that property is zoned for one dwelling per one acre and at this time they have five dwelling units on the property. So, it's the density.

Okay. But I guess my question is though is that the first step here is for the subdivision into two lots and there's nothing preventing them from doing that currently. Is there

u Mr. Chair, Commission Member Trio? So yes, as it is right now, they are not able to divide the land because neither one of the uh structures qualify as an accessory dwelling unit. They're actually primary dwellings. And so if they were to try and be split right now, the northern lot would have two primary dwellings where only one is allowed and then the southern lot would have three primary dwellings where only one is allowed. And so they're asking for a density variance, but it doesn't meet the accessory dwelling uh because it's not it's not half the size of of the house that's or the what could be the larger house. Is that correct?

That is correct. They don't meet size requirements and I believe um obviously four of them since they have four different septics don't meet the utility shared utility qualification as well. Okay. And so so they can't do this first step only because there is already two homes or three homes on each of these lots in order to split the lot. They need the the uh the variance approval just to split the lot. Okay. Okay. Um thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you. Any other questions of commissioners? Commissioner Pava.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Good good evening Marie. I have a question about the um similar any similar situations in the surrounding area. When I zoomed out on on an aerial looking at how the area has developed over the years, there there's quite a variety of housing types. It's a little bit hard to tell whether other density variances may have been granted. Do you have any insights about that, Mr. Chair? Uh, Commissioner Pava, I do not

I guess the other question I have just stepping back a little bit would be how did this come to the county's attention? How did the applicants become applicants? How did that happen? Because apparently se several of the structures don't have building permits and one that does is for a second story edition. So, could you fill us in a little bit more on the background of that, please? um Mr. Timurovich and his wife and his sister-in-law came in to um to do a lot split or request a lot split and that's where we found out about the dwellings that weren't um permitted and that's when they uh discussed we discussed with them uh doing a variance.

Any other questions of Commissioner Buger? Mr. Miss Martinez, I have a few questions. Okay.

Um, so the first, uh, if I understand it right, when following up on Commission Commissioner Melan Purard's question, uh, the last memo that NMEED sent, if I understood it right, it was an approval as long as the minimum size of the south parcel was 1.65 65 acres. Is that correct? Let me pull that. While you're looking, I'll feel compelled to talk. The uh uh has a with what the submittal um application is with what's before you, is it still an equal split or uh was it adjusted to reflect that um directive from NMED?

That was a request from the applicants. They wanted to do the split evenly and equally. Okay. Okay. I will.

So the memo here from Glenda Wakey, the environmental um I met with John Timkcoich and he was able to provide SFC assessor updated bedroom counts for each of the houses on the parcel at 3.271 acres. These pro this the property has the following approved liquid waste system permits. So yes, if everything remains the property size does not fall below 1.65 acres um they should be okay. It says it will be voided the the permise will be voided if um if it does fall below 1.65. Thank you.

Uh next question. Uh you have an exhibit H in the packet a precode aerial of sight. um where it showed that uh structures 11 Trinity 24 A and B ceramic did not exist. It then the note it said uh 1980 photograph. Uh so is this was this an old photo? And the uh I guess what I'm getting at is uh uh when was Was 24A ceramic court? Was that uh u was it a permitted structure? Thought I read a couple places in the packet. One in your staff report where it said it wasn't. And then another place may might have been something that came from the applicant. It said that it was. Um but I'd be interested in whether it was permitted and when it was built. Um um the now the reason I'm asking is that so looking at the the the record the there were when this was purchased in 1985 two structures already existed on the property on the southern part of the property is the mobile home and the block they were there. uh the one on the permanent structure on the southern part of the property was was was permitted and uh I'll ask the applicant later when that was and

20 as far as the ceramic court I just be interested when it's built and it just in my opinion uh there may be a distinction between somebody that did something 20 30 years before the code, this code had ever been approved and u something that happened after the code was put in place. It uh so it's the reason for the questions.

So um Mr. Chair, commissioners, I the one that was permitted was on 11 Trinity and the other four were not. Any other questions, Commissioners? Commissioner Bruce Crawford. Yeah, thank you. I'm just trying to follow up on everybody else's questions as well and stuff and just kind of get the background. So, um, that aerial was a 1980 aerial what I saw. That is correct. 1980 and that was 12B Trinity and that mobile home was present at that time. Yes, it was a single wide mobile home and the 12B though was not permitted

uh is what you mentioned, right? That is correct. Okay. And then when was 11 Trinity built since that was permitted, right,

Mr. Mr. Chair, Commissioner. So, just to clarify, the mobile home identified as 12B. Um, so that is legal non-conforming. We did identify that as legal non-conforming, but that mobile home had since either been modified or removed and replaced. Um, which takes it out of legal non-conforming status. Um, so just a clarification on the mobile home. Okay. Okay. Um, Commissioner, um, I'm showing here on the exhibit I that the building permit that they did have was Septe was dated September 27th, 19, it's like 93. 93. Okay. And that was for its second story edition though,

the 11 Trinity. Yes, for the 11 Trinity one. And then there's no permits for 24B and 24A ceramic. Is that correct? That is correct. Do we have any does staff have any idea of when those were built or when they showed up in aerials or anything like that?

Okay. So, um so I have a second permit here notice um a building permit number 860971 uh that was dated 32790 and that was listed as 24A ceramic. Okay. Okay. So, there was some sort of permit or something like that. And obviously all these places have addresses. So, my understanding is that county 911 addressing would have provided an address for these properties. Correct. Can you can staff explain as far as like how that works as far as addressing and and permits? If there were no permits, do you still get an address, etc.?

Mr. chair, uh, planet commission members. So, when an applicant or a constituent comes into our GIS division and they ask for address verification, um, they're not going to look for permitting or legal non-conforming or anything. Um, they will just provide address. If there's not an address for that particular structure, they will they will provide one and make sure that they create one um, for 911 addressing reasons. Yeah. Okay, that makes sense for safety reasons. Um, and then my other questions I guess is maybe this is more of a question for the applicants, but they have been owners of this property this this whole time. Is that kind of staff's understanding as well? The father.

Um, yeah. And maybe I'll ask that question when the when the applicants come up and stuff, you know, but um um question Let me sneak one in while you're Yeah, go ahead. Yeah.

Um, so I I want to go back to something that Commissioner Buger noticed. Um, if the environment department has said that in order for this to work, it'll be required for each lot to be no less than 1.65 acres. If you double that, that's 3.3. There's no way to get a three. Isn't so maybe I'll I'll ask I I just Yeah. So, Commissioner Buger, am I mistaken? Uh uh Mr. Chair, uh the southern part of the southern tract has three structures. That was the one with a 1.65 limitation. Got it.

So, it just couldn't be an equal split. Right. However, the request is to split it equally. Um and so that's kind of a fatal flaw for that for that approach. Understood. Thank you so much. Did you recall your question?

Yeah, I somewhat did. Yeah. So, I I guess what I was trying to get with some of my questions just trying to figure out background of when these buildings were built, whether they were actually uh built by the applicants or whether it was the applicant's grandfather, etc. You know, how how these came to be about since they were not permitted and obviously they were built uh without following uh you know, zoning codes, right? Um so, that's kind of really the gist of my question there. um just to kind of get some background from staff and from the uh applicants as far as like you know what's the history here? How did it come about? You know did they do something that they shouldn't have done or you know etc. Right. And and then my other question though I guess which is more of a question to staff is I'm just curious I mean with respect to the fact that you have all these non-conforming structures uh even as as it exists right now right I mean there the applicants are trying to ask for subdivision but even as it exists right now they can't have five houses on a 3 uh acre property correct and so my question to staff is what what ramifications or what what happens I as if the board here denies this application with respect to you know the five houses that are there etc. and the fact that it's already non-conforming that they came into you know they came in and found out hey you know you got to go to a variance to get it subdivided plus you got all these non-conforming non-permanented structures

so Mr. Chair, Commission Member, um, Crawford. So, the applicants, if it denied, the applicants would have the opportunity to appeal that decision to the board of county commissioners. Um, and then if that decision is then denied at the board of county commissioners, they would then be able to appeal that decision to district court. Um potentially what would what would have to happen is um you know there would have to be uh I'm not necessarily sure if we would enforce you know uh demolition to come in in into compliance. Um I'm not entirely positive if that's the the case on that. Um but there are multiple steps that need to be taken um in order for for this process to keep going and Michael may be able to to answer on what's the mot you know what could possibly happen to this property. Yeah, Chair and Commissioner Lacruus Crawford, I think we'd have to sit down with the applicant um and discuss what options are available if it's, you know, slightly more than three acres. So, they're allowed to have three homes at one per acre um that they could get, you know, after the fact permits for. Uh the code does allow for an accessory dwelling unit. Obviously, we'd have to discuss with them how to work that out with like the separate utilities. maybe there's a way to modify it to combine the utilities and then you're left with sort of a one structure too many issue and whether that's removing one of them or um there's also the possibility and I don't know the leg work with the with the environment department and whatnot that would that it would take um you could also try to you know get really creative with your lot lines and again an unequal split you know, creating three lots that are each an acre. So, you have three homes

on one acre that meet the minimum. And then I don't and I have no idea if they could then make the remaining two share utilities and meet the size requirements of an accessory dwelling unit. I mean, that's a wild idea. Um, but and we'd have to get creative and have those discussions outside of, you know, this public forum.

Yeah. And that's what I was curious about because obviously if somebody would be coming in and trying to do this per code, there's, you know, all these things come into play with respect to shared uh utilities, etc. And that does bring another question real quick and then I'll step back and see if anybody has other questions or comments. But uh there are four septic systems in here right now, correct? Um, and with the five houses, what which one is sharing the, you know, that other septic system, I guess. Do we know? Okay. Uh, that's probably a um I'm sorry. That's probably a good question for the applicants.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah, that makes sense. And then any other utilities do we know as far as do all these houses have their own are they all individually electrically metered? Uh, do they all Thank you. Sorry to interrupt, but those are questions that that staff might not be aware of. So, but we will have an opportunity to speak with the applicant. Are there any other questions of staff? Commissioner Pava, then Commissioner Buger.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I notice on the aerial that the mobile home that's on the south end of the property in the center of the the proposed southern lot appears to be very close to the lot lines. Does it does it or and any of the other properties all comply with setback variances or setback requirements? I notice that they're not applying for any. So, I presume staff assume determined that none were required.

