Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good. Good afternoon. I'd like to call the June 18th meeting of the Santa Fe County Planning Commission to order. Um, may I have a roll call vote? A roll call, please? here [Music] here. Mr. President, here. Here. Thank you very much. Let's please all rise for a pledge of allegiance. The next item is approval of the agenda. Uh staff, are there any amendments to to the agenda? Uh yes. Uh Mr. Chair, item F is going to be moved up and be presented first due to um some scheduling issues. That is the uh the Laada project from our planning division. Thank you very much. May I get a motion to approve the agenda? I'll make a motion to approve the agenda. Thank you, Commissioner. May I get a second? A second. Okay. Thank you. Um uh all in favor, please signify by saying I. I. I. I. Any opposed?

That motion passes. Thanks. The next item is approval of the meeting minutes. Um, may I get a motion to approve the the minutes? I'll move to approve the minutes uh from the previous meeting. Another excellent job. Thank you. And may I get a second? Second. Thank you. I I have a few um edits that uh we may want to consider. On page 17, uh instead of member Trillo, it says CY. And on page 25, um it says that I asked someone to please lift the mice up. And I think that should be Mike. Um, and so all those in favor of approving the agenda as corrected the I'm sorry, the minutes as corrected, please signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? That motion passes. Thank you. The next item is And so are we going to move F to the top above the miscellaneous? Okay. Uh Mr. Chair, no. Um F will be above A. So you could go along with miscellaneous and then consent. Okay. The the next item is um is a final order on case number 24-5170. Angelo Angelo Aeta. Um, may I get a motion to approve this item? Thank you, Commissioner Pava. May I get a second? I'll second that. Thank you, Commissioner Dela Cruz. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I.

Any opposed? That motion passes. Uh the next item is on the consent agenda, the case 245250 James and Janette Wood variance. May I get a motion to approve that item, the final order on that? Thank you, Commissioner Buger. May I get a second? Thank you, Commissioner Pava. All those in in favor, please signify by saying, "I I Any opposed?" That motion passes. New business with the amended agenda. We are first going to be hearing um uh what was listed as item F, the 2025 village of Labahada Community Plan. Recommendation for approval of the 2025 village of Labaha Community Plan for adoption by the BCC. Uh Joseph, and please lift the mice up. No, that's a joke. the presentation. The presentation, good evening, chair, uh commissioners. Um I will have a presentation shortly but um earth management staff uh planning division uh are recommending the approval of the 2025 village of Labahhata community plan for adoption by the board of county commissioners go back here. So I will give a brief presentation about just giving a little more context for the community plan. Um so the village of Labaja is a rural unincorporated community located in

Santa Fe County uh within comm commission district 3. So you can see here it is in the the southwestern portion of this frame but it's western most portion of the county. Um the village lies entirely within the boundaries of Pablo Deoti. Uh the Santa Fe River flows through Labahara. is the Labahad is the last uh settlement uh that the river flows through before reaching Coochi reaching Coochi Lake. Uh with a small titan population of approximately 26 residents, the village is characterized by its historic asakia's agricultural traditions, scenic landscapes. The community effort community's planning efforts aim to balance preservation of its rural identity with sustainable growth and infrastructure improvements. In April of 2017, um the village of Labahhata Community Association submitted a letter of intent to request authorization to initiate commun planning process. The SLDC section 2.1.4 Four states that community plans are intended to permit communities to recommend adoption of particular land use regulations based on the need and goals of the community and to subsequently update plans as necessary due to changing circumstances. The board of county commissioners established a planning committee and authorized the community planning process for the Labah community district via resolution 2017-55. The Labahada planning committee is coordinated through the county planning division in accordance with the SLDC and participation on the planning committee was open to all community members throughout the process. Notification was sent to property owners at the planning initiation phase midway point and to inform property owners of the communitywide meetings to review and

provide public comments on the draft plan. Village of La Bahada Planning Committee comprises members of is comprised of members uh from Labaja land owners, residents, community stakeholders as well as the Laba Community Ditch and Mutual Domestics Association. They first met uh on uh Saturday, July 15, 2017 and have met relatively frequently up until 2020 when meetings were moved remotely due to the CO 19 pandemic. Um and in 2024, meetings resumed in person in the village of La Bahaja as well as the county administrative complex. The community planning meetings were open for public participation throughout the process and new members were always welcome. So just to get into the plan a little bit uh it's comprised of three sections. The introduction the plan elements is outlined in the SGMP and the implementation and goals. Before getting into it, here's a view of the existing land use map and the future land use map. Uh this outlines the existing land use and the parcel data. Uh to the to the left and then to the right is the future land use with that data and the proposed overlays that will be further expanded upon in the when we develop the Labah community district overlay. you see a rural commercial overlay to the northeast and a an agricultural overlay to the southwest. So for the introduction, it establishes the the who, what, where, and how of this process. Who is

affected? Who is uh responsible for doing what? Um what is this plan? What does it entail? uh where uh where does where where does the county lie in all of this and uh what is where does uh Labah's geography play into some of these uh these land use decisions um and and how does this community plan impact the future of La Bahaja uh this section also gives uh specific attention to the historic context of the village uh dating back to its its Spanish colonial settlement with the La Mahara grant as well as provides some demographic information. The plan elements uh this is in coordination with the SGMP, the land use element, economic development, agricultural and ranching. Um all of these elements uh consist of the existing conditions and concerns or opportunities related to each element. Uh at the end of each section uh for each element we have the goals, strategies and actions that are then compiled in the third section. Uh so you can see them all all together. And these goal strategies and actions attempt to address how the concerns and opportunities. So ways in which that those could be um those could be addressed supported uh by different actors. Again identifying who will uh will carry out each strategy uh and just those those roles and responsibilities. Um so some of the key issues and solutions that were identified by the community. Uh one of the the the first um and

perhaps the the the most important to the community would be the ver the verification of the community boundaries via a cadastral survey. Uh this is not something the county could do obviously, but this is something that the community has expressed interest in pet petitioning the secretary of the interior to perform a cadastral survey as outlined in public law uh 98344 I believe it was. Um and this kind of supports some of the other issues and solutions that they've identified particularly related to infrastructure and access uh the maintenance and improvement of the rural roadways. Um, Labahara Road uh was granted uh it was an easement granted by Pablo Deochetti in 1983. Um, so there is that that it's their single uh mode of ingress and egress to the community and so there are obviously a number of issues that could arise from that. Um, the secondary access point used to be uh Route 66, the historic Route 66. Um however that is often closed to the public by public coachi. Um agriculture and food security protecting farmland is is uh very important to this community. It's a traditional historic community and they have traditional agricultural practices. They have a seakia. Um and so the the goal to protect farmland uh could be addressed through a rural agricultural overlay zone which again will be detailed further uh in the Labahhata community district overlay. uh it was also of uh importance to establish a weekly farmers market not only to serve the village of Labahara but as well as the regional food

producers at Pablo de Kochi or Pña Blanca or Coochi Lake. Um and then that kind of bleeds into the economic and community development. Uh the establishment of a small central placita that could serve as a community center food processing facility to stimulate local food production and processing. Um there's an existing structure within La Bahada that a community member owns that they would like to convert that into a community centerprocessing facility again for the region not just for La Bahada. uh and to promote village scale commercial ventures through the rural commercial overlay. Um again this would be uh kind of you go into greater detail when we would develop this overlay at a later point upon the uh adoption by the BCC the eventual adoption. Um and then to promote eco and agri tourism in the community. Uh and perhaps the the the most achievable or at least the the the quickest to to achieve would be the expansion of broadband access through partnerships and providers and grant programs. Um and so just a quick synopsis of what we've done so far. uh review we reviewed the plan for consistency with the SGMP and determined uh the consistency uh by the land use administrator that has been complete was complete in May uh two public meetings with the community one was in November and the other was last month of those have been complete and this is the first of the two public hearings. Um so pending your recommendation it will then go to BCC in early July. And so with that, uh, we request recommendation for approval to the BCC of the 2025 village of Labahada

Community Plan. And I stand for any questions or comments you may have. Thank you very much. Uh, commissioners, do you have any questions of staff? Commissioner Pava. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to say to staff that uh I saved this for last in the review of our cases thinking it would be the best and most interesting uh item and it certainly uh bears fruit. It I am very impressed. Um some of you know that I'm I'm a recovering retired planner. I've done these things and I must say that and I was just told this was all done in house. I I'm very impressed and keep up the good work. I learned a lot about the village, the historic village. Uh on my way to Coochid a couple times, I've stopped by and wondered more about it. Not many planning commissions and commissioners get to see something with documents that go back to almost 400 years and and that's one of the delights of working with you all at Santa Fe County and being here in New Mexico. Go. Thank you. You Thank you, Commissioner. Any other um comments or questions from staff uh from commissioners? Commissioner Buger. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh few questions. Um so you'd mentioned uh if this is approved, there would be an overlay district that would be created. In fact, uh one or several within one. So who would be doing that? Uh we would be doing it planning staff would be doing that with the community with the the planning the Labahara uh planning committee. Um it would be several overlays within a broader uh community overlay. Thank you. Uh so as commissioner Pava said this is

a an impressive document and you have uh the implementation measures are are very clear and uh detailed. Uh question is do you have an estimated cost to the county of what would be entailed in implementing these uh measures? Uh thank you for the question uh commissioner. I we do not have any figures uh as and you know perhaps we should we should delve a bit more into that uh but you know one thing that we tried to do with the goal strategies and actions is you know some of the things are not to be done by the county. some of the things will be done by community members specifically or the planning committee specifically petitioning different institutions or it'll it should be like an intergovernmental [Music] um effort really um and so yeah I think that you know some of the things can be raised via ICIP funds or or or whatever you may whatever it may be um but things like the community center that we've talked about if it is a countyrun community center, then the county would have to own that community center. And so we haven't really discussed any figures yet, but maybe something to consider for you. Uh the uh uh another question uh when you do the this community plan then uh do you have uh part of your internal planning committee? Do you have folks from public works uh finance even plugged into this? though some of your recommendations are uh the having to do with with access in and out of of the area. So um has uh has for instance public works been plugged into this effort? uh public works has not specifically we we tried to do a bit