Mr. Chair, Commission, Commission Member Pava. So, all structures do meet the setback requirements. Um, keep in mind that with the aerials, the lot lines um don't match up with the parcels exactly. They're a little bit off. So, that's why there's a little bit of a deviation there. Um, but all structures do meet the setbacks.

Thank you. That's that's instructive. The other question is a followup to Commissioner Trjillo's inquiry about ways to to make this happen. If if one of the structures, say that small mobile home, manufactured house, whatever it is on the south side, were to go away, is it possible that in the remaining two lots, you could have a a structure and an accessory dwelling unit? I I know you responded to that partially, but I'm following up on that.

So, the one of the structures would have to qualify for an accessory dwelling unit, which means it would have to be a minimum or a maximum of 1,400 square ft, but that would have to be 50% of the primary residence. So, if the primary residence is not 2,800 ft² heated, um it would have to be enlarged. That way, it would be able to meet those qualifications. So, whatever the smaller units are, um, if they were under 1,400, there's a possibility that the other structures could be expanded to make them 50% of the primary. Um, so that could be a case as well. Thank you, Commissioner Buger.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It wasn't a question for staff, but just a follow up on the point that Commissioner Lacruz Crawford had made. Uh I'm not an attorney like Mr. Pino, but I think uh one of your questions was what happens if this um this is denied and it stays denied. I think uh one one impact would be that uh uh if if the owner either owner to the north or south wanted to pass it on to their heirs uh it would it would be difficult to pass it on through a conventional deed maybe just quit claim deed here's our interest whatever it is and that's it but if they wanted to pass it on I think it would be difficult to do that and if they wanted to sell it. I think it'd be difficult in this situation to sell it as well. Again, I would defer to any expertise attorney would have, but that'd be my opinion. Thank you. Any other questions of staff from members of the commission? Thank you very much, Miss Martinez.

Thank you. So now the applicant or agent if you want to come up and make a presentation that would be great. I do John M. Timitch 45 Coyote Springs New Mexico. Thank you, chair, Mr. Chair and commissioners. I appreciate this opportunity to uh to explain the situation that we have. I think you see the logistics that uh are involved with this very very much. Um my wife and her brother years ago u when they were both still single purchased this property an investment and um they held on to the property existing on the property were the were the casita the small building on the on the south side and the mobile home and they held on to this property as an investment. And then when my wife and I got married, we we obtained a permit in 1992 to build a house on there. And it was approved by the county and state for that. As Marie stated that it was the only one completely permitted. Um my brother-in-law Robert between my wife and him, they decided he would have the north to move it out of the south and he went forward with getting a permit. We do have a copy of the permit from the state. Sorry, excuse me. But, uh, he didn't go to the county. Apparently, it just

didn't get put through the county. So, it was partially done. So, we have two two structures there that were permitted, one not completely, and then two that were existing when they purchased the property. So we were under the impression that we were okay as far as the perming was concerned with what was there. Um we uh we put in septic systems. We went through that process got that all accomplished and then my brother-in-law decided he wanted to add a structure. Well unfortunately he did that without being permitted. We realize that this is inconsistent with all of the right requirements for permitting and zoning and so forth, but um what what we wanted to do, we we brought this we brought this upon. We're admitting that we have no problem with accepting responsibility and that's what we're trying to do. When we came into the county to request a lot split, a legal lot split, we wanted to do the right thing, get this get this done in a proper way so that we can pass this down to our two sons and Debbie can pass it pass her property to her son because we're not going to be here very long, frankly. and and the ability for us to to manage this property until we do pass it down is all we want to do. We realize we can't split it anymore. We can't build anymore on it. And we don't want to. We really just want to make this a legal property split in compliance with the county and with the state. And we've made an effort over this last well almost nine months now to get all of this in compliance. We've gone through the septic system process with this with the state. I just completed that with with the state getting it into

compliance. Therefore, that that recommendation for the lot split. But and as far as the lot school is concerned, that's that was her requirement for us to be in compliance with the size of the structures and septic systems. So, and we are we're very we're very happy to go ahead and adjust the property size in order to get the split and that's not a problem for us. So, uh, right now we we've, uh, we've gone through all of the steps, be compliant, be in compliance, and we're simply asking for a little understanding and ability for us to go forward. Thank Thank you very much. Um, commissioners, do you have questions of the applicant? I guess I had those previous questions that I had mentioned just to kind of get some background for you guys as far as like

when these houses were built if you have like a timeline for each one of them.

So when they bought the property the the two structures the the one structure and the mobile home were already existing. Um, we did we did sell that mobile home and replace it with another mobile home, which we admit we didn't get a permit to do it, but we thought since there was already a mobile home there, it was permitted for a mobile home. Our misunderstanding, our our fault. Um, we went forward and got the permit for 11 Trinity in 1992 93 I believe it was. And then a couple of years later, not even that earlier, um my brother-in-law Robert, who has since passed away, he got the permit through the state for his property 24A. Uh and that's how we came about with at least four of the structures believing that they were in compliance with permitting. One that two were existing, so we thought there was no issue there. Um 24B. Yeah, that's just out of compliance completely, but we're we're more than ma ma'am, please, please, please hold on. And if you do want to say something, you need to be sworn. So, just or

Yeah. So, I don't know what she wants to say, but uh um uh could could I could I just interject? Um, so 24B you said that was not permitted. About when was that built? Um, I believe somewhere around 1998. 97. 97. 1997. Yes. So, um, that's the timeline for all those structures. Thank you. Then I think the only other qu the other questions that I had that were more for you is just out of those four septic systems uh which one is sharing the one septic and then also uh what is

sorry out of the because there's five houses and four septic systems. So I was just kind of curious which you know which two places are sharing the one. So the uh the casita and the and the mobile home share one septic system. The others have their own. So that's 12A and 12B. Is that right? 12 A. 12A A and 12B. Thank you. Thank you. And then as far as I also had a question as far as other utilities, I'm just kind of curious about that. Like all the all the utilities are separate. So all the electric, gas, everything's got everything. Okay. Commissioner, I have a follow up to the septic because I'm still trying to figure this out. Um, so you said you worked with NMED.

Yes. Is this after that they told you that the current systems were doesn't they don't have enough capacity? Yes. Yeah. I uh I did the corrective actions that they required. They did an after the fact after the fact permit. Oh, okay. Uh of the or I should say an unpermitted uh inspection of the of the septic system. Found it to be compliant. We just got that approved from the NMED and that's part of the packet. Okay. Great. Thank you. Any other any other questions? Commissioner Buger.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so one question. This should be a question of both owners. Uh, what so what's your reason for requesting the lot split? What do you intend to do with the property if this were approved? Well, we're we're going to hold on to the property and pass that on to our to our uh sons and and that's that's it. But we wanted to have her family to have separate property and our family have separate property. Okay. Uh I'll save the next question for that. We've never met Deb. Debbie. Debbie. Okay. If if Alton I'll save it for

so so any more questions of Mr. Templich commissioner Trillo Mr. Chairman um some so the 24A is a home built on a foundation. Is that correct? It's built Yeah. It's a slab and Okay. And 24B is built on a foundation. 24B is built on a slab. Okay. and 11. Is that a home built on a slab as well? No, it's built on a foundation. Well, on a Okay. On a foundation. So, the the is 12 12 A and 12B are those both mobile homes or they No, the the 12A is a casita. It's is built on a slab.

Okay. And the mobile home is set it's not it's not set on permanent. So 12B is the only mobile home on the property. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Heel. Would you care to be sworn?

Yes. Deborah Truill, 24 Ceramic Court, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Um, I just want to let you know, please, please use the mic.

The reason that Uh the 24B is not permitted because 20-year-old son committed suicide and my husband needed something to do so he would not go out and drink or do anything silly. Him and his son were like this. And that's the only reason why he started building that home or we would not we would not have had it built at all. But he needed something to do with his grieving so that he wouldn't go and do something bad that I did. I started drinking and he chose to find something else to deal with his grief. And that's the only reason why he built that 24. I don't even believe he even thought about a permit or anything. He just started digging in the ground and it went from there unfortunately. And I apologize for that on his behalf.

So, so sorry for your multiple losses, ma'am. Thank you. you know, there's nothing I could do, but whatever the they ask of me to take care of it, I'll do whatever I have to do because like I said, we both want our sons to inherit the properties and not have to deal, you know, in this on their own. Thank you. And Commissioner Buger, I believe, had a question for you. And if you could speak in the mic, you can adjust it. Thank you. So, Mr. Ho, um, same question I had for Mr. Timkovich. Uh, if this were approved, uh, what do you intend to do with the property? What's the purpose for you requesting this last?

So, I can't leave it to my son, my only son that I have, so he can keep that property because his father built everything on it with his own hands and wanted to stay with him and his family hopefully. Uh, one more one more question. Did uh when uh uh when 24A ceramic was built, was uh did y'all live there before or was it built for rental or was it uh what which one? Uh 24A ceramic. Did Did you live there before or was it just built for

No, we we started building it so we could move there. We lived here in the city and we started building down there to move out there to the other side of town. Okay. So, thank thank you very much. Thank you. And I have a question for both of you and it's just kind of a mechanical question. So, when you get your tax bill, you have to sit down together and figure out what's how does how does how do you work that? because that's what we've been doing for 30 years. Got it. Okay. Thanks, Commissioner Trillo.

So, Mr. Chairman, uh I'm just assuming that the lot split that you were trying to have granted, I don't have a north arrow on this, but 24A and 24B would be one lot and then the line would be kind of where I see a fence line. The three structures would be the other lot. Is that correct?

Correct. Okay. And so, M. You know, Mr. Chairman, as I look at this, I look at 24A and 24B. Now, I mean, it's it's not a very precise measurement, but 24A by roof area certainly looks maybe as much as 50% larger than 24B, which would be would be defined as an accessory structure. uh 11 and 12A. 11 looks about twice the size of 12A that's permanently built. That would be defined as an accessory structure. It it seems like 12B is the one that's that's here that's creating the issue. If not, this would be basically a legal lot split. I think it would be pretty close to being a legal lot split in my opinion. And so I'm I'm just making an observation here.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Trio. So according to the assessor's records the on 12 uh let's see 24A is approximately 2300 square ft heated and 24B is 1,000. So by square footage wise it would qualify as an accessory dwelling unit. Again the other qualifying factor for an accessory dwelling unit is it has to share the utilities with the primary residents and these do not. um 24 A and 24B do not share the same septic. Those two have their own septic. So that's another disqualifying factor uh for it being qualified as an accessory dwelling unit.