more interdep departmental coordination economic development was a big part of this um uh and so you know that's not our expertise and so we we pushed it across the hall to the folks in community development um and they offered some really helpful feedback um we have you know the the water and wastewater element we have a water planner on staff and so he had eyes on that and we We have a trans we had at the time a transportation planner now we just hired a new one and they had some really helpful feedback on the transportation element. Uh but yeah it would be really helpful especially in terms of implementation bringing in the people who would be you know on the ground. Thank you. Thank you. And one last uh comment. Um if uh if this does get approved and then the overlay district gets approved, um yeah, there may be in the future a case or two that comes up uh within the overlay district as happens in other overlay districts such as we have a case tonight that's in an overlay district uh last month as well. Uh and a point u comment was made during last meeting that it'd be it'd be good either from a U planning committee or or staff that uh you know some when a case comes up that uh comment on how the particular case current planning staff does it but that uh you know the long range planning staff would be able to weigh in on that as authors of the overlay district as well and u uh or at least be in attendance at a case. So it's my comment. Thank

you. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner. Any other commissioners have questions of Joseph? I I've got a question. Um I believe in your introduction you indicated there were 26 residents or properties within the district about what kind of attendance um uh what kind of participation was there from stakeholders members of the community in this process? Well percentage wide it was a record record number of participants. It's a small denominator. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. uh you know um I was not there during the entirety of the process. I was hired a little over a year ago. Uh but since then it's been about 10 to 15 people. That that is a that is significant percentage. I appreciate that. The other question I have is the rural commercial overlay district in the northeast part of the of the uh of the overlay. Um it indicates that agurism might be an intended goal. We've seen a large number of cases that have come before us uh for short-term housing. Um, and I'm wondering if in your time working in this, if that topic has ever come up because frequently there is opposition from folks in the surroundings that everything used to be great until the Airbnb opened up kind of kind of comments. And so I'm wondering if there w were any discussions about that topic or is the agurism slightly different focus? Thanks. Thank you for your question, chair. Um, yeah, there has been some discussion from what I recall. Uh, not so much about short-term rentals

in terms of Airbnbs, but short-term rentals in terms of like work stay programs. Um, so more of like the the Italian model of the agurismo. Um, so there has been some discussion of that. Okay. Thank you very much. U, any other questions? Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Are there any members in the audience or possibly online who are interested in speaking on this topic? If so, please come up and Okay, I'll anybody at online? No, Mr. Chair, there's nobody online wishing to speak on this case. Thank you very much, Dominic. Um, any other comments or questions from staff? If if not, what's the will of the commission? I make a motion to approve. Thanks, Commissioner Meyer. Um, is there a second? Commissioner Pava seconds. Uh, may we have a roll call vote, please? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Uh, yes. Thank you very much. Appreciate it, Joseph. Thank you. The next item is back to A on the agenda, which is uh case 25-5100, Bruce and Deborah Mallister, a conditional use permit um to build a garage. Dominic, good afternoon, Mr. Chair, commission members. Bruce and Debbie Deborah Mallister

conditional use permit. Bruce and Deborah Mallister applicants and owners request approval of a cup to allow the use of an accessory dwelling unit. The 1.787 acre site is zoned residential community within the community overlay district of Tsuka. The site is located at 1473 Bishop's Lodge Road, Commission District 1, SDA2. The applicant are proposing to build an accessory dwelling unit with an attached garage and workshop. The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit for an ADU. The proposed ADU will have an attached two-car garage and workshop. The proposed roof square footage of the structure would be approximately 1,183 ft. Of the total 1,183 ft, 456 square feet would be heated space for the ADU. The use of the structure will be for the family and friends when they visit over holidays to allow these guests to have their own personal space. The proposed attached garage and workshop will also be for personal use. The subject property is zoned residential community within the community overlay district of Tsuka. Chapter 9, section 9.5. This zoning allows for an accessory dwelling unit as a conditional use through the zone throughout the zoning district. The applicant states the only existing structure on the property are the main residence, a child playhouse, and a pergola that is attached to the house. Access will be off of Bishop's Lodge Road. Staff has identified that there is an existing accessory structure/store shed, but that structure will be demolished and replaced with the accessory dwelling unit.

On September 19th, 2024, as required by table 4-1, section 4.4.3, the applicant presented the proposed CUP to the technical advisory committee at the regular scheduled bimonthly meeting. On November 16th, 2024, as required by table 4-1 and section 4.4.4 four of the SLDC. The applicant conducted a pre-application neighborhood meeting on the CUP. The applicant notified surrounding property owners and one individual attended the meeting. The applicant presented the history of the development and presented a detailed of the proposal of the CUP. In the meeting, notice requirements were met as per SLDC section 4.6.3, general notice of the application requiring a public hearing. In advance of the hearing on the application, the applicant provided an affidavit of posting of notice of the hearing confirming that the public notice posting regarding the application was made for 15 days on the property beginning on April 23rd, 2025. Additionally, notice of the hearing was published in the Santa Fe New Mexican on April 23rd, 2025 as evidenced by a copy of that notice contained in the record. Notice of the hearing was sent to the owners of the land within 500 ft of the subject property as well as the pertinent CEOs and RO's and a list of persons sent mailings is contained in the record. Building and Development Services staff has reviewed this project for compliance with the pertinent SLDC requirements and has found that the facts presented support the request for a conditional use permit to allow an ADU. The use is compliance with the current development within the affected zoning district. The use will not impact adjacent land uses and the applicant satisfies the submittal requirements set forth in the SLDC inclusive of the

conditional use criteria set forth in chapter 4 section 4.9.6.5. The review comments from Santa Fe County Fire and review comments from county staff have established findings that the application to allow an accessory dwelling unit is in compliance with the SLDC, including the pertinent design standards. The hearing officer heard this case on May 8th, 2025. At the hearing, no people spoke in support of the case and no people spoke against the case. The hearing officer memorialized findings of fact and conclusion of law in a recommended order on this request. The recommendation of the hearing officer and staff is recommendation for approval of a conditional use permit to allow an accessory dwelling unit subject to the following conditions. If the planning commission votes to approve a conditional use permit to allow an accessory dwelling unit, staff recommends the following conditions. Mr. Chair, 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. I stand for any questions. Thank you very much, Dominic. Uh, commissioners, are there any questions of staff? Commissioner Pava. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Mr. Cisneros, the 456 square ft component, that's the living quarters in the ADU, proposed ADU. How does that um percentage- wise match up to the the the principal residents in terms of the percentages? Is it close to 25% or is it just curious? The the garage doesn't count. Correct. So, the existing residence, I don't believe I have the exact square footage, but it it does meet the

standards um set forth as the requirements for an accessory dwelling unit. Um the applicants are present. um they may be able to answer the actual heated square footage of the primary residence, but staff has verified it does meet the requirements of an accessory dwelling unit. Well, thank you. And then just to clarify for the record, there will be a new septic tank system on the property replacing what's there currently and both you the ADU and the existing residents will be served using that. That is correct. The uh existing septic will be replaced by a newer, bigger system that has been approved by NMED and both the single family residence and the ADU will both share that septic. Thank you. That's all my questions. Thank you, Commissioner. Any other questions from Commissioner Buger? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Cisneros, uh does uh does the existing house have a garage or carport right now? No. So, the existing res residence does not have a garage or a carport. Okay. Uh and this might be something that would be better asked of the applicant. Uh but uh then what's who's going to use the garage that would be built? So, the garage and the workshop that's going to be built uh the applicant could answer to that, but they have indicated that it's all going to be used for personal use. Um as well as the ADU for personal use for family and friends. Uh there's no indication and no intent for that ADU to be used as a short-term rental. The u Thank you. The uh uh this is it's too bad that the community planning folks left the room. This might have been a question for them, but uh well, you're standing up there, so I'll

ask you. the uh so there's only two overlay districts that where accessory dwelling units are not approved by right I think here in Madrid so uh why the question is why why is that yeah Mr. chair, commission members. So, yes, the Tsuki overlay and the Madrid overlay are the two overlay districts that do require conditional use permit for accessory dwelling units. The Tsuki overlay did have a rewrite or an amendment just about a year ago. Um, that was brought up by the, you know, to the community if they wish to to remove that restriction and the community wished to to remain to have that restriction on there. They changed other things such as uh setbacks for walls, wall heights, and overall heights for structures, but they remained to decided to leave the uh restriction of a conditional use permit for an accessory dwelling unit. Okay. Thank you. And uh last question, uh as if this were to be approved, uh would there be u any additional landscaping put in or uh uh or not? Um there's no requirements. There's natural buffering and screening um on the property. Um so it meet meets the requirements for landscaping buffering. So there's no requirement for additional landscaping. Um if the applicant decides that they you know wish to you know further landscape the property that would be up to them. Okay. Kind of like a building code sets a minimum and you can meet it or go beyond. That is correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other commissioners have questions of staff? Commissioner Cruz Crawford. Yeah, I'll just follow up with that question I just mentioned as far as just the square footage meeting the square footage requirements for the ADU. I'm assuming staff has reviewed this and it also

meets height requirements and all the other typical ADU requirements if that are they're on the code. That is correct. Yes, the heated square footage, although I don't have the exact existing square footage of the single family residence, it has been verified and confirmed, it does meet the 50% requirement of the heated square footage of the main residence. Um, and it's below 1,400 ft². So, it meets both those requirements. It's meeting the requirements of utilities as it's going to share both the septic uh the well and uh electric as well. And it is subordinate in height to the primary residence as well. I believe the height for the ADU is 14T. Is that correct or what what is it I forget for the ADUs? So the height restriction for the tsuki overlay is has gone back to 24 ft. Previously it was uh I believe it was 20 ft. Um but that had just been changed about a year ago. Um in the amendment for the tsuki overlay community district. Um but it is 24 ft. Now a follow up though because I believe for the ADUs under the SLDC there's a lower height restriction. Correct. And what is that? That is uh so what the SLDC states is that the height should it should not be taller than the primary residence. It's to look subordinate as the to the primary residence. So it will be below the height of the primary residence. Okay. Thank you. Any other questioners? Any other questions? I I have a I have a question. Um Mr. Mr. Cisneros, although the Mallisters are not interested in using the ADU as a short-term rental, perhaps future owners of the property may be. Um, and so nothing in the approval would limit that ability of potential future owners to go through the process to uh to put a short-term rental in this ADU. Is that correct, Mr. Chair? That is correct.

Okay. Thank you very much. Um, any other questions? Hey, this Thank you very much. Uh, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone either here or online who is interested in speaking? The applicant I'm sorry, is the applicant here and would are do you wish to u make a presentation? Thank you. Oops. Good afternoon. Thanks for your time. Uh I'm Deborah Mallister. Uh Deborah Mallister, 1473 Bishop's Lodge Road. Sound of F. Uh I just wanted to clarify um the square footage of the main house since uh that was a question. uh we have it at just under 2,800 square feet. And also the reason that there is not a garage attached to the primary residence is just the limitations of the lot. We have septic systems and wells and a narrow lot. So, our really our only choice was to do a detached garage. And uh we realized we had complications with moving a septic tank. We thought if we're going through all this trouble, why not make this small unit where the kids could stay when they come uh keep the daughter-in-laws happy? They have their own shower. So, um that's really our our purpose. And the lots really is really too tight to accommodate a whole lot of vehicles, a whole lot of people. Um, if anyone ever wanted to use that as a a rental property, I think they would have they would change their mind. It's just it's just a tight lot. So, that answers your questions. Thanks very

much. I I appreciate the what the designer has done with this with this plan. Um so the way I see it on the on the developer plans I think um it seems that there are walls surrounding are those new walls or are those existing fences or walls surrounding the they some were existing some they've just developed we've been there almost 40 years um so you know they just have kind of developed over time for the most part they were existing and there currently is some fencer wall along Bishop's Lodge is Is that right? Yes, it's about a 4ft high wall, 42 in maybe. Okay. And we need we do need to modify that a bit uh to keep the the fire department happy. We are going to be moving part of the wall so that there's clear access for their vehicles. Right. Okay. Any any questions from commissioners for the applicant? Commissioner Buger, Mr. Chair. Uh so Miss McAllister throughout the the written um application presentation that it was uh mentioned numerous times that the accessory dwelling unit would be for u for use by family. Right. So uh that is a Um and I would like to follow up on this a bit uh the use because the um please the approval criteria that we have to go through uh to recommend approval conditional use permit it

does directly or indirectly speak to the use of this. So, uh, uh, following up on, uh, Mr. Chair's comments on short-term rental, then, uh, just ask you point blank, do you anticipate using this accessory dwelling unit for a short-term rental? Not in our lifetimes. No, I don't. Yeah. Yeah. We have we have two adult sons who were both born in Santa Fe and they have um moved to other parts of the country. They're married. One of them has a little grandson. He's three and it's it's really for their use and it may be just a few weeks out of the year. Um and then um the garage will be nice for us to get out from under the the dripping elm trees and out of the weather. [Music] That's on the record and I'm satisfied. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from any commissioners? Thank you very much, Miss Mallister. Thanks for your time. So now this is a public hearing. Is there anyone here or online who is interested in speaking either for or against this proposal? Mr. Chair, there is no one online wishing to speak on this item. Okay. So, the public hearing portion is now closed. Commissioners, what's your wish? I'll make a motion to approve. Thank you, Commissioner. May I get a second? I'll second that. Thank you, Commissioner. And you get a roll call vote, please. Can you clarify if that is subject to staff's proposed conditions? Yes. Let's clarify that your motion and second are all inclusive of the staff's conditions of approval. Yes, I meant to include staff's uh inclusions.

And yes, my second. Thank you very much. And thank you, Roger. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you very much. The next item is case number 25-560, Michael Ray Martin and Balen Schwarz uh uh variance request. It's Martinez. Thank you, Mr. Chair and commissioners. Marie Martinez, building and development review specialist with the growth management division. Case number 25-5060 variance. issue. Michael Ray Martin and Ben Schwarz applicant Abby Goodree of Gloretta Geoscience Consultant Agent is requesting a variance of chapter 10.4.2.4 to allow the proposed accessory dwelling unit to utilize its own liquid waste disposal system. The property lies within the rural residential zoning district. The property is located at 128 Cloudstone Drive within Township 16

North, range 10 East, section 5, SDA2, Commission District 4, parcel number 23399211. The applicants purchased the property in 1988 with a princip principal residence and an accessory structure on it here now known as the ATF accessory dwelling unit ADU. The applicants added an additional enclosure to the garage area approximately 20 years ago while renovating the property, but the addition has not been used as a housing unit at any point. The four-bedroom house at 128 Clausstone Drive is already served by an on-site liquid waste disp. But connecting the ATF ADU liquid waste system stream to the system would have been infeasible due to the geological and topographical conditions of the property. The principal residents and the ATF after the fact ADU currently have it their own septic tanks and leech fields. The applicants received approval from the New Mexico Environment Department for the second on-site liquid waste system for the ADU on February 23rd, 2022. After inspection by NMED, they were granted a permit to operate on September 6, 2024, and were issued permit number LW 00005479. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance of chapter 10 section 10.4.2.4 of the SLDC to operate a second liquid way system on the property to serve the ADU. The applicant has addressed the variance criteria as outlined in the memo.

Building and Development Services staff has reviewed this report, this request for compliance with pertinent pertinent SLDC requirements and has found that the facts presented support the request for the variance office recommendations. On May 8th, 2025, this request was presented to the sustainable land development hearing officer. The hearing off officer memorialized findings of facts and conclusion of law in a recommended order on this request. The hearing officer based on the evidence presented recommended approval of the applicant's variance with the conditions proposed by staff. The written order and the minutes of May 8th, 2025 hearing are attached as exhibits J and K. Recommendation staff recommendation is for approval of the request for a variance to allow a separate system septic system on to the ADU due to terrain constraints subject to the conditions. If the Santa Fe County Planning Commission finds that 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 in the exhibits listed below are hereby submitted as part of their hearing record. Thank you. And at this time, I stand for any questions. Thank you, Miss Martinez. Commissioners, do you have any questions of staff? Commissioner Buger. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Miss Martinez, I I I thought I read somewhere in the material at least initially that uh um a variance for the garage may be needed. Is that is

that not So there's no variance needed for the the garage. Mr. Chair, commissioners, no. Mr. Chair, commission members. So originally when this came to our technical advisory committee meeting uh staff had identified that the existing structure um did meet setback uh but with the addition of the ADU staff felt that it was a change of use and thought that it would need a variance for setback. Uh but going back and discussing it with with legal and discussing it with other staff members, we had determined that that was not actually necessary um and not necessarily um the the right portion of the code that we were determining that on. Thank you. If I could follow up on that, that'd be a question for legal. Uh why is that then if a use changes may not be in this situation but there's a difference between garage where there would be no human activity at least for the most part unless you're working on your car uh and an accessory dwelling unit. Why uh why wouldn't a change in use matter? Mr. Chair, Commissioner Buger, uh just to clarify, the change of use would be changing it from a commercial to a residential or vice versa. Being that this is residential and strictly residential and it's a residential accessory to the primary dwelling, there's no change in the use. Okay. Thank you. the uh [Music] is uh in all of the material that I reviewed, there was uh there was a lot of explanation as far as why it was um

problematic to create um u to not use the existing leechfield. That was that was very clear. Uh what I did not see in any of the information was why um is the uh accessory dwelling unit being proposed and what use would be what it would be used for? Uh was there something that's not in the material? I I I'll ask the question the uh future because I I I still think the use of the accessory dwelling unit matters in uh the uh satisfaction of the criteria that we have to use to approve this or not. Mr. chair, commissioners. Uh, that would be a question for uh either the agent or the property owner because I I not I'm not sure what it is if it was for family or I don't think it was for um short-term rental, but you we can ask that question. Thank you. I I intend to uh be the last uh question I have is more of a general one, but there'd be a there was a I think a condition that uh the applicant shall obtain an after the fact permit for the uh uh for the conversion. Uh it uh conversion hasn't been done yet, right? Let me see. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Buger, it has been started. It hasn't been completed. So therefore, they will need the after the fact permitting. Uh so if I may ask, what uh what kept the applicant from not moving forward once they started? Mr. Chair, I think uh Commissioner

Buger, I think that's a question appropriate for the applicant. Hey, that makes two. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Martinez. Any other questions? Commissioner L Cruz Cruz Crawford. Yeah, I'm just trying to wrap my head around is I guess timelinewise. Could you explain again like because there's an after the fact permit, there's an addition that I guess like I said is already under construction. um a septic tank that was installed at I think 20 20 uh I forget what it was here. I can read in here 20 24 I believe. Um but if you could just break down the timeline because I'm just trying to understand that as far as like okay when did you know there's already existing accessory structure in place and then some sort of addition occurred and when did the septic uh the new septic system get installed um just to kind of get an idea of the timeline. Mr. Mr. Chair, if I may answer, M de la Cruz Crawford. Um, originally this came in for residents in a studio and during the time it we didn't have the guidelines that require it to be connected to the same septic system. So, NMED granted him that septic system for that studio. Therefore, thereafter they decided they wanted to convert it into the ADU and began the process. From my what my understanding to answer a question that was asked earlier is that they were unaware that they needed a permit and one of their clients told them you should probably obtain a permit. They came in to obtain that permit and found out that they could no longer convert the ADU with a separate septic system due to our new guidelines. Therefore, they're here before you for that variance. That's kind of how it broke down. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from commissioners? Thank you very much, Miss Martinez.