Okay. And but Mr. Chairman and uh Dominic, the people have come we've granted variances over issues like this before. I know this body has I've sat there where we've granted issues where they weren't sharing the same utility and also even variances on accessory dwellings that were really close and to the size. So I just want to throw that out that that has been that has been granted in the past. And so I get it that you know it's much easier doing this after the code that you're forced to share the utilities when something's built in the 90s. It's not really a thought back then to do it. So it's nobody would have known to do it back then and so here we are today and it's it's yeah just nobody had known. So thank you Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Any other questions Commissioner L Cruz Crawford.

Yeah I just want to follow up on that. I think uh I think uh Commissioner made a good point here and stuff. Sorry, I'll get close to the mic. But um but yeah, I think you made a good point there too and stuff. And that's something that I'm um curious about too because I was thinking the same thing. You know, if I guess and this is more a question for staff is I know this is coming at us as a subdivision request and as a density request. Um but as as Mr. trio mentioned and stuff at least with respect to the 24 the ceramic side of things right we've got a smaller unit that could you know classify as an accessory dwelling unit other than the fact that you have the two septic systems and the utilities that's separate but you know in previously we've you know the board has approved at least with the septic stuff is that is that a different type of variance request though than what's being requested if it was to like classify as as that

in in the past some of these requests have come in as um you know variance of the ADU standards instead of a variance of density. um those have come in the past, but it's been kind of staff's opinion um that it would be a little more restrictive um you know for a a density variance. Um and that was previous administration's decision as to run these through as density variances. So generally the density variance is a better way to go. So like for instance that top side we were to board was to agree it's better to do it as a density scenario and allow two dwellings in that in that 1.63 63 scenario than to do a variance on an ADU.

That is correct. Commissioner Buger, Mr. Chair, uh question. Uh Mr. Timkovich, did I understand you correct that 24A ceramic did have a permit approved by C? Yes, it did. I have a copy of it here if you would like to see it. I believe you. the uh if this were approved, what would be there was a condition for a after the permit uh after fact.

After the fact permit that say I read somewhere you were a compliance officer so you know all about this. Yes. the uh um what would be your plan to go get that for 24B ceramic from C? How do you go about doing that?

Well, whatever uh requirements that the county would have for us to get a permit, we would would follow that process. We're more than happy to jump through the hoops that we need to to be compliant with state and county regulations. So, we would we would work closely with the county staff, keep them apprised of our um progress on getting an after the-act permit with the state, whether that required an independent building inspection to uh ensure compliance, a review of of whatever plans that Robert had at the time and uh go forward with a permit through the state and then put it through the county for approval and go from there and pay whatever penalties we need to pay. That's all there is to it.

Thank you. Just one one more question, please. This would be a staff. uh I don't know how much institutional memory there is there now but uh um before before this before the SLDC was approved uh what regulations governing density were in place in this area if anybody knows

uh prior to the 2016 SLDC there were still variance requests for for density request or any type of you know property that went over density. Um so that was still a process back then. But do you know what the density limits were back then that they built they built this back in the '9s then for this particular property? I do not. Okay. Thank you.

And then Mr. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Buger, I just on the point about the after the-act permits, I do just want to, you know, mention that with Santa Fe County, we will issue a development permit and zoning approval for after the-act permits. In conversations with the state, it's going to be a little bit different. Um, the state is not as willing to issue after the-act permits because they do not want to do any type of invasive inspections. So, typically what they're saying and what they're going to require um for a permit with the state is they're going to require either an architect stamp or engineer stamp um on a full, you know, set of plans for the structures that are unpermitted. And and what permit is that from the state?

That would be the actual building permit. It's an after the fact construction permit. Correct. Commissioners, any other questions of applicants or staff? Commissioner L Cruz Crawford. I'm just curious with the fact that we've got two houses on Right now the the request is a subdivision split. On the north we'd have two houses. On the south we'd have three. Are we dealing with two different density requests in that condition or what's happening there?

Mr. Mr. Chair, commission members. So the the density request is is for the entire property as it is right now. And so again, you wouldn't be approving the subdivision. You'd be approving the density to allow the properties, you know, if it were to be subdivided to have the the two primary residents on the northern lot and then the three dwellings on the on the southern lot. Um so there's not an exact, you know, density number, you know, of how many dwellings per per acre. um it would kind of just be a general um approval to allow these houses as they as they are situated right now in order to be divided. So that's partially confusing to me and then I'll let you but just so are we are we doing both here approving both the density and the subdivision or do we need to approve the density first?

Chair and commissioner uh today you were only considering the variance to density essentially two units above the three to allow for five which brings the current property into compliance. that variance would run with the land and then the the subdivision request is an administrative appro would be an administrative process after the the variance approval if it gets approved. Interesting. Okay.

I I have a question for staff. Um in my review of the TAC report, it said that if this is not approved or acted on in 8 months, um it will need to be resubmitted to TAC. The eight months ran out yesterday. Um, and I'm wondering is that a an issue or is that just me reading too much? Mr. Chair, commission members. So, the eight-month expiration is from when they first come to TAC and when they make the application. They've made the application, which is why we're here for the variance. Great. Thank you very much. Any other questions for uh Commissioner

Trill? So, uh this question for staff. So, uh, back with if if this we did pass this variance here and it got just subdivided in the upper half 24 A and B ceramic court, that would already be a legal lot of record just by us passing it. It wouldn't even be a variance increase because you'd have a main home and you'd have an accessory dwelling. And so my question would be is if currently somebody sits on an acre and a half in this area has a home that was built in the 1990s and another home that was built in the 1990s and one was half the size and they got utilities done separately back then and they come into the county to add a garage on. Then would they be out of non-compliance because they don't meet the the accessory dwelling standard? and you wouldn't grant that permit and they would have to come in for a variance.

Mr. Chair, uh, Commission Member Trio. So, if these were, you know, unpermitted structures and they came in for permits, yes, we would have to go through through current SLDC standards. We wouldn't go and look back at what the standards were back before 2016. We would look at what's current code. So if I hear you correctly, then somebody that So even even if both these structures were fully permitted in the 90s and one was half the size and one was the full size and now the land development code comes in 2017 and one to add a garage and they come into the county because they have separate utilities. How are they going to be not would they have to come for a variance at that point because you a permit wouldn't be issued.

Yeah. Chair and Commissioner Trio, I I guess it's it's hard to solidly answer that because we in this instance, the structures were not permitted and we it's hard to speculate if if they could have been permitted in under the 1990s code. If I if the old code did allow the density, which staff here cannot tell you, I can't tell you today that they that they would have or could have. Um, but if they were legally permitted, we adopted a new code and they were legally non-conforming, they would not have to get a variance to add a garage because it's not changing the density that that exists on the property. The issue with this case today is that there were things that were not permitted. We can't say if they would have been allowed by the zoning when they were built. they don't meet the zoning when they today and they need to get permits in order to come into compliance and move forward.

Okay, Mr. Chair, and and I'm sorry, I don't know your name. Uh Michael Voss.

Michael. Michael. So under the scenario I gave because it's going to help me with my decision here is moving if if if I if I own this top piece of property and I permitted both these homes in 1993. I permitted both of these homes and but they don't share they have separate septic tanks and they have their own electrical service and I go in for one of these just to add a garage onto it. is non-conforming in the SLDC code based on that there you have a main home and an accessory structure based on the the density currently under the code and therefore they would would the county issue me this permit?

Yes. So the property

why would that be any different now that why would it be an issue now when they put electricity and sewer back in the 90s on both of these houses then? So, if you had two two if you had a lot and you had two peritted dwellings and you that was before code, they're legal non-conforming, then you want to come in and add a garage. A garage is not a dwelling, so you're not exceeding any type of density there at that point. In this case, none of the these structures were not permitted with Santa Fe County. And and so now to come forward and to try and permit these structures for current code, we have to go by current code. And these structures don't meet current code as far as sharing of the utilities. You know, they may meet the the the current code and the rest the requirements for size as the 50%. But they're still not sharing utilities. They're still have their each uh own septic, their own power it sounds like as well. So they're looked at as their own primary dwellings or own secondary primary dwelling and and perhaps a secondary dwelling.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Any other questions from commissioners of applicant or staff? Commissioner Buger. Usually it just rolls off the top,

but the uh if if uh it were deemed an advantage in this case for getting an approval, would you uh uh for your for all of your legal non-conforming for the 24B ceramic And for the manufactured home, uh the one that you you updated changed, uh would you be open to getting um approval from CD for those structures? So what was what is was not permitted would become permitted.

Yes. Whatever we need to do to get anything permitted, we would follow that requirement.

Just the last comment with that, I this uh this is uh this is quite a variance request and I'm not prone to deviating from the code that much, but uh uh you're not going to do anything more to the property. your whole purpose is to to clean up the title. Uh it uh uh if if we can achieve this and still get uh structures that were unpermitted permitted and still be in compliance with NMED. I think that's a good thing. That's my comment. Any other questions of commissioners?

Yes. Sorry. Commissioner Lru Crawford. Um I don't know whether staff answered this before, but as far as the density for this lot and as far as any surrounding lots in this area, what are we dealing with here and stuff? Is there some precedence for this or not?

Just at a quick glance. Um, I mean there are some similars sized lots as the three uh the 3acre lot that's currently there, but there are some smaller lots um as well. But um it's hard to say without doing some research if those were precode or if those were um small lot family transfer transfers that were allowed prior to the 2016 code.