Thank you. Uh, is the applicant or their agent here? Are you interested in making a presentation or answering questions? Thank you. Yes, it's Abby Gry. Uh 1723 2nd Street, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505. Thank you. Um uh Commissioner Buger, thank you for questions. I just wanted to answer some of those for you. Please lift the mic. Thank you. Sorry. So your first question was about the use of the ADU. Um so as far as I know from my client, I am the agent representing my client. Um, as far as I know from my client, um, they are not allowed to use it as a short-term rental in their current neighborhood. So, they will only be using it for family and friends as just like how the person before us described using theirs, it's going to be the same use. And then your second question was about why they stopped construction on the ADU. So, what they did was basically just created a a room. It's just an empty room and they haven't fully finished making it into a casita, if you will, um for financial reasons. Uh do you have anything else you'd like to say or just want to respond to questions? Um I I don't have anything else that I'd like to say except thank you all for your time. I really appreciate it. Thanks, Commissioners. Commissioner Pava. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Miss Goodri, um I think you wrote the the report describing the geology and the hydraology. Uh for the record, could you explain because I think there truly are extenduating circumstances here given the location of this although it must have a nice view of Harry's through

the trees. Tell us a little bit about the the peculiarities why this is different than say down where I live on in Bario Laatta along the river, you know, which is just sand and silt and stuff like that. Absolutely. So um this property is up in the foothills you know looking towards the sres and um there is a large geologic outcrop of granite in the middle of the property. So it makes it very difficult to pipe anything subsurface from you know the ADU to the primary resident septic. So uh in addition to that the existing uh septic leech field for the primary residence was unable to be expanded in surface area. So we didn't want to risk any overloading to that system because there is a drop off into an aoyo a drainage into another property and then you know several other circumstances like the the outcrop that I discussed and then also the house is on one side. So it just wasn't able to be expanded in terms of surface area. So just to utilize as many natural resources as we could, we decided to use this lovely patch of dirt that's right by the ADU for its own septic and natural filtration of septic waste. Yeah, I just wanted to get that into the record. Um it's a very bad pun, but we don't want to take the underlying topography for granted unless it is right. Absolutely. Yes. Thank you, Commissioner. Uh any other questions of commissioners? Just commissioner just out of curiosity because I looked at the site plan. So there's the garage and I understand that there was some sort of u addition to that maybe a portal or something like that because I know there's the garage and the ADU. So I'm just curious what part of that addition was was the after the fact portion. Was a portion of that roof line of the ADU already portal that

was being um covered in or was I'm just kind of curious about that. I believe I'm not certain about this, but I believe that originally it was just a garage and then they added um on the south side of that garage an additional room basically. So, it was not there before and they built it and now they're requesting after the fact variance use for the subject for that bathroom. Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Buger. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Miss Gry, for your presentation. Sometimes I have a little trouble hearing if you don't speak right in the mic. I appreciate the um so just a follow up on Commissioner L Cruz Crawford's comment after the fact permit the uh it's uh so um you um do you have a permit in does your client have a permit in uh uh to construction industries at this point? Um, that would be a question of my client. May I ask uh why why is that? Let's have the uh witness approach. Yeah, if you could be sworn and repeat the question and your answers after you're sworn, sir. Thank you very much. I do. Michael Ray Martin 128 Cloudstone, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Commissioner Buger, can you sure repeat the question? Thank you. Uh my question

was um sir u do you have a U permit in uh to construction industries at this point given that you began construction already? I assume that we're following the protocol with this permit and then what other other permits we need. It's and the uh uh question that I maybe I wasn't paying sufficient attention when commissioner asked the question, but so what what improvements did you are currently in place? Uh mainly electrical and plumbing. Okay. So, are they exposed? Yes. It it's always mystifying to me after a after after the fact permit uh construction industries comes out and I done a lot of jobs and usually they they don't have a lot of time to spend on a site. So, if the sheetrock's already in that I don't know if they put some holes in it or take it down, it's it's it's an issue. So, at least it's exposed. Um, thank you. Uh, so let me ask you uh uh then uh for what purpose are you creating the accessory dwelling unit? uh mainly as a man cave, family, friends, pool table primarily. You intend to use it as a short-term rental? I cannot. My association won't allow me to rent it out. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chair Commissioner Buger, just to clarify, I do want to let you know that the applicant did come in to apply to

come into compliance to apply for a development permit. Um, but they were notified that they had an incomplete submitt because of the need of the variance. Uh, therefore, they did not get a development permit issued. Therefore, they did not go on to CD to get an actual building permit. Um, that's going to be a condition of approval. um if they get approved for the variance that they do need to come in and get after the fact development permit and then go on to CD for actual building permits. Thank you very much. Uh so this is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience or online who is interested in speaking either in support of or opposition to this application? No one in the room? Anyone online? Mr. Mr. Chair, there's nobody online wishing to speak on this case. Thank you very much. The public hearing portion is now closed. Uh what's the will of the commission? I would motion, Mr. Chair, I would after hearing this testimony, I would motion make a motion for approval of case 25-5060 variances. Mr. Mr. Chair, is that does that motion include conditions um recommended by staff? Certainly. Thank you very much. So, there's a there's a motion for approval with staff conditions. Is there a second? I'll second. There's a motion and a second. May we have a roll call vote, please? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Thank you very much. Okay. Next on the agenda, we have case 25-5010 Javier Warez variance the density request. Miss Martinez again. Thank you very much. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair and commissioners. Marie Martinez, building and development review specialist with the growth management division. Case number 25-5010 variance. Javier Huarees, applicant Lisa Martinez, agent requests a variance of density to divide 8.954 acres into seven lots, each containing 1.25 plus or minus.

The applicant also requests a second variance of the existing 250 foot setback from NM599 rightway. A third variance of open space. The property is zone residential estates within the threso de pony community district overlay which allows one dwelling per 2.5 acres. The property is located at three horizon North Horizon Lane Township 16 North Range 8 East section 1 commission district 2. The applicant requests a variance of density to allow the division of 8.954 acre parcel into seven 1.25 acre lots for a family transfer. Chapter 9, table 9-11-2 dimensional standards porn residential E illustrates the allowed density at one dwelling unit per 2.5 acres for this zoning district. The applicant further requests a variance of chapter 9.11.2.1 2.1 of the 250 ft setback requirement of the Treso Point A community to district overlay to eliminate the required 250 ft setback. Setbacks are to be regulated per chapter 7.3 table 7- of the SLDC. Furthermore, the applicant requests a variance of chapter 9.11.2.2.3 2.3 restricting the utilization of the perimeter of the property as open space. The applicant proposes to utilize the regulated setback per chapter 7.3 to meet the required o open space. The applicant has addressed the variance criteria as follows.

Hearing officer recommendation. On May 8th, 2025, this request was presented to the sustainable land development hearing officer. The hearing officer memorialized findings of facts and conclusion of law in a recommended order to this request. The hearing officer based on the evidence presented recommended denial of the applicant's variance of density. The written order and the minutes of May 8th, 2025 hearing are attached as exhibits M&N recommendation. Staff's recommendation is for denial of the request for the variance of density 250 foot setback requirements and open space requirements. If the planning commission finds a variance criteria has met the recommends and recommends approval of the variance, staff recommends the following conditions be imposed. Mr. Chair and commissioners, may I enter these conditions into the record? Yes, you may. This report and the exhibits listed below are hereby submitted as part of the hearing record. Thank you. And at this time, I sound for any questions. Thank you very much, Ms. Martinez. Commissioners, do you have questions of staff? Commissioner Buger. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, uh, M. Martinez, uh, I noticed on the plat that was, um, included in the presentation, there appears to be, uh, no designation of formal open space, uh, either in the form of a dedication or an easement. Um, is is that uh correct?

Mr. Chair, Commission Member Buger, that is correct. Thank you. uh uh like to point out that uh in the u we were just talking about overlay districts earlier previous presentation. So in this one in the tresos del ponye community district overlay section 9 in the code 9.11.2.4 Four, it mentions that the permanent open space um may be dedicated to the public or to an open space land trust or other nonprofit management entity or for common use or to a homeowners association as an open space easement. So the way I read this code um that uh if neither a dedication or an easement has been provided then they would be in violation of that section of the code. That's just a comment. Commissioner, did you read it as maybe or shall be? I'm sorry. Uh maybe either or. But u uh that if legal wants to correct Uh I took it as one or the other because otherwise uh whatever open space requirement um is proposed to be met is proposed to be met within privately owned property which appears to be u to be problematic. Mr. Chair, Commission Member Buger, I agree with you. Um however uh open space requirements are major for major subdivisions such as you know a 24 lot 60 lot that's when we look at dedication for trails easements and whatnot that's not to say that they won't need to provide some sort of easement in case a trail does come in just in case a trail does come through there. Um however um I

think the idea that they were planning on doing is using that 25 foot setback and perimeter setbacks as open space areas. Thank you Mr. about the uh one other uh question comment for now. Uh so regarding the setback um so this uh Mexico 599 that uh that's a at least what I remember it to be that's a whip route waste isolation pilot plant. So, I think the the feds kicked in 50% of it, state kicked in money, too, so that uh the radioactive waste that would come from Los Alamos wouldn't go down St. Francis Drive. So, that uh u so a relief route was built. Um um so with that uh it makes sense that there would be a rather uh large setback from the road in the unlikely event that there is an accident because accidents happen. So my my question is given the the request to reduce the setback from 250 ft 25 feet um along this route. Um does did the state do have to weigh in? I wouldn't presume the feds do but uh did they have to weigh in at all on this? Mr. Chair, Commission Member Buger, no, they didn't have to weigh in on this. This is strictly a C uh the tap overlay guidelines. Okay, that's uh if they were proposing access off of the frontage road there, then the state would be weighing in on