Okay. And then uh because I do notice in this I think this whole area the is adjacent to a mixeduse area, right? I'm just looking at other zoning around the area and stuff. I believe to the north of that you've got residential estate which is one per two acres. This one is one per one. Correct. And then you've got mixed use to the right of that. I'm just trying to think about that stuff too. And then my other question for staff is just really as far as like you know obviously as a as a board member here we're you know there is the complying with this idea of hardship right so what is I mean I've read you you know the brief on that but I'd like to hear it directly from staff as far as like you know is there is there any hardship here you know with you know that as far as codewise is concerned as far as we should be aware of or not

chair and commissioners I I mean I think staff um and and SLC hearing officer's recommendations were for denial based on the on the criteria. Um you can certainly review that criteria and look at the hardship. Is it a hardship to potentially force them to remove a structure or not? Um is it and there's also the aspect of practical difficulties. um you know their argument about um being able to properly transfer title to the portions of the property in the future um could be something to consider. Um so I think that's and then I think the the other part of the criteria is the idea of substantial justice. um trying to balance between strict code compliance um while allowing the needed flexibility but not so much flexibility that you're undermining uh the code for the future.

That's that's a good point. That's and that really kind of came back to that first question that I first had as far as like what what ramifications or hardships would there be of a denial of this request, right? because I was curious about that from the beginning. It's like what happens if you deny this, right? Um because I think right now the idea is to get the density request so that at least all these five structures that you guys are trying to do the right thing and get it all, you know, up and up, you know. Um, I guess my only other comments, uh, more so to to you guys as property owners and stuff like this is that, you know, I look at these sometimes, you know, I look at these often as far as like, hey, is this something that was, you know, is this an issue that was given to you by the purchase of the property or is an issue that you caused yourself? In this situation, I do think this is an issue that you caused yourself because obviously you clearly built a lot of homes without permitting, etc., and stuff. You did not follow zoning codes. probably not even the ones that were back that were in effect during the time that you were that you were building, you know. So, it's always kind of hard when somebody comes in. It's more of like asking for forgiveness instead of permission, you know, because then it's like what do we, you know, what do we do as board members? Do we do that constantly or what? You know, I mean, I do understand the need for variances. Absolutely. You know, I mean, I'm an architect and this is why we have the board and this is why we have variances, right? Is to allow um flexibility as as you know as we was saying with respect to what somebody can do with their with their lot you know it's just harder when you're coming in after the fact and it's like you know more of a slap on your hand and you're going to get you know so it's it's you know it's just something to uh to consider because the other part or comment general comment that I had is like you know it's like is it our responsibility as a board to help you guys out with what you can do legally amongst yourselves right because I mean obviously I get it you guys are trying to subdivide provide this in such a way that it's, you know, it can be easily

handed down to your family. Totally understandable. You know, what you guys are doing is it's totally fine. You know, it makes sense, right? Um but also just curious if that's something you guys can handle within your lawyers as opposed to, you know, us uh you know, helping you to subdivide the property, etc. But, um those are just general comments and uh yeah,

thank you, Commissioner. Um so um hearing no further questions of applicant or staff. This is a a public hearing. Is there anybody either here or online who is Yeah, we're all set. We're all set. Thank you very much. Um is there any anyone else um either in the room interested in speaking on this issue or online? chair. Uh there's nobody online indicating that they wish to speak on this matter.

Okay. And nobody's leaping up to speak on the issue from the room. So the public hearing portion is closed. Um the commissioners, what's the will of the commission? Mr. Chair. Yes. Make I make a motion to pass the variance case number 25-5260 with the uh staff's recommendation. It sounds like these folks are willing to try and work on all these these recommendations to to meet the needs and bring title into clear.

So, we have a motion and and I'm imagining there will be an amendment to that motion. So, before we right time to um Commissioner Buger, Mr. Chair, at what point could I offer a friendly amendment to that motion? Oh, it it needs a second. So, we have a motion for approval. Um, do we have a second? So, we have a motion and a second. Um, uh, discussion.

Uh, may I offer a friendly amendment to that motion? uh that the the southern in the formal lot split I presume there's a formal lots split plant that would be created that the southern tract would be uh at least 1.65 65 acres to be in compliance with the NMED requirement and that uh there be a note on the plat that uh both that unpermitted structures uh shall be um properly permitted through C. So the commissioner is that

that's that's a friendly amendment if if if it if that's something that can be noted on a plat. I'm not sure but if it can't but I mean it can be the that the process and is added to the recommendations that that they that they go to the state of New Mexico to approve permit whatever direction they get from them. But I don't know if if that could actually be noted on a plat. So, so perhaps let's ask the attorney if in a moment. So, understand uh just to make sure that the first part of your uh request is that considered friendly. Yes. So that when the when the parcel is surveyed to define the two lots, the southern lot is at least 1.65 acres in order to conform with the requirements of the environment department's liquid waste division or whatever they're called. and and uh Roger, do you have a have thoughts on whether a note on the plat that all existing structures shall be property permitted or shall be brought to the property? chair and commissioners. U Michael lost the land administrator. Um I would not place recommend not placing that as a plat note but just as a standalone condition on the variance approval that you require uh that the applicant to obtain the after the fact construction permits um from C and then staff will enforce that condition as they move forward.

And and is that not one of the existing conditions? Uh, chair and commissioners, there's an exist existing commission for after the-act permitting from the county. Oh. Um, but we can clarify that they need both county and state approval. Got it. So, commissioner, are you are you have Where was that? Mr. Chair, John Lato, building development supervisor. I just John John, we we can't hear you. Hold on. Let's see if we can get you turned up a little bit. Voice from the sky. John, are you there? Yes, I am. Um, hold on, John. We're gonna try. We have to mic you up.

Turned up. John Lovato. Oh, is he calling in on Zoom? John, can you um increase the volume of your mic if see if that's possible? We We can barely hear you. Test test. Can you hear me? Not really. Um, let me now it's a little bit better. Why don't you shout into your mic and please identify yourself again? John

John Lovato, building and development supervisor. I just wanted to uh put out there that when you put the condition of it getting approved by CID, CD often requires them to hire an architect or an engineer to structurally check the components of that structure. So that might be a hiccup on their end. Thus, that's why we put after the fact permits for Santa Fe County.

Understood. I and I believe that the applicants have indicated that they are willing to go to the expense of hiring um prof you know design professionals to um submit you know it's it's really like what's in the walls what's in the what's in the foundation to do that analysis and submit that. So I think the the applicant has indicated that they would do that when they gave their testimony. So thank you very much for that input John. Um and and I think we understand that. So we have a motion um uh to approve with conditions um modifying so that the southern lot is at least 1.65 acres when it's permitted and to add an additional condition that the applicant um go through the CID process for after the-act permitting. Uh, we have a motion and a second for that. Um, may I get a roll call vote, please?

Mr. Chair.

Yes, Roger. Um, I think staff was also expressing discomfort and and I would second that with respect to the the condition regarding the size of a second parcel. A lot split at this point hasn't even been applied for and to try to look into the future and dictate how that how that would have to happen if it were to be applied for is is potentially an overreaching I guess. So, so what you're saying is while we can recommend to the applicant in order to smooth the road with the environment department when they do the surveying and apply for the actual um acreage of each lot. That's not a condition we should put in. Instead, it's a recommendation. Commissioner Buger. Then noting that uh I would like to amend the friendly amendment uh to include uh as a condition of approval that the applicant comply with uh the N the MN the NMED uh requirements all NMEED requirements.

Okay. So we have a a a changed friendly amendment that would be um instead of specifying lot size we are requiring well the only thing Mr. Chair I think option condition six already states that that that NMD will be the applicant will also need to address the concerns of NMED on all four. So I think that that's already addressed in the the condition believe too I would agree. Okay. So, uh, would you like to withdraw your amendment, Commissioner Brooker? Sure.

Okay. So, we have an we have a motion for approval with all conditions um that have been listed uh by staff. May I get a roll call vote, please? Um, approve. I approve. Yeah. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Thank you all. Good luck. Okay. The next item is case number 25-5200 Nancy Martinez Craft Variance. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is David Ruiz. I'm a senior plan review development. Um, yes. Uh, Mr. Sure. Commission members case 255 5200 Nancy Martinez Craft Variance Nancy Martinez Craft applicant Benny Martinez agent request a variance of chapter 7 17 9.2.1 standards and a variance of chapter um 7.17.9.2.2 to allow a residence to be constructed on a ridgetop. The property is within the residential French zoning district within the Chimayo Community Overlay District and located at 54 El Potero Road within section 1, Township 20 North, range 9 east. Commission District 1, SDA2, uh, parcel number 188003105. The applicant request a variance to construct a singlestory family residence on the ridgetop on a 12acre legally platted lot located at 54 patrol road in Chimayo. Previously the applicant as requested by Hemis electric co-op graded and a power pole on the top of the ridgetop for power to the site and graded the entire top of the lot without permit. The applicant was issued a notice of violation and applicant applied for permit to stabilize stabilize the disturbance.

The applicant has addressed the variance criteria as contained in the memo. Uh on January 8th, 2026, the hearing officer met and acted on this case. The hearing officer recommends denial of the requested variance. The hearing officer stated based on consideration of the evidence in this case, approval of the requested variance would not be consistent with the the spirit of the SLDC. Rather, denial of the request variance is consistent with both the spirit of this the SLDC and with substantial justice. The general pro prohibition on ridgetop construction absent a variance or a lack of other buildable location on the relevant property exist to promote safety and avoid potential negative impacts of structures built on the ridgetops. The effectiveness of the SLDC is predicated in the standards contained therein within I'm sorry being applied and even handedly through throughout the relevant communities. A variance from the standards unless justified by truly unique and exceptional circumstances undermines the purpose of the SLBC and would be unfair to other members of the community who are subject to generally applicable standards. accordingly the applicant if the third review criteria supports denial of the request variance. In this case, building and development services staff has have determined that the applicant's request for to allow a residence to cons to be constructed on a reachtop is not in compliance with the SLDC and it is not in line with the criteria necessary for granting a variance. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the applicant's request. If the planning commission decision is to approve the applicant's request,

staff recommends the imposition of the following conditions. To be clear, staff's identification of the condition is not intended as an indication that staff approves or would approve the granting of the request variance. Staff's position is that this application does not comply with the SLDC and does not satisfy the variance criteria of section 4.9.7.4 and that no conditions regardless of how carefully crafted and change can change that non-compliance. These concess conditions are presented simply to inform the hearing officer of recommendation conditions. If evidence presented convin convinces you to that cons convinces you that approval of the variances is in fact warranty. Mr. Chair may enter enter these conditions into the record.

Uh yes, David, you may. Thank you. I stand for questions. Commissioners, does anyone have questions of staff? Commissioner um on the um um the p the aerials of the bu building sites. I think it's maybe exhibit E. Are those um not burial sites? Did I say burial sites? Arial. Okay. Arierial. Building site. Um were those building sites um denoted by the staff or was this something from the applicant?