this issue. I uh u would think that this issue is a interest public interest issue. Anyway, that's all my comments, questions for now. Mr. Chair, commissioners, I did send out um some information or a request for information from the NMD dot on uh February 26, 2025, and there was no response. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Martinez. Any other questions from commissioners? Commissioner Pava. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Miss Martinez. Um I'm looking at the uh aerial photograph that was provided in the staff report documents. Uh basically it it shows the uh proposed the boundaries of the proposed development uh along u 599 and then the surrounding area with how the platting currently exists. I noticed that there are at least nine perhaps 10 lots that would appear to be in the the small maybe 1.25 acreage size. Um one is almost adjacent lot number 10 and then several are separated by uh by the distance of two more lots. Uh there's several along North Horizon uh Lane and Ravens uh not but not Ravenswood 1 2 3 4 5 six seven maybe eight. My point, my question would be is were those created uh prior to the adoption of the s sustainable land development code and or the overlay and is that why those lots are smaller and they pre-exist

both probably the 599 as a as the whip highway and um the the most recent county planning um regulations. questions. Mr. Chair, Commissioner, uh, in the past we had provisions that allowed for small lot family transfers of 1.25 acres. Uh, so they were able to go from 2.5 acres minimum to half the minimum density requirements. Many of these laws were created prior to the 2016 ordinance and therefore allowed it. Uh, the regulations changed since and the minimum requirements is 2.5 acres per dwelling. But the the lots that I'm mentioning, if you if you if you can see where they are um on this uh aerial photograph exhibit F, is it F? Looks like it's F. Um do we know if those were created then through the family subdivision and prior to 2016? Mr. Chair, Commission P member Pava, that is correct. They were all created prior to 2016. Thank you. Um I I have to say having worked at the lab all during the time of the development of whip and whatnot and these are the southbound lanes which is the vehicles would be coming south through town to avoid St. Francis and the 13 signals. Commissioner uh Steve makes a very good point uh about the concerns there. Um, is this is this are family lot subdivisions still permitted somehow in the code? Mr. Chair, Commissioner Member Pawa, they are, but they have to meet minimum lot size requirements. And minimum lot size requirements vary by the zone and

overlay. Mr. Chair, Commission Member Pawa, that is correct. Yeah. And in this case it would be at least uh two and a two and a half acres right Mr. Chair Commissioner Pava that is correct. Yeah. Um when I look at this over this aerial photograph across this across the highway there is a manufactured maybe it's mobile home development. Is that in the city or the counties? Excuse my ignorance. Mr. Chair, Commission Member Pava that is in the city. That is a city development. Uh okay. And and that's rather dense. Um, but that's not under our jurisdiction. Um, well, I think that that's what I wanted to ask. I I appreciate your your time, patience. Thank you, Commissioner Commissioner Luck Cruz Crawford. Just follow up a little bit on that 250 foot setback requirement because I'm looking at the aerial map as well in here. um on other properties uh north of the highway there. Are all those other properties meeting that 250 foot setback or what when also when was that 200 foot setback in place? Was that at 2016 or was that prior to that as well? Mr. Chair, Commissioner Dea Cruz, that is correct. They were all done prior to 2016 and they um there was one particular pro they all meet that setback most majority of them prior to that. Um but however the there is a variance that was granted on a property with the same required setback that was granted probably several years back um during the 2016 ordinance and uh prior to the 2016 was there also a 20050 50 foot setback in place Mr. Chair, that is correct. Uh the the

ordinance was in place prior to 2016 and the requirements of two of this new tap ordinance when it got it got amended with this it incorporated that as well. Okay. So that 250 set book has been in place for a long time essentially. Mr. Chair, uh commission members Cruz I believe so. Yeah. Thank you commissioner. Any other questions of staff? Thank you very much, Miss Martinez. Thank you. One more. Uh, Commissioner Buger. So there's a uh in the applicants um submittal, they're requesting that u uh the setback in chapter 7, the blanket setback be used rather than the u setback in the district overlay um of 250 ft. Uh I I would think that the the district overlay given that it is res it it it was created as part of a adopted plan and then an adopted overlay and then the the code that was placed in here. I would think that that would take precedence over the blanket set back in section seven, but um my question is um does it? Mr. Chair, Commission Member Buger, that is correct. It does set precedent over the original guidelines. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. And thank you, Miss Martinez. Thank you. Is the

applicant or their agent here and they wish to speak? Yes, they are. Thank you. Yes. Yes, I do. Lisa Martinez address is 3201C Zaffrono Drive number 111 Santa Fe New Mexico 87507. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the planning commission. Um, let me begin by thanking you for the opportunity uh to be able to present our case uh for variance request from the requirements of the SLDC. Again, my name is Lisa Martinez and I'm presenting our case today on behalf of Mr. Javad Wattis. He is the current property owner and it's also being presented on behalf of Mr. Gerald and Mrs. Nora Solano who are currently under contract to purchase the 8.95 acre property located at number three North Horizon Lane. As has been stated, the property is located within the Tresa Royals del Pande Community District overlay and it's zone as residential estate or RES E. So on behalf of the applicant, I'm requesting the following three variances that are associated with density, setback, and open space. We are further requesting approval to allow the 8.95 acre property to be divided into seven 1.25 25 acre lots in the resi zone uh that normally mandates only one dwelling per 2.5 acres and I'm hopeful that I can answer some of the questions that you've posed earlier. Um just to give you a

little bit of the project background um going back to September of 2022 u Mr. Javad Wades and his surveyor the late Mr. Alan Grace presented to the TAC a request for the division of land, a variance of density and a variance of setback requirements. Uh Mr. Wades and Mr. Grace further met with the land use department and other county departments such as water and wastewater within public works. Um they also met with the state of New Mexico engineering department for a well permit. Ultimately, they applied and they submitted an application for a ready, willing, enabled water and wastewater service application. Uh submitted that to Santa Fe County in June of 2022 and and it was approved in July of that year. We understand that that has that approval has since expired. Um, however, a new application was submitted for reapproval and on February 14th of 2025, we received a letter stating that the Santa Fe County Utilities Department is ready to provide the proposed development with the services requested. Uh, they will grant water service access to a 12-in water line which is at Vista SU. It's approximately 1628 ft from the development location. And in addition from the same location, there's also a 12-in wastewater line that will be made available for a wastewater connection. So, our first variance pertaining to density. Um, it's a request of the variance of SLDC table 8-10 to allow seven lots, which would consist of approximately 1.25 acres to be created out of the 8.95 acres. and SLDZ table 810 illustrates that the density within the resi zoning is 2.5 acres. So the applicant's desire is to create these seven lots um and as

has been described for the purpose of a family transfer subdivision. Uh the request for this lot size we did not feel was unusual as we found many 1.25 25 acre family transfer lots that have been created within the TAPCD. And in this general area of the county in the past, um, if you look at the information that was in the packet, there's a color-coded map that identifies that there are actually 38 lots that are 1.25 acres. And the map further defines 17 lots that are less than the 2.5 acres. Those are shown in yellow. The others um are shown in red. Um so in terms of the variance criteria so the proposed density variance is not considered to be contrary to the public interest based on the following. Uh the request was presented to the general public in the form of a neighborhood meeting as required by by the SLDC. Uh, no one in attendance spoke in opposition of the subdivision and the applicant is certainly willing to comply with any and all SLDC requirements and overlay requirements to create the subdivision. The infrastructure, meaning roads, sewer, and water lines uh will all be constructed in accordance with code requirements. Um, the 8.95 acre parcel was created by the construction of New Mexico 599. Um, in 2016, the SLDC was adopted, at which time the small lot family transfer was eliminated from the code. Uh, the applicant wishes to create these lots for the purpose of a small lot family transfer subdivision. Um, prior to 2016, I understand that the 1.25 acre small lot small lots were created directly through Santa Fe County. So the creation of small lots we believe will serve as a very important form of affordable housing for the applicant's family. Strict compliance with the density

requirements for this property would create an undue hardship on the applicant and that the amount of usable area would be significantly limited due to the setbacks and open space requirements. Um the the change that is sought will not be contract will not be contrary to the property sizes in the nearby vicinity as we see that there are approximately 75% of the adjoining neighbors that are less than 2.5 acres in size. Um we know that the SLDC is designed to protect and promote the health, safety and general welfare of both present present and future residents in the county. And so we feel that the granting of the requested density variance meets the purpose and intent of the SLDC as a small smaller lots will provide affordable housing to many family members, therefore meeting the spirit of the SLDC. This is not a proposed subdivision that's being put forward uh by a developer for profit. This is for family um for them to be in close proximity to one another and to be able to um watch their families grow age in place and that's we know that's very important for our community. Uh the second variance having to do with setback. Um we know that there's a 250 foot setback for New Mexico 599 right away and so the applicant is requesting to eliminate that setback. Um, we know that the setback is is a significant amount of land and it would take up approximately 50% of the property which would really limit any potential subdivision uh that would be proposed. Um, the distance from New Mexico 599 to the property line is approximately 18 feet, which leaves an approximate 232 foot setback on the 8.95 acre site. And so again, the applicant is requesting a

variance to eliminate that setback. Um, we feel that it's not contrary to the public interest due to the fact that there are many structures along New Mexico 599 within the TAPCD that do not meet the 250 foot setback. Some of these structures are now within the Santa Fe city limits, which we understand or were incorporated into the village of Awa Fria community district overlay. Um, as I've stated, strict enforcement of the SLDC section 9.11.2.1 will reduce the potential for development on the parcel. And it there doesn't seem to be any practical reason to impose this setback on the parcel of land as there are other properties and structures along New Mexico 599 that are within the setback and are very visible from 599. In fact, the four parcels that are immediately east of this property all have structures that are within that 250 foot setback. Um the granting of the requested setback variance will allow the family members to live within and contribute to Santa Fe County. Uh therefore meeting the spirit of the SLDZ. Uh the land taken by the enforcement of the 250 foot setback requirement. we can't see where it benefits the county in any specific way. I certainly understand your concerns that you brought forward about um the whip transportation in that area and I don't know if that is part of the reasoning behind why that was established to begin with, but in terms of practicality and use of that land, um it really can't be used for anything. You have 599, you have the frontage road, and then you have the parcel. So, it's not I I doubt that the frontage road would ever be widened and that land would be necessary, but I can't see I can't see any practical use that the county would have for it in terms of it.

It seems like it would if it were taken out of this one parcel and not taken out of the others. We're not quite sure how it would be utilized. So um it is important to note that in March of 2020 uh there was another case that came before the county hearing officer and the planning commission as well with a similar request for variance from the requirements uh for the uh for the 250 ft setback. Uh there was existing property to topography and drainage that were the focus of the request. Um but ultimately the hearing officer and the planning commission approved the request citing in part as one of the conclusions of law that the request was not contrary to the public interest. The spirit of the SLDC is observed and most importantly that the setback is consistent with the setback of existing structures on neighboring properties. And that's a quote from the findings of fact and conclusions of law um from that report um to talk about the open space requirements. I know there was also a question about whether or not we were proposing any open space. And so what we are actually um proposing um we're not proposing to fully eliminate the open space requirement but rather we are proposing to utilize the the requirements and the res setback um to meet the required 30% open space requirements. Um the resi setback required by the SLDZ table 7A is 10 feet from the front of the property line and 25 ft from the sides and the rear of the property lines. And so these are the setbacks that we are proposing and that is what's shown on the proposed uh development survey that we provided in your packet terms of the variance criteria that need to be met. Um the request is to allow the res e setbacks to be utilized to comply with the 30% opens space

requirement and we do not feel it's contrary to the public interest for that reason. Um again the proposed subdivision will be developed in accordance with all SLDC and overlay requirements as well. Um the granting of the variance we feel would allow the development to meet the open space requirements and manner that's suitable to this property. Um the TAPCD requirements for subdivision do not differentiate a seven lot subdivision from a 70 lot subdivision and we feel that that's really important. Um the requirements put an undue burden on the smaller subdivisions as we are proposing and so um for that reason we thought this might be an alternative and why we proposed it uh in the form of a variance request. Um, in closing, um, again, just to summarize, the applicant is asking for relief from the dimensional standards set forth in the SLDC section 9.11 set back from New Mexico 599 and SLDC table 8-8 reszi density requirements and language within the SLDC section 9.11, which prohibits open space within perimeter setbacks. The requested zoning density variance and setback variance would serve the purpose of maximizing a utility of a portion of land that as an express condition of the plat's approval would result in exceptional practical difficulties for the future owner, Mr. Gerald Solano. In order for Mr. Solano to provide each of his children and family members with a relatively equal inheritance that will serve as a form of affordable housing for the applicant's family. Mr. Solano would absolutely need the land associated with the current 250 foot setback from the frontage road. We know that affordable housing is a critical issue uh not only within the county across the city as well. Um and

it and equally as important are the benefits to be gained from having a family close together. Mr. Solano and some of his family members are here today and would also like to speak to present the benefits of the proposed subdivision for his family and how this will provide a stable and secure environment along with an independent home site to care for family members. It will further address the aging in place concept and the importance of being able to have a family community nearby for support and care. The applicant maintains that the requested variances will not have adverse effects on the general health, safety, and welfare of property owners and area residents. And so, in closing, um should you approve our request, uh we would like to ask um that a couple of the staff recommendations um not be imposed. Uh one of them that prohibits uh the development and construction of ADUs. Um that would be um an important one that we that we leave in place if at all if at all possible. Um and secondly uh let me find it real quickly here. The second one that we would request is that um there's a provision that calls for no drilling drill no drilling of domestic wells. Now, even though we have the ready, willing, enable letter and permission to connect to county water and wastewater, uh we know that the the nearest distance to those connections is, like I said, about 1,600 feet away. Um so, we don't know if that would be cost prohibitive. And I know the code also specifies that there are certain maximum distances that you can go to connect. I think for water, it's about 290 ft. And for wastewater, I think it's approximately a hundred. Um, so with that, uh, Mr. Chair and members of the

planning commission, we thank you for your time and consideration. And, uh, I would, uh, ask that you allow the family members to speak. And with that, I would stand for any questions. Thank you. Uh, commissioners, let's have the members of the family speak before we ask questions of the agent or the applicant. So please come up and be sworn. Thank you. Good afternoon and thank you for allowing me to speak. Uh my name is Gerald Solano. I live at 4443 Mission Bend in Santa Fe, New Mexico and I have been sworn in. Uh if you don't mind, I I wrote down what I wanted to say because I didn't want to leave anything out. So, um, good afternoon, commissioners, and thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is Gerald Solano. I stand with my wife, Nora, and my daughter, Mariah Solano. My son, Derek, is the police officer back there. We are lifelong natives of Santa Fe. I'm here on today on behalf of my many family members seated behind me. We come today to ask for your approval in the requested variance which would help us

fulfill our dream. Our dream is to purchase the 8.95 acres of land in the threshal subdivision and subdivide the land into parcels that would become home uh to me and my family members and my kids and my grandkids. My family who is sitting behind me were all born and raised in Santa Fe and spent our entire lives living in Santa Fe. Every single one of us have attended elementary school, middle school, and high school here in Santa Fe. We are public servants of the community. We are the employees that keep our government running. Our family is comprised of current and retired city, county, and state employees. Together we have we are the employees of the New Mexico State Land Office, New Mexico Environment Department, PRA, CYFD, Presbyterian Medical Services, Santa Fe Public Schools, and a current and retired Santa Fe Police Officers. We serve our community in our employment and in our free time we spend coaching our kids in our youth and a variety of sports activities. Our family roots run deep in Santa Fe uh Santa Fe community and our goal is to keep our roots firmly implanted in Santa Fe for generations to come. As many of you know, ownership in Santa home ownership in Santa Fe is getting increasingly difficult. The high cost of real estate in Santa Fe has pushed many locals out to neighboring cities. [Music] Far too often our children are forced to move to Albuquerque, Rio Rancho, Bernalo and in doing so local Santa Feans are forced to commute an additional two hours per day to keep their jobs here in Santa Fe. Many of them many others are forced to leave their government jobs here in Santa Fe due to

the high cost of living. So not only are we losing our youth but we are losing our our employees. More important than the economic reasons for this land purchase is the human and personal reasons. Allowing these variances to go through would allow a very close and loving family to stay together uh to look after each other as we all get older. My daughter Mariah who is [Music] 30 years old who was 30 years old was diagnosed with an incurable rare cancer in 2023. Despite your current cancer diagnosis and ongoing treatments, she still works a full-time job for the state land office. here in Santa Fe and and is an accounting supervisor. Like many youth like many young adults, she values her independent living. Her doctors are here in Santa Fe where she receives regular amunotherapy treatments. Having to move out of Santa Fe would not only add an additional two hours of commute time for her day to work, but would also greatly affect her treatments and doctor's appointments. My wife Nora and I are both retired government employees. She retired from New Mexico public employees retirement department and I am a retired Santa Fe Police Lieutenant. Our main priority is to provide a safe and safe daycare as we can for our grandbabies which we will be having our first one here in August. Caring for our grandbabies and our kids to pursue their careers would be impossible if they are forced to move out of Santa Fe as we need to travel as

they would need to travel uh we would need to travel out of town on a daily basis to babysit. Our vision our vision is that one day we live to the ripe old age that our children can care for us. Living close to each other makes much more sense for everyone. As a husband, I can be at peace knowing that if anything was to ever happen to me, my wife, and my kids will be surrounded by loved ones who live close by. While I volunteered to speak on on how these variances and the land purchase will affect me and my my children and the rest of the family behind me, they all have their own reasons where which are just as important. When we first found out about this property, it was a dream that everything would fall into place and make this happen. Buying the property without knowing if these variants would go through would be a huge financial risk to us. Instead, we went under contract to purchase the property under the conditions that these variants are passed and that we can split the property to fit our family's needs. To date, we have spent over $30,000 uh in the application process and uh surveys and stuff like that. We have tried to do everything by the book to meet the county's requirements as well as to show we are good neighbors to all in the Thresher Roy subdivision. It is is it is important to note that in asking for these variances to be approved that we are not asking for any special privileges that have not been already granted to other land owners in the area over the years. This is evident as a map we have provided to you in in the packet as attachments. The match the map shows the breakdown of

the lots in the subdivision. The m the lots marked in the red are 38 lots that are 1.25 acres in size. The lots marked in the yellow are 17 lots that are less than 2.5 acres in size. This means that 55 of the 79 lots or 75% of the lots in this area are less than the 2.5 acres which is required. In addition, there are a few lots that are smaller than 1.25 acres. If approved, we would have four lots at 1.25 acres and the main remaining three lots would be 1.31 acres. Our request falls in line with other lot sizes in the area. The request of the 250 foot setback was approved in 2022 for the property just two lots over from this property. This property does not butt up to 599. There is the frontage road that um separates 599 and um and the property. I've I've heard you guys' concerns about about you know the whip and all that uh stuff and I I understand that but we are not right up on 599. there is a frontage road and um the last thing I would do want to do is put my family in in harm's way but I also do understand that you know you can't prevent everything. It should be noted that all the lots in this area have private wells and septic systems many of which are 20 years old. It should be should we be able to bring county water and sewer to our property, it would be a big benefit to the rest of the neighbors to have county services that much closer

uh for connection should their well or septic systems fail. For these reasons, we respectfully ask that you help our dream come true by approving these variances in front of you today. Thank you for your time and your attention. Thank you, Mr. Solano. Do any of the other folks wish to speak? Oh, sorry, but my current address is 497. Good afternoon. Thank you guys for allowing me to speak. My name is Derek Solano. I'm 24 years old and I have been a police officer with the city of Santa Fe for four years. I was born and raised in the city and I've always felt proud to serve the community that raised me. My wife and I both grew up here and we both knew this is where we wanted to build our life together. We've dreamed of finding a piece of land where we can build our home, something close to both our families, where our children can grow up near the grandparents. With both of us working full-time, it's a blessing to know our kids will be cared for by people we love and trust. We've searched for property before, but finding something that fits our needs and budget has been a real challenge. Having our parents watch our kids while we're at work will save us a significant amount of money on child care expenses. This is where our roots are, and we want our children to grow up with the same sense of community and belonging that we did. Staying in Santa Fe means everything to us. It's more than just where we live. It's our community, our home. It's where our families have grown, our roots run deep, and where we want to build our future. Lately, many of us are being forced to consider leaving, not because we want to, but because we can't find housing that fits our lives. We don't want to have to move to Rio Rancho or Albuquerque to afford a home