Mr. Mr. Sure. Commissioner members, yes, I did a site visit to the to the site and I considered those um a more suitable area for arrest. So he they graded the top of the ridge as potential building site and the county saying, but you have all these other potential building sites um that didn't require the amount of grading that occurred. Mr. Chair, commissioner members, that's correct. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions of staff from the commission? Yeah, Commissioner Truhill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, David. Um, so back uh these sites that were identified on this exhibit E. Uh, this, if I heard correctly, it was the these things that are circled here are what the county thought would be different sites. Mr. Sure. M remembers. Yes, that's correct.

Okay. So, I look at the I look at the aerial map or actually it's the uh it's one that gives the topography of it and I look at build site 2. Uh this is the one that shows it where basically is the drainage area. I mean it's it's literally if I look at the topography map that comes in uh exhibit I don't know which one it was, but I mean when you so it's in so the site plan in the site plan it shows the whole lot and it shows the topography of it and shows the different slopes. And so other than the place that's being leveled, the other two pl one of the other places that's recommended is basically to me looks like the drainage off of the all of the 30% which would be very challenging building site to build on personally. Um and the other two sites is it it to help me understand this a little bit quicker. This this is the code states that you just can't build on a ridgetop if there's other places that can be built.

Uh Mr. Chair, commission members, that's correct. Um if there's um better or more suitable site development areas.

So Mr. Chairman, and I mean this is just a question for my own. I'm just thinking out loud here is you know suitable, you know, because I design and I build as well. And so sometimes suitable can be defined in many different ways. I mean suitable if you're up against a mountain, you're not getting any southern sun and your house is going to be cold to me is not suitable. If you're in a drainage area and even though you know the land is flatter, but everything is rolling from a hill down to you, you got other challenges and it's not that suitable as well. And so I'm just trying to understand how suitable is is determined in the code. Mr. Chair, Commission Member Trillo. So staff did do a a site visit and our terrain manager, John Lavato, did go out there. He said that drainage is minimal out there. Um and any drainage off that ridge could be um taken care of by proper grading and drainage plan by a licensed um engineer.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and commissioners. to to answer the question about what does suitable mean. Uh 7.17.1 is the purpose statements for the terrain management regulations which is to uh protect water quality and the natural character of land minimize slope instability erosion protecting steep terrain um minimizing the soil disturbance and things of that nature. Um, so there are purpose statements that guide what is what would be considered the most suitable for these rules.

And I had a follow follow up on that. So one of the pictures shows um sort of a flat graded area with with a vehicle on it. Um was that was that the typical was that there or was that caused by grading of the property? Was that a flat area before or did the applicant grade that? Mr. Chair, Commissioner members, um we believe it's it was um generated when the grading was when the grading happened. Okay. The top. All right. Thank you.

Any other questions of staff from commission? Yeah. Um I guess that was kind of was kind of my question to you is like I'm not sure with these photographs that I'm seeing where is the area that was actually graded by the applicants. U Mr. Sher commission members excuse me let me get my picture commissioner I think if you look at exhibit E at that aerial you can see a big flat blank place. That's my guess as to what was graded on the south part near near this indication of build site one. That's correct. Just north of the red circle.

Site one. Yes, site one. So, this is where they

they graded that all out and planned it out uh on their own without a without a prior permit. But then in their in their proposed site plan on uh exhibit uh oh what's the the one with the with the site analysis um be a little confusing because the ILR I guess is what it is. It's not really a site or like a survey or anything like that but it's it's flipped over. Right. So this is let me see here real quick. I'm just trying to make sure I gather where it's at and make sure I'm correct here. But their proposed location though would be right up against that south against that big ridge, right? Is that correct? Is that what they're

Sure. Commission officers. Um the residence is proposed to be right on top of the graded area. It's um that bare area that Mr. was mentioning is literally right on top of that mess that they created. It's not what it So that's where I'm kind of curious where you know is I'm looking at this and I'm seeing, you know, their layout of their site plan appears to have their house being built on what would be, I guess, what the the south side, which would be

Mr. Chair, commission members, um, if you look at exhibit B, the the site photos, those actually show, um, a little bit more of the ridge that was that was cut off. Um, in particular, uh, picture 17 of 45, um, that shows you the the lower southern part of that lot that staff deems as the most, um, buildable area, but maybe not the most desirable, but you can see where it was graded with the driveway going up to the top of the ridge, and you can see where the ridge is is cut off. Um, and again, that's picture number 17 out of 45. Um, and it shows the the power pole that's down below as well. Okay. Yeah, I guess I'm kind of seeing it now. Okay. So, just kind of south of that big ridge is where they're proposing to have their their residence, which is kind of near where the build site one that county had recommended. Is that

No. So, so they're proposing they want the the variance to build on top of that ridgetop that they graded without a permit. Um, so that's what their variance request is. They don't want to build on the buildable areas that staff identified. they want to build on the non-buildable area of the ridgetop that they've already graded and cut. Okay. And then I guess my other question is was there plaid because all this stuff that I'm seeing here just it's just an ILR with uh you know because it does not look like uh I guess yeah I guess I'm just curious because a lot of times you know you've got to you get an engineer and they they classify the buildable area correct in the in their maths but nothing was done. staff is the one that that looked at the buildable areas, not a surveyor.

Staff me deemed the more suitable areas um for the land. Okay. Um sorry, I'm just trying to wrap my head around what's happening. So, they they cut that ridge, but then they're looking to build it on top of the ridge and do some additional grading up on that top of that ridge and build there. Okay, here I'll I'm gonna I'm gonna step back and look around. Makes a lot more sense to any other questions of Commissioner Buger.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, uh, section 7.17.9.2 two, subsection two of the code states that no structure may be constructed on a ridgetop, ridge line or shoulder unless there is no other buildable area on the property. I accept the staff determination that there are other buildable areas on the property. That's one comment. Uh, another comment. Uh, I found it interesting that there was a a note from staff, maybe that was John that did it dated 6182022 said that uh they met with uh Mr. Martinez where he stated that uh they don't want to connect to the power, they just want the power pole on the property. This might be a follow-up question of the applicant. That was the note that was stated. John's not here, but he shed any light. Am I reading that accurately?

Mr. Chair, it's just a note in the uh packet. I believe John. Mr. Chair, commission members, please speak up. John, yeah. Yeah. When this initially came in, it was a violation reported by surrounding neighbors.

We attended the site. We issued a violation for him putting the or for the applicant putting the power pole on top of the actual ridge line. We then asked him to move it to a lower location and asked why it was warranted. and he stated that Hemis the letter stated that Hemis wanted the power pole up there and we could not figure out why they would want that power pole up there. The applicant agreed to move it to the lower location on that ridge line so that they can build on the lower portion where the vehicle is parked in exhibit D photo number two. And we were okay with that in allowing him to build there. Later on, we identified other buildable areas that were on a lower location and therefore that is why we recommended the lower locations to be built on. A little history on this is when the patrell water tank came in, the county had that excess of fill from cutting to put the the actual system in the tank. Miss Nancy Martinez wanted the fill so that way she could put a home on that location. picture uh item D where the picture of the vehicle is. That's the intention that that was their initial intention. They changed it. They graded the top and therefore that is why they're requesting the variance at this point. Mr. Chair and commission members, I also want to uh let you know that in the staff report in the beginning, it did identify two variance requests. Um, but the applicant states that they can actually meet the 25 foot setback from the shoulder. So, it is only one variance request for to build on top of the ridgetop.

Thank you, Commissioner Buger. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So u uh so a notice of violation was issued on November 2021 and then a letter was provided uh May 11th 2022 that stated that additional submitts were needed from the applicant um or else the case would be brought to court. Uh my question is what's happened over these last three years where we're uh three years later here we are with this variance request. What what what happened or what didn't happen? Mr. Chair, Commission Member Buger, the applicant actually applied for a permit and was granted a permit to stabilize the cut that he did. So he is in in line right now. Although none of the vegetation has taken place. Nothing's withheld because of the unstabilization of that soil because of the type of material and soils that it is. It's not getting any vegetation. That was a huge concern for staff and the requests because the fear is this being unstable and the structure causing erosion control problems downstream and also a safety hazard for the applicant should that hillside get inundated with lots of water or so saturated and destabilization and the residents becoming very unstable and and that's a care that staff had for this application. And not to mention that this structure is seen from multiple areas and sticks out like a sore would stick out like a sore thumb from State Road 76 and Juan Medina Road. And that was another

concern staff really had. Um thus that's why we recommended denial in a lower location. Thank you, Mr. Lovato.

Any any other questions of staff from any commissioners? Thanks very much, David. So, applicant, if you'd like to come up and make a presentation, respond to questions, please be sworn in. Yes, I do. Yes. My my address is 370 County Road 59 Belarde. So I guess um um chairman of the board commissioners, my name is Benny Martinez again and uh I am a brother to Nancy Martinez Craft and Nancy uh since college moved to Phoenix, Arizona. and uh she is the sole inheritance of that property that was my father's. So she has you know paid taxes, maintained it since probably the 80s and uh my father passed away in 2000 and at you know she held on to this property as long as she could obviously she's older than I am and it's time to move on and and sell the property. So she started trying to initiate getting a uh a representative to sell the property to you know a realtor and at the time uh she this is several years ago 5 years or so ago uh she had a potential buyer and they wanted power on the property. So she went to the Hemisle electric co-op up in Hernandez and you know her working with them they told her you know they went and did a site visit to the area and they told her this is the best place for power. It was on top of that ridgetop hill and they told her we're going to need for you to

level the area. It's a small it's not that big of a hill. It's about 15 feet higher than what already was. So she got a a contractor. They came and did a little road and and and while they were up there, she had him flatten the whole area which is approximately 100 ft by 100 ft that gave Hemis enough room to drive in, turn around, put a power pole. Uh granted, you know, she is from Phoenix, she knew no rules of Santa Fe County and was not aware of she was just trying to sell the property. Uh so they uh they came in, did the earth work. It was all done to code. The driveway up there was met Santa Fe County regulations. It was leveled. No permit granted. And that's around when the time where Mr. Lovato and uh other people got involved, Dominic, Mr. Cinto, you know, in Santa Fe County at that point is when I got involved as well. And again, I am a licensed civil engineer state of New Mexico. And and uh if there's any questions regarding the drainage that Mr. Lovato talked about I would definitely uh I am a professional. That's what I do. I worked at NMD dot for 25 years retired. I am a consultant now on my own. I am licensed in New Mexico and Colorado. But but anyway uh back to what we were getting at. So through uh Nancy Martinez uh the owner, we put uh compost socks for drainage throughout the whole property. We did steep slope seating. We've done all the necessary or proper things that are done for that area to prevent erosion. And Johnny's correct, a lot of the seating has not taken. But it's only because it rains when it rains and nothing's going to grow on this. It rains. We can't water it because I mean you need water. We on the property. Uh one other thing that John was saying

there's like a lower level. I wasn't looking at the maps, but there's a level lower level right next to the proposed area. That lower level um the reason why it was uh bladed and graded uh several years prior to this, Santa Fe County approved of a water tank for the Chimayo community. It's a huge, huge tank. They did earth work and they did all kinds of stuff. Well, part of the property to get to that water tank where they were going to place it was uh Nancy Martinez's property. She gave the Chimayo Water Association an easement to go through her property because the road pretty much cut through her property. She gave him an easement from the road to the top of the hill where they put the tank which was higher sits higher than the property that were in question anyway. Uh so anyway, she allowed him to do that and in doing that the the water association the contractor bladed a portion of NY's property and they did push some of the earth but that was the water association deal. So this is years later where Nancy came and yeah she needed to put power on the property and it's on that next level. You'll I'm sure you guys see the pictures. It's that little piece on top. It's 100 ft by 100 ft. That's the area that we're asking for a variance to build. The reason why you want to build there, yes, it's 12 acres. It's a lot of property, but unless you live there from that where the where the top property is, if you go southbound on that hill, it goes down from there for about 200 feet or so. It's not paved. It's not paved because the runoff from the water from the tank area comes down and goes

through the road and it's a muddy mess. It's very it's not it's very difficult to get through it on the the other area to go through because the road goes through to the other end. The other end is maybe like 1,000 ft which is even worse as far as mud because that's at the bottom of all the the hill. So on a rainy season, you're go you're going to need a four-wheel drive to get through the bottom to get up there. And if you go through the other side, it you know, you can get there, but it's muddy. The pavement ends right like at my sister's property on both sides. For whatever reason, Santa Fe County did not uh pave through. I mean, I know why the reason is because of the drainage from the top of the hill where the water tanks at. The best possible location for a structure is on that area that we're talking about. Anywhere on the bottom one, you're going to have drainage issues if you live there. Second, there's an ASCA that's going to go down there. So, you're going to disturb and the more property you disturb, the more uh you know, water and flood that's going to go into the seca to begin with. Uh uh yes it is a little higher and you can't see you know if you build a house there you will see it but because of that on the on the proposal we stated it would only be a one single story home and I did I am the engineer so I did do the plans where it complies with all of Santa Fe County rules regulations and uh this is just for my sister to sell it you know we're just asking for approval to place something. If she sells it, we can turn around, tell the realtor, "Yes, you can place a house." We don't even have a house to build yet. This is just We're just asking for a buildable site. But anywhere on the bottom of the property,

it's a mess. Now, neighbors, all the neighbors at one point, uh, you know, when we had the when Hemus first put the purple, they were in oper. There's a couple of neighbors that did not like it. They felt that uh Nancy did something without uh advising them, which is true. They were correct. Since then, when we applied for this variance, we've had public information meetings up at the property. The neighbors that were concerned showed up. At the time of when they showed up, uh I'm I'm going to say there was around 30 bags of trash. People use that area. It's 12 acres and there's no neighbors. There's nothing around it. and people go up there and throw trash, literally dump loads of trash. So, when we had that public information meeting, the neighbors show up and there's a pile of trash right there. And they're like, "You know what? Uh, Mr. Martinez, uh, I think we agree with you. We see trash here every week. There's trash." And I said, "I know." And the only reason why I go and pick it up, I live in Vard. My mom's still with us alive. She's 89 now. I go visit her every morning and and I go take a a drive to the property and make sure that there's no trash. And when there is, I load up my truck and take it to the dump. And then I have to pay for it because you know, you can't just throw trash for free. And the neighbors, you know what the neighbors said? You know what, Mr. Martinez? I agree with you. I'd rather have a house there than trash. So, if you look at all the papers, all the all the subittals, all the public meetings that we have, everything, there's nobody that complains anymore. They're all for it because they'd rather have somebody to watch the property than to watch trash, you know, and uh we're not asking for it's 12 acres. The

water tank sits probably the height of this building on the on the south side of the property and my sister's road goes to it which she gave amusement on the on the west side. There's a house owned by Julian Sandaval which sits even higher than that. I mean it's it's all within that area. Everything's, you know, the the we're not creating anything different than what's already existing. We're not creating something like a eyesore, if you will. Will you see it from the road? Probably, but you can see the house and the water tank as well. You know, it's not it's not a big deal. Another thing, when my sister gave the the water association permission, she literally gave him property for an easement. gave it. Didn't even sell it. Gave it to him. Part of part of their uh not appreciation, but part of their payment to her or agreement, they actually put a water meter on the side of the property on my sisters that we're talking about that they bladed and the county approved. And that's where there's a meter, a water meter on the property already. And that's the same exact spot where the power pulls at the electricity. There's power, there's water. The only thing we need is a septic system. I mean, it's now, yes, there are buildable areas on the bottom side. The problem is drainage and any type of earthwork that's created downstairs. Yes, it can be taken care of. The problem with that is, you know, there's going to be runoff if you do that. Right now, the way the property was done back several years ago, the the only thing that's been damaged

through the last four years from that earthwork is the driveway going up. And the only reason why we don't repair the driveway is because people go up there to drink and party and throw trash. So, the road's a little not in great shape, but we don't repair it because we want to deter people from going up there. So, all we're asking is for approval, the variance to build up there. We may or may not build right away, but all we want is a buildable site that's approved. So, if she says, I have a piece of land, 12 acres, it's not, you know, but for the most part, it's all on the bottom uh, you know, bottom of a hill and it's all due to drainage. And I mean, if you live there, you'll know what I'm talking about. I mean, just go look at it. It's, you know, that's why the road's not paved. County itself determined that. And I do ask for your uh for your assistance in getting this approved. We've been we've been going back and forth with the county. I do want to thank uh Mr. Cistos and and and uh all the staff members uh for their assistance. They've helped me, you know, you know, we we been working hand in hand with them and and uh you know, John Loato also, they've all been helping. We there was the initial problem was the earthwork done that he has requested. We we we've mitigated that. We made it right and we continue to want to make it right and that's why we're here. And I ask for your consideration to allow it. And uh if you have any questions for me,

I would I I can answer them. Thank you very much, Mr. Martinez. Commissioners, do you have questions? Commissioner Buger,

thank you for your presentation, Mr. Martinez. I um it's as you are aware now uh I I believe restricting development on ridgetops uh hilltops is a major public policy uh issue both in the county and the city. Commissioner Pavo would know better than I uh that the city restrictions are probably even more pronounced than what the county has. The county has a it's it's it is pretty restricted uh to the point where if there are alternative building sites maybe not as easy but uh if they exist then they need to be um

implemented. So my question to you as a professional engineer

Yes sir. uh uh can you construct a solution uh building on those lower sites, taking care of the drainage, taking care of the erosion? It may not be as good as sites, but but could you make that work? I I I mean, I think that uh there's 12 12 acres of property. I'm pretty sure you can build anywhere on that property. The problem is is the the is it worth damaging the environment or the earth or the flooding or the ascas to all this new area to build in an area where you already have the hillside was disturbed by mistake if you will but it's done so yes it was done by mistake uh Miss Martinez mitigated it did you know put put it back in good shape. Now, do you want to go disturb another acre and start from scratch or just this this is already done and it is the best site because if you build down there then I'm hoping Santa Fe County is going to be involved not I mean yes through the pro uh permitting process but also somebody's going to have to maintain that road because it is a county road right now that portion isn't maintained as a matter of In fact, uh I know uh that uh from the top of hill where I'm talking down to the bottom on the on the I guess north side uh that particular road uh because of the drainage, the runoff, the road itself, Santa Fe County Road, the water has taken off so much dirt that Santa Fe County had to go in and

bring field material to build the road back up. The reason why they built it up is because there's a water line for community water that goes down the center of the road and the wa the water was getting the I think there was about a foot of cover over that pipe the water line for the whole community in Chibayo. So Santa Fe County had to go back and bring borrow material and bring the road back up the you know the field so that it doesn't go beyond the front line. How do I know that? because my brother Danny is also a mechanical engineer. He's retired from Los Alamos and he's the president of the water association now. He got in there a couple years ago. So the best place is where we're asking for a variance. There's issues now. If if we build down there then again Santa Fe County would probably have to somehow maintain that road whether they pave it. And the only reason why and and uh the county can verify this or not, but the reason why that portion hasn't been paved because that's the highest hill past the tank to the back and the runoff from there runs through the road and just tears right down through it. If they pave it, they'd be blading it pretty much after every storm. So they that portion is not maintained. I don't have photos, but I'm sure Mr. Loato or or uh David uh Ree or Dominic Certo can verify that that portion is not paved and if they have a different reason then I'd like to know it but that's how what I've been told. Uh are there other lots other spots? Yes. Is it feasible? No. I mean I I'll give you one more story before I end this and this is the truth. Back in 1985 when I was going to get married, I took my dad gave me that land for

myself. He said, "You can live in that property if you can have this property free. It's yours, but you have to live here." I took my wife to go look at the property. Had rained. We could not get in. And she said, "If you want to get married, we're not living here." Needless to say, that's how my sister inherited. and I live by my wife's parents up in Lacanoa, but that's true. So, yeah. Thank you, Mr. Martinez. Any other questions? Yeah, Commissioner.

Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out this um this one picture on exhibit E and it is the buildable build site one and it's the graded area with the vehicle. And has the county the county determined that was a billable site? Obviously, it's graded and flat. What is since you've great since it was graded on this property, why isn't that a billable site?