with enough space or find a property that matches our vision or lives. If we move to Rio Rancho, I would have to add an additional two hours of commute time to my already 10-hour workday, which would significantly impact my ability to respond to immediate emergency callouts. As a member of the emergency response team, living in the city, I'm sorry, living in the Santa Fe community I serve allows for a faster, more effective action unlike many officers who must travel into town when emergencies arise. We don't have to spend We don't want to have to spend hours commuting back and forth from your rancho to Santa Fe or worse working jobs far from the community we love simply because housing pushed us out. We're not asking for luxury. We're asking for the ability to live and work in the city we call home. Santa Fe should grow in a way that includes Santa Fe natives, not just those who can afford high-end developments. Thank you for your time and consideration in our story. Thank you, Mr. Solano. Miss Solano. My name is Savannah Solano. I am 25 years old and I was born and raised here in Santa Fe. After graduating from Santa Fe High School, I attended New Mexico State University where I earned my master's degree in business administration. After meeting my now husband, I moved back home to Santa Fe and began working with the State Land Office for 2 years. I now work for the city of Santa Fe as an HR analyst, too. My husband and I got married in June of 2024, and we're now 32 weeks pregnant, expecting our first baby in August. It's an exciting and emotional time for us as we prepare to start our family. My husband and I both grew up here, and we're now working hard to build a future for our family in the same community that shaped us. Our dream is to purchase property near both of our parents, somewhere we can build a home and raise our kids, surrounded by family. It means the world to us that our children will be cared for by their grandparents while

we're at work. And we hope to give them a childhood full of love, space to play, and a deep connection to this community. We've looked at property before, but it's been very difficult to find something that's both affordable and truly feels like home. Our vision is to build a house where our kids and dogs can run around freely and where we can stay for the long term. If we are unable to find a property and have to move to Rio Rancho, it would likely require us to find and pay for child's care near there, adding a significant unplanned expense to our budget, especially since our long-standing plan has always been to rely on our parents to care for their grandchildren while we're at work. We're committed to Santa Fe, not just because it's where we're from, but because it's where we want our children to grow. Thank you. Thank you. Paul Sandival, 42 Cordo, Nevada, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507. Thank you for letting us speak today. My name is Paul Sandval and this is my wife Shirley. Fortunately, my kids couldn't be here. They're working today. Um, I've lived here for 60 years. Uh I work for Toyota of Santa Fe where I'm the parks and service director. I've been there for the last 33 years. Um we are definitely involved in the community. I've been a volunteer coach at Santa Fe High Capitol High School for the last 20 years. My son and my son-in-law are both uh really involved in the local church and both help out with all the youth in Santa Fe. Uh they're pouring, we are all pouring into the community. With all that said, I love Santa Fe and so do so do my kids. I want them to grow up and raise their kids here so that we can all be close to each other. But as you all know, the cost of living in Santa Fe is

very expensive and most people can't afford to stay here. My son and his wife live in Real Ranch Road right now and work in Santa Fe. They both have to have young kids and have to commute and and my daughter and her husband rent in Santa Fe because they can't afford a house here. We aren't asking for any special privileges just to be treated fairly like others have been in the past in the same neighborhood. So with your grace and your understanding, hopefully we will get approved to develop the property. My hope is that all of my kids and my grandkids can live near us in this beautiful city we call home and they can raise their kids and we can all pitch in and serve this community like we have for the last 60 years. Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. I've been sworn in. My name is Ivet Sandival and my address is 2360 Brother Abdinway, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and commissioners. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today. Just like the others, I'm a lifelong resident of Santa Fe, deeply rooted in this community. After college, I returned home and have remained an active and contributing member ever since. We coached little league, taught catechism, were very active at each of our schools, planned all the senior events. So, it's always been important to me to be close to family. Santa Fe isn't just where I live. It's literally who I am. It's where I raised my two be beautiful daughters and prayed that they would always be able to return home. When my youngest daughter returned from college, we really worried about how she might be able to stay home. As you know,

affordable housing in Santa Fe is a growing challenge here. When Derek and Savannah found the property that we're looking at, it was like all of our prayers were answered. It was the opportunity for our babies and grandb babies to be able to stay home in this beautiful community. To me, this isn't just about housing. It's about staying close to my family. I'm requesting this these variances so that I can live live near my daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren and support them in any way that I can as they also contribute to their community, working in government, coaching their teams, teaching catechism, and participating in all the activities that their children will be engaged in. This request aligns with the spirit of the community in the subdivision and won't disrupt the neighborhood since there's already many lots. I think we heard 38 of this size. This request simply allows me to be a present grandparent and a supportive part of my family's life just as my grandfather was for me a couple of blocks from here. I respectfully ask for your support and helping me to remain in the community I love close to the people who matter the most. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Is anyone else here from the applicant family? Okay. Um, so now commissioners, do you have any questions of Oh, is there anyone online um from the applicants family? Mr. Chair, commission members, we do have Anelica Sanchez online wishing to speak. Is Is she a Is she part of the applicant group? Because I think we haven't entered the public hearing yet.

Um, no, she's part of the uh part of the public. Okay. So, so let's just hold off. Uh, commissioners, would you like to ask any questions of the um agent or any of the applicants? Commissioner Buger. Thank you, Mr. Sure. Um guess first question would be uh for Miss Martinez if you would. Uh thank you for your presentation. It's good. The uh um so question on u so the current owner is uh Mr. Wattis. Um Mr. Mr. Chair and members of the planning commission. Uh, Commissioner Buger, that's correct. Okay. Uh, when did he buy the property? That's a good question. I'm not sure that I have an answer to that. The I thought I saw something in the file that uh he bought it u from the state. Um, but I if I I may or may not be correct, but what I saw something in the file that it was like 2020. And the reason the reason I'm asking is that uh if it was after the code had been approved then that's one thing um that one would have an idea what one may be getting into as far as density and requirements. Um and uh um so um so I can't ask whether I I could ask whether uh is was he aware of um u

the requirements when he acquired the property or you may not know. Um uh Mr. Chair, Commissioner Buger, I'm not sure if he was aware of the requirements, but I do know then that in 2022 um he did go before the TAC uh with a similar request. he had density and um um a few other items that he was requesting uh at that point in time. So he must have known in 2022 how soon prior to that he purchased the property and whether or not he was aware. I I don't have an answer to that. Thank you. And and did that uh case in 2022 did that did that come before planning commission or what what happened with that? I don't believe it made it as far as planning commission. I think it went before the TAC. Um, and they got the ready, willing, and able letter of approval. Uh, beyond that, staff may know more about that than than I do. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Bugger, I have no record on on those issues. And and Commissioner Bugle, I believe you're correct. I read in the uh exhibit titled quit claim deed that um that he acquired the property in 2020. Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Buger or Commissioner Meyer? Okay. Uh the next question uh for uh Mr. Solano, if I may. Yeah. So, you have a contract to purchase the property um from Mr. Watis? Yes, sir. And uh you haven't closed on the property yet, have you not? Or you have conditions that must be met prior to when you close? And one of the big

conditions I would suspect would be these variance requests. No, sir. Uh when we first learned of the property, we we knew that we were going to be requesting a variance in the lot split. Um so that's when we went under contract with him. Um and we found out that uh that there was a 250 foot setback on there. So that that brought up another issue that that so we were very hesitant to purchase the property because of of this on there. So, uh, of course, he wanted to sell the property. Uh, we entered into a contract with him that, uh, we would give him, um, $10,000 down as a, um, retainer fee, whatever you call it, down payment. Um, well, as long as he would hold the property, as as as long as we went through this process, uh, we didn't think it was going to take, it's been almost a year that that we've been going through the process, and we didn't think it would take that long. Uh, the $10,000 that we did give him, um, was with the condition that if if it doesn't go through, we forfeit the money. Uh, so that's one of the conditions. And then we've also put, like I said, about $30,000 into into surveys and different things that we've had to do to try to get to this point where we're at now. So, um, so all in all, we'd probably be at about $40,000 if it didn't go through. I may one one more question for now. It could be either to you or Miss Martinez, but why um Why seven lots? Well, because we have our our kids here

and um we were originally going to do it for five lots and um we were told that uh if we if it was to be approved that we wouldn't be able to split it anymore after that. So, we were advised that if if we were going to if we were going to do it, we should do it for what we were planning for the long term. and the seven lots is what we would need long term. Some of them some of our our kids aren't uh able to build right now, but we're hoping within the next 5 years that they will, but we also understood that in 5 years we wouldn't be able to come back and ask to split split a 2.5 acre lot into 1.25 acres. So that's why we're trying to do it all today. Thank you, Commissioner Ryer. Yeah, this is uh for the agent uh Miss Martinez. So, you were talking about um the sewer and the fresh water from the county and you were saying it was quite a ways away. Can you go over that just a little bit more? How far are those uh the hookups for the water and the sewer compared to where the lots are at? Um and Mr. Chair and Commissioner Meyer, I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly. Um yes, we we understand uh that the that the lines are uh one of the lines is approximately 1620 ft away uh from the parcel. And so um I'm not completely familiar with how the county deals with that. Like I said, we know there's a provision in the code that says that you have to connect within 290 ft for the water. Um, so I'm not sure how the rest of it gets addressed. We know that some of the adjacent property owners, there's a gentleman named um, Matthew Baka and