Um, which one? Which area? The buildable site one. The graded area with the vehicle on it where David's truck is parked. So that's not the graded area. So where the vehicle's shown, that is the the more suitable site that's lower below the actual ridgetop that was graded. So that's the the buildable site that's closer to the road, right across from the water tank.

Okay. And there is no drainage going through that property. Well, just the drainage from the hill that we bladed and from the road down to it. From the road going up to the water. Yes. And and Yes. So, I mean, it's it's not the worst site. Mhm. But the the ideal sites on top uh that particular areas are on the same side. The only problem with that one is right next to the road as well. And it gets drainage from the top and from the I guess west side, east side.

Yes. That particular area was bladed by the contractor approved by Santa Fe County when my sister gave him an easement for the water. The contractor used that as their staging area for the tank.

Yes. That's why that part was bladed. Correct. Well, yeah. I mean, um, there might be some drainage issues along the road, but you know, this does not look like it is impacted by any drainage going through that property. I'm a hydraologist um, and deal a lot with erosion control. Um, so I I don't I don't see that that that has been there for how long? This piece of property graded, that bottom piece has probably been there 10 years. Yeah. I mean, it doesn't look like it has any water issue on it,

but I mean, I'd have to walk it. Yeah. Could Could I follow up on that with with staff? Um, understanding, and David, you've been to the site. understanding that if the buildable site is where I guess your escape or your vehicle is parked, um does what are what are the setback requirements from the um from the lot? Um is is is that an issue because that is relatively close to Elero Road.

Uh Mr. Commissioner, on on that property that we talked about, I uh drew out I'm thinking you have a copy of it. I drew out a 35 ft by 35 ft home which is about 1,25 square ft and I did it with 25 ft setbacks from all the corners. I also did a drawing that shows that the uh it that area still complies with the emergency vehicle code for Santa Fe County and the grade of the road also complies with the minimum grades for Santa Fe County. So, but that's up on the flat up that's up on the flat on the top. Yes, sir. Got it. Okay.

Yes. Everything everything that was proposed complies with Santa Fe County. Granted, you know, if and when a development would occur, we would have to go through all the application process. I mean, permits and you know, this is just for approval to build the maximum size of structure on that would be uh 35 by 35 square foot and that would meet all the setback distances. Okay. Um and and David just to to ask you know so that is that is the the suitable site or or the that is the site that they're requesting a variance to build on the suitable site that you circled does that comply with setback requirements it's a 25 is that right

Mr. Chair commission members. So it is on on fringe which means it's 10 foot set back from the front and 25 from the side. So it would give him enough room 10. So that's the front since it's the street side. So okay thank you very much. So so the setback is 25 ft 10 or 10 feet. Okay. On the particular on the particular hill uh we allowed 25 ft. No, but but on the where he circled as a possible suitable site. Yes. Um it's it's just 10 feet from the front of the property and that seems to be the front of the property. Yeah.

And so, Mr. Chairman and applicant, that section right there where the car is parked, what is approximately the dimensions of that or the square area? I did not measure that, but I would assume it's about 150 ft or so. Yeah, it's a little bit bigger than the top part. Okay. The only problem with that again is it's right next to the driveway to the road and uh you know if you have 12 acres, you don't want to put a home right next to the road.

Yeah. So, Mr. Chairman, I I mean I once again I just gets to the point I was trying to make earlier as far as suitable that you have 12 acres of land and now the only place they're recommending to put a your home right up against the 10 foot 10 foot seck that's up against the road. I mean, correct. If I was a property owner, that wouldn't be suitable to me. But

well, and the and the problem with placing it on that property is the area that we that was earthwork was done on the the the area that we are proposing for a buildable site sits up about 10 15t higher. So, if we build on the bottom part, the drainage from that does go down. So, you know, you you're going to have a problem if you build on the lower end. Um, so what's the um is that road dead end at the water tank? No, what the water tank on the top of the tank it does dead end,

but that road uh I think it's county road 94 if I'm correct. It it it actually loops around and yeah, it it if you go north, well, let me see like southbound, it comes out to the road that's right where the Suario is at. It passes two cemeteries on the bottom of the hill. And if you go the other way, it's uh residential once you pass uh NY's property. Okay. And the the lot that you um prefer has the best view. That is correct.

Possible for that is correct. Best view. And it's not even though so much about the view. about all the drainage and ob, you know, problems that would occur as far as even dra uh drivable to try to get to that property anywhere on the bottom end. You're going to struggle going in and out if it rains again, unless Santa Fe County goes in and paves it. But to pave it, they're going to have to create uh a lot of drainage uh structures and and I don't think they've done it because you would need easements from the people that own the property on both sides to put drainage and and then they're going to want to know where you're going to send the water to. And I think the best solution that the county has done is left it alone in my opinion. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Pava. Mr. Chair, Commission members, uh just just before Mr. Pava. Um, I do want to let you know that the SLDC does allow for the land use administrator to go down to a minimum of 5 ft. Um, it states that in cases where setback requirements prohibit development of a legal lot of record, the administrator may allow the reduction of a setback prohibiting development to a minimum of 5T. So that front property line setback could possibly go down to five feet.

Understood. Thank you, Commissioner Pava. Thank you, Mr. Chair. U question for Mr. Martinez. The the power pole seems to have some kind of an antenna on it. Do you know what that is? I'm sorry. What's the question? The part the power pole has some form of an antenna on the top. Do you know what that is? I'm not sure what not a cellular. No. No. There's that power. Honestly, I have not noticed that the power pole was initially placed on the top of the hill, you know, where we're proposing for a buildable area.

Okay. and uh through the discussions um with the planning uh planning zoning uh with back this is back several years ago uh they requested that we move the pole to the bottom so that it won't uh be an eyesore if you will. Okay. So my sister agreed you know said you know what that's fine we'll we'll move it to the bottom. So, she paid hemis to go back and relocate it. Mhm. Now, as far as what that antenna is, I hadn't even noticed it. So, I'm not positive. Okay. I'm not I'm not sure. I I could definitely find out, but No, I just

It's not for I would think I have no idea. That's That's a Hemis Hemis. Uh

yeah, typically typically you'll see uh telecommunications on water towers, as a matter of fact, and on the water tower. So my follow-up question for staff in with your familiarity of of the area around Shimayo, are there u conservation easements as I mean this is a this is a well-known historic area. Um I'm wondering if folks have if you have knowledge of folks or or Mr. Martinez, as a matter of fact, since you're long time grew up there and you know the area, I'm wondering to preserve these landscapes. They're unique with the Baronas and the valleys and the oxyas and all of that. Uh, anybody aware of there being conservation easements or programs to set aside these landscapes instead? I mean, you're going to get 12 acres and you're going to build on maybe 10,000 square feet, quarter of an acre worth. Um, and that does mean that the land will be preserved. But I'm I'm just interested if if anybody knows you get the gist of my question.

As far as I'm concerned, I am not aware of any any uh type of laws or conservation rules that exist in that area.

Mr. Chair, commission members. Yeah, I'm I'm not aware of any conservation easements either. Um, I can tell you that there is an Aekia on the I believe like the northern um part of the the lot or beyond that. Um, and just kind of a little bit of of history. Um I was the the code enforcement officer at the time um that went out to the call and there were some concerns at the time and and one of them was from the ACIA um and some neighboring properties um but since then I don't think anyone has um addressed any concerns um or at least they haven't you know provided staff with any. Okay, that's uh just for some context, try to determine how how to treat this variance request. I appreciate it. Thanks very much.

Thank you. Any any other questions from commissioners for the applicant? Yeah, just Commissioner La Cruz Crawford. Yes, just general comments. I mean, I think that what uh a couple people had noted and what staff had mentioned as well is that there are at least some, you know, some buildable sites that were available that you didn't need to necessarily cut and grade a ridgetop for, you know, um like that front side and and like Commissioner Trio mentioned, maybe it's not ideal to put a house right up next to a road, but

you know, some people even like that, you know. So, um I do think you had a buildable site there. And I guess my comments generally because I've been just kind of hearing your presentation, which I appreciate, but some of the things that you mentioned, you know, were kind of reasons behind you doing this. And then also you mentioned like you mentioned, hey, you were your sister was just trying to sell the lot, right?

And another thing you mentioned was, you know, hey, why disturb another place when it's already been disturbed. This rich shop's already been disturbed, so let's not affect any other uh, you know, place on this site, right? But it's to me it's like a little contradictory because it's like grading and and cutting and doing all that earth work up on the ridge was more costly. Right. If you're looking to just sell the property. Yes.

And why not put it on the lot that's available on the flat area that's available right there. So, so you are correct uh with what you're uh stating what but what happened here the initial initial process was when uh my sister uh was trying to initially sell the property and he electric co-op directed her to do what she did. She had no clue, no idea. And yes, she did it. She was she thought she was doing okay as far as what they told her. She didn't know and after what was done after she took the direction from Hemis and and got involved with Santa Fe County, you know, it was like opened up a can of worms. Since that day through Nancy Martinez, we have done everything that the city the Santa Fe County has requested. We have worked hand in hand with with with Mr. Lovato, Mr. Cisneros, Mr. Ree. uh before that was Mr. Kavanaaugh Paul Kavanaaugh everything that they've requested from her we have done everything and as I've stated before anything that is requested from us we will do whether it's engineering or it's earth work whatever you guys want we just want this we are asking for this variance to be allowed so that she can move on and and uh my mother's 89 years old she's going to be needing home healthcare soon and uh you know we're hoping that if we get this property sold we can take care of her. Uh you know but that's just a wish. We don't know what's going to happen.

No I I appreciate that. I think you know I totally get it. You know I mean I think whenever you get into situation of course you're going to be working with the county right because you're going to have to try and sir work with them as much as you can try and get it worked out. Um, but yeah, no, it's uh it's just yeah, I'm just trying to think about this and stuff because like I said, it's seems like there's still a areas where where that are buildable, you know, as opposed to the ridgetop and it's I guess it's kind of unfortunate. This like an after the fact scenario, right? Like you already kind of destroyed uh

Exactly. So, so again, there are areas that we could possibly build, but then we'd be disturbing property again, and we don't have to do that anymore. I mean, it was done by mistake, if you will, by accident. We take full blame. Miss, my sister takes full blame. But we can't change that. It happened. We've done everything to fix what we did, what she did. We've done everything and we've worked handinhand with the county and we'll continue to work. You know, I am a civil engineer and I work with with them, you know, a daily, weekly basis, monthly basis. You know, we work good together. You know, we're, you know, this is just unfortunate that it happened the way it did. But because of what happened, I don't think it's advantageous to the county, to her, to the environment to disturb more property. What's done is done. It's better to utilize what's already there and move forward and that's where we request the variance and I thank you.

Thanks very much. Oh, what one more question from commissioner? Sorry. Have you stabilized the toll the slope there from the Phil?

That is correct. Okay. So, since this thing happened several years ago, uh I have gone pretty much I go once a week to that property. The only drainage that comes from that hill, from that buildable area that we're requesting for uh you know variance, the only place that the water has gone that has damaged anything is the driveway that goes up the hill. That's the only place on the on the south side or north I'm sorry the north side where it's the big the steepest at 30% slope on that whole on that whole side there's about a twoft burm that uh for whatever reason the the dozer guy left but because he left that twoft berm on that north side no water has run off on that side towards the ascia towards that whole area all the water runs down the road and down into that area which is the proposed buildable area from the county. It goes down the road into that area.

So from the from the site when he graded it, he pushed the fill over to the to the the steep side. Correct. That's what's eroding. I No, not no I'm I'm looking at it. I mean, you know, so I mean there's there's a little bit of gullies coming from that. There may be gullies, but the gullies are there from

the slope itself. Nothing is running from the top down. I can assure you that and I think so can uh uh the county. They have been out there to see it. There is a burm on that whole side and there is no way water will run from the top down. It it hasn't happened. I know for a fact and I'm sure they they can contest you that cuz cuz they've been out there. The drainage has gone on the road though. The road is damaged. Thanks. Yes, ma'am. Thanks very much. Any other questions from commissioners? Commissioner Trill. Mr. Chairman from Martinez. So the the water tank is to the is that towards the north south? South side.

South side. And that's of a higher topography. It's it's Yeah, it sits Yeah. a lot higher than this building. Correct. Okay. And then to the east side, the topography of this land that's not your land. That's somebody or the neighbor. Yes. Um topography of that is higher. No, no. The highest place is where my sister's prop where the proposed area is the highest. And then it then if you go south that's where the water tank that's even higher up. I mean I'm talking probably 100 ft higher. Okay.

And then if you go uh let me see to the east side there's a there's the Royo and then there's a house on the top that's sandal. And then if you face uh north that's the valley of Chimayo that's all down. Okay. So if I to help me understand this then facing towards the west is the valley and then around you from the from the south to the east and stuff is still higher elevation.

Yes. where the water from the water tank behind is the hill and then if you look uh let me think let me see like northeast that's like behind the Suario you know where the Santoario Chimo is at those are the hills back there you know there's se they're very high but I mean they're you know they're far away but they're higher the immediate height of the hills are right behind behind the tank and then to the opposite side is the valley of Chimayo And then you know of course all that property the 12 acres in the base.

Okay. Do you know what the average slope is? I'm sorry. The average slope the average slope of the of the surrounding areas. Is it is it over 30% slope on on the on the on the north side? I would say yes. on the north side. Yes. And that's why we're here. If it was not over 30% then it would not even require a variance. But on the north side it is.

Yeah. That that section of land that was graded was previously 30% that they cut. But I can assure you that no drainage from that area that is graded goes down that slope. I can assure you of that. Now, I mean, if it rains a lot, you know, it is a long slope. So, I'm not saying if it rains a lot, water is not going to go down it because that's the water accumulated by the slope itself, but from the top, nothing drains down and it has not drained down since it was done.

Commissioner Buger. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chair, uh, this, uh, question comments more of staff, if I may. Uh am I correct in in reading the code that the prohibiting development on hilltops is a fundamental fundamental policy that unless there are absolutely no other options on attract that it shall not be allowed. If I understand your testimony, Mr. Martinez, uh, there are other options. They are not as favorable to your client, but there are other options. Uh, you don't need to elaborate on that, but am I correct in that assessment? Uh, staff,

chair, planning commission member, uh, Buger, that is correct. Um, if there are no other buildable areas on the site, you know, we would allow a ridgetop development. Um those are, you know, very rare occasions. Uh you see a lot of that like up in the summit up in the higher areas where they're just totally surrounded by um by 30% slopes and shoulders. And so yes, that is correct. Um if there is no other billable area, we would allow ridgetop development, but then again, in instances like this, we would require recommend the more suitable areas that are that are lower um and not on top of a ridge. Thank Thank you very much.

Okay, Mr. Chairman, just one more thing that I'll mention. Sure.

Um, when he's referring to suitable area, that doesn't imply that it's the best location as an owner. If any one of us would build a house, yes, this might be a most suitable area, but it's not necessarily the best because of the issues. And to me, my my main concern is drainage and the mud up there. It it when it rains, you know, it's going to get bad. It it it it has that's that's why I didn't live there. and the best suitable location due to the elements that surround that property is where we are requesting for the variance. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. Uh is there anyone online interested in speaking for or against this application? Chair, commission members, there is nobody online wishing to uh or at least identifying that they wish to speak on this matter. Okay. So then uh we open and close the public hearing. Mr. Mr. Chairman, I can I ask one more question to staff? Yes, please do.

Okay, Mr. Chairman. So, you know, as I drive up to as I drive down the Santa Fe to walk and I see those homes that are constructed by the opera that are way on top over there. is that they got permits because of there was no other suitable area on those lots. Is that how those how that worked? Well, there's there could be different, you know, reasons for those uh for the development. Um those could be they may have obtained variances themselves. Um they may not have disturbed 30% slopes or you know built on top of a ridgetop. They those may have been built on more suitable areas. It's hard to say exactly without pinpointing exact sites.

So, Mr. Chairman, uh, back to to Mr. Buger's comment about the code is that there could have been variances that were allowed for those those sites then. Is is that what I understand it to be?

It's possible. chair, chair and commissioners, I would add it is hard to speak about hypotheticals and you know without re doing the research but I would also point out that the code language is actually not the word suitable. It is the word that there are no other buildable areas on the site. It is. And if we, you know, the word suitable, you know, speaking to a property owner's preference, any any property owner might want to build on top of, you know, a ridge for the views or for any other reason. Um, and if we begin to go down the slippery slope of granting variances, uh, that may go against the intent of the code and why the board of county commissioners adopted rules that state don't build on a ridge unless there's no buildable uh, area.

And I might add, Commissioner Trujillo, that um, some Monte Serrano, for example, that's in city, not county. the a lot of the rich development there is is city and it's a slightly different requirement. Commissioner Buger, thank you. Uh Mr. Chair, just uh feel compelled to respond to Commissioner Trillo if I may. the there are quite a few homes on ridgetops and I uh if my understanding of history is correct, one of the reasons that the city did a hillside development ordinance and the county did this ordinance is to keep that from happening in the future. So citing that as something which uh is a precedent which should induce us to allow more uh doesn't at least to me doesn't make a lot of sense. Thank you.

Thank you commissioner. Uh any other questions of staff uh from commissioners? What's the will of the commission? Commissioner Buger. Mr. Chair, uh I would move to uh for case number 255200 to uh deny the variance request. We have a motion for denial. Do we have a second? I'll second that.

We have a motion and a second for denial. Uh so let's have a roll call vote, please. And yes means the variance is denied.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes.

No. Yes. So the the variance request has been denied. U Thank you. Next item is petitions from the floor. I can't see any petitioners on the floor. Matters from the commission. I I just want to note I when I logged into this computer, I opened the county's web page to get to uh uh the agenda and I noticed the scam alert and I just cannot believe that someone would say that you need to send money to who is the money supposed to go to for this these fake planning commission invoices? I didn't understand it. It's pretty funny. So, um, the only thing I I would I understand I can see that on the county's web page, in addition to this bright red scam alert, um, there is the commercial solar link is back up there again. And if you follow that link, the application has been submitted. And I'm wondering if staff can tell us what's going on with that um globe malow solar storage application.

Yes. Uh chair, planning commission members. Um so it is under review. Um we are looking at a target date for March 12th for the hearing officer and so planning commission uh that would come the following month. We'd go in April uh and bring that forward. It did take some time for us to procure um you know the third party consultants and subject matter experts but we have done so and they've um uh have done their review and so we are just finalizing some paperwork.

Thank you. And just to make sure that um I don't look at things before I'm supposed to. Should I stay away from this stuff until it is submitted to us a week before or what's what's the proper protocol for this kind of thing? Well, I mean, it's it's all public record, but I I think we would definitely, you know, um suggest to perhaps wait until everything's been posted um on the on board docs. Great. Thank you very much. Anything else? Any other matters from any commissioners? Um Roger, do you have anything from the attorney?

No, nothing to bring before the commissioners tonight. Thank you. And anything from staff? No, nothing at all. Great. Our next regularly scheduled meeting is March 19th and we have a couple items that we will be hearing. Is that correct? Yes, that is correct. There'll be uh I believe a couple cases that will be heard on the 19th. Maybe the double tabled one will come back to life or we'll see. Great. Please, Mike. Mike.

Um, so unless so we denied it. I mean, he's got appeal. Um, but if it's denied the area that he disturbed, will he be required to stabilize that completely? So, with he did obtain a permit um for the grading disturbance was an after- the-act permit. Um and there were conditions of approval on there for him to to stabilize um you know and recede. It's it's not clear um according to John in his site visit that you know some of the seating obviously didn't take and there's some erosion that we can tell even some some site photos.

Um but with his denial he wouldn't be required unless you know there was some more damage done to the property he wouldn't be required to um obtain any additional permits. Okay. Yeah, it's definitely eroding from the fill on the fill area where they pushed it over, you know. Yeah. Yeah, definitely. I mean, we may, you know, be a little bit more proactive and go out there and, you know, try and, you know, see what he can do to to better fix it. Um, we haven't received any complaints, uh, you know, from any neighboring properties. Um, but it's something that definitely could be looked at.

Yeah. Because it's hard to reveate. What I've seen in areas like this, you they you bring a water tank out and you know, you irrigate it until the vegetation's established and then you're good to go. It's not impossible. It's hard, but not impossible. Definitely. Thank you. Um, may I get a motion to adjurnn? Commissioner Pava, thank you for the motion to adjurnn. May I get a second? Commissioner Buger, thank you. Um, all in favor? We are adjourned. Thanks.