he has he has the water line coming through his through his property and that's where the connection would come from. But we don't know if it's a if it's straight across the property connection where an easement would have to be created or if uh the water lines would be moved to follow actual property lines. Um, we'd have to work with uh Santa Fe utilities to try to figure out what the best route for that is. And have you spoken to them? We have. We have. And so, like I said, we we did get the approval, the ready, willing, enable letter. And so, they're willing to give us those services. It's just a matter of uh if if the variances in the subdivision gets approved, working with them directly to figure out what the best route is uh for those connections for water and wastewater both. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from commissioners? Commissioner L Cruz Crawford. I guess I have some just general comments that might lead into questions as well. Um, first and foremost, uh, I just want to mention to the family here that, you know, um, just want to give respect for your involvement in the community and also for the fact that you're actually trying to create essentially like a family compound. I think that's actually really awesome, you know. Um, I could see how it'd be totally beneficial for you guys and for your kids and and your future. So, I definitely respect that. Um I the other comments I guess I would say is that I feel like this particular property that you found seems like there's a lot of uphill battle for this particular property. Um because of all these setbacks there's or sorry because of all these um variances that you're requesting, right? um you're dealing with uh a zoning density request, a 250 foot request, which appears to be some

sort of which appears to be I mean somewhat of a safety concern like the commissioner mentioned as well. You know, there is a portion of the code that says that if a particular property cannot be used because of that 250 foot setback that the I think the back 30% of it is allowed to be developed. Um, so there's some provisions of code that allow you to use a lot like that. Um, for that reason, um, there's also the oh, the open space scenario, but I guess for me, I feel like you've got the density scenario, the the setback scenario that's kind of against you. Um, and there's also some financial implications that I'm hearing as well. uh with respect to utilities, the fact that just mentioned here, commissioner, as far as like utilities being far away, that could be a pretty costly scenario for you guys to be able to build develop that property. Um in particular, if we go forward with staff's recommendation of not allowing any wells, which I would actually be um definitely um in agreement with um I live in Lassiaga and we deal with a lot of water issues. I'm a myer of Myakia and really any wells are pretty detrimental. they could just use up our water. Um, and so I do think that, you know, connection to, uh, local utilities would be warranted for anything like this. Uh, certainly, uh, preferred, you know. Um, what are the other things that I was thinking of here? Um, I guess I was also curious. I'll ask this as an actual question then, um, to the applicant. Um what other properties have you looked at? You know, um because I know there's other vacant lot lots available um just through a quick search on Zillow, you know, but I know you guys are looking at this particular one. So, um right. Additionally, when we first started this, uh my son and his fiance or his

wife, his fiance at the time were were looking for a lot uh preferably two point 2 and a half acre lot. Um, so I was helping him look for two and a half acre lots and that's when we came across this property. We had looked uh out towards Butckers and a couple of other areas, but as you know with the 2.5 acre lot, even if they were to find one in Santa Fe, um, you know, uh, they'd be on their own to develop a well, which can be pretty expensive. As well as 2 and 1/2 acres. Most of these lots are are like 2 and a half acres or big lots and it's very very expensive. So when we found this one, um uh you know, my daughter is also looking for a lot hopefully at one point and uh and I talked it over with my wife and then that's when we we thought if we can buy this lot and and split it and help our children um then that would be the perfect scenario for all of us and that's why we've we've uh pursued it. Okay. Um couple other quick comments is I noticed that at least in this particular overlay zoning district um what it what it mentions as far as the purpose for the rest e here on the code it says is to preserve the rural character of the community for single family development option for clustering agriculture related uses lower medium impact homepack applications and businesses. So obviously when this overlay was done the intent you know obviously before it was 1.5s you could do that but the intent now since 2016 has been to kind of create these 2.5 acre lot scenarios you know um another question is so with this my understanding it's a 7 uh 9 something I did the math but I think uh correct me if I'm wrong staff

here but I am looking at current code scenario at 2.5 acres. It's like math is like 3.5. So, we're dealing with three lots that it would be able to be divided, subdivided into legally. Mr. Chair, planning commission members. Yes, that is correct. Um, by code, it would be allowed three lots by subdivision. And by code, with those three lots, you're allowed to have an accessory dwelling unit. That's a that's, you know, approved for this zoning uh scenario as well. So you could technically have three lots, have a main residence, and also build an accessory dwelling unit and essentially still have six residences for your for your family potentially. And that's would be my one one concern with at least the fact that uh I believe your agent mentioned that they would not want to take staff's recommendation of no ADUs. Um because obviously if we do approve this to be a 1.25 25 acre scenario where you're allowed to have seven lots. You know, you could have seven single family residences and if we don't approve that particular staff recommendation, that means you could technically have 14 homes here with a single family and an accessory dwelling unit in that particular lot. So, that also concerns me as well because that's a lot of lot of development even if it's for a family compound. Um, that's a lot of water use. Um and actually for even for you guys that's a lot of expense as far as you know construction costs are concerned. Um so things to just consider on your own as well as far as the purchasing of this lot on your end. I understand that and our intention is not for accessory dwellings. If that's a deal breakaker we could do away with the accessory dwellings. That's not we we don't want to just openly forfeit that but that's not any of our intentions. So if if that's the deal breaker, then we'd we'd be willing to we'd agree to no accessory dwelling structures. As far as the three

lots, um the issue with that is that means that three people would end up uh paying for the lot, which that would be out of the price range for my kids. You know, at a at a 1.25 acre lot, they can afford something like that. at a 2.5 acre lot, they wouldn't be able to. And they're still going to have to put the water resources and the plumbing and and everything else that that comes along with it. And it's split instead of spreading it out seven ways, it would have to be paid for by three by three people. I don't and I'd also have to cut out some of my family members, which I which I didn't want to do. Um it's hard to do something like this and then decide who you're going to allow and who you're not going to allow. Um so th those are the concerns that we have. Um um I mean I understand what you're saying, but if you look at the the plot that that we provided with the red dots on there and the yellow dots, um you know, a lot of the lots in there are 1.25 to five acres and and I understand that they changed the rules in 2016 and that's why we we decided to to come before you before purchasing it um to try to get this clarified. I think that's a I think you're doing the right thing for sure by coming forward here and trying to request a variance. That's why this process is in place, right? To be able to have your say and be able to request it. um you know and uh on our end as commissioner or at least on my end as far as I'm concerned I I have to look at it as these kind of requests right are you meeting these requirements you know contrary to public interest you know are

there any extraordinary or exceptional situations or conditional property um I don't quite see like a hardship necessarily there um um but um and and your agent can respond to that as well. One more thing that I'd just like to add is Mr. Huades, who owns this piece of property, also owned uh a property similar in size right across the highway on 599 next to Camino Royale. And um we had approached him to buy this piece of property. Um he had previously sold that property to the to a developer Camino Rail and they built probably 25 houses in that in that area. Yeah. Um but at the time they wanted to finish that subdivision before moving this way. And um so that's why we made the offer to him, gave him money down that we would eventually lose to give us a chance to come in front of you to present our case. Um but I also know that if If we are denied, we'll probably sell it to the developer with a lot more money and they'll be they'll build 25 houses instead of just seven, you know. No, I appreciate that. Like I said, I really appreciate your family and and your being here. Um I do think sometimes it's unfortunate these overlay districts. I mean, I don't necessarily agree with all the restrictions personally for certain overlay districts, but they are just they're there and the community has established them, you know. Um, but I hear you. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Buger, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, just a comment. Um, compelling testimony. Um, wish my kids could live here.

They're in Rio Rancho and Mori Arti. the uh uh the I think there was one of the presentations uh that gentleman mentioned that you weren't requesting or asking for anything you know special or special you know you know special disposition. Uh, I wish that were the case, but this is a variance request. And just two things to point out. The u I mean most of you sat in on uh um the community planning presentation earlier where you know where that ends up is in an overlay district. There's a planning committee. A bunch of people from the from the area uh participate in the committee. Then they create a plan. They create a overlay district. And that's that's what happened with this. So it's it's not like the co the staff just came up with a code. It's the result of a lot of people who put in a lot of time and this is the code that we're, you know, sitting up here. We're supposed to follow. Uh Second comment is uh it's it's hard for us the setback request. Uh it's hard even even when you go if if if the this overlay district that you're subject to this property was disregarded and you went to uh the basic code. There is a a section 7.3333 highway setbacks uh that state unless established through a

rightway all development shall be set back at least 150 ft from the road pavement of a federal highway and 100 ft from a highway major arterial or railroad. Uh this the old whip route would qualify. So, we're not even talking 100, talking 25. So, uh it's a it's a tough one. And that, uh concludes my comments. Thanks very much. Um any other questions from commissioners of the applicant or agent? Uh hearing none. Uh this is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the room or online who is interested in speaking in support or opposition? If so, please come forward. Be sworn. Thank you very much. or Yes. Gil Tarto, 7B North Horizon Lane, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87507. Mr. Chairman, commissioners, thank you for the opportunity. I uh can you hear me? Okay. I stand here in in support of this project. Uh I met uh Mr. Solano and his wife about two weeks ago. Um, and uh, they shared their story with me, their their desire for their family, the sacrifice that they're making to uh, allow their families to to live together to help each other out in time of need. And, uh, I've been in the same situation myself. Uh, fortunately, I was able to uh, split a 2 and a half acre lot into two 1.25

because of the family transfer provisions of the code. I can't believe that the county allowed a local development plan to to remove such an important aspect of the county code as the family transfer provisions. I to me it was unheard of. And when I was land use administrator for Santa Fe County back in the early 80s when the first land use development code was adopted, the family transfer provisions in that were so important to the county and the cultural the the heritage of our community and the practice of parents being able to give land to their kids so that they stay here and build a family. And to see that one local community can can wipe that out is is astonishing to me. U but that's neither here nor there. Uh the fact that Mr. Solano is willing to invest the money to bring public water and sewer. Um that's also a very important issue to to our area in that we're all depending on wells and septic systems and those things tend to fail over time. The the neighbor that I have to my east is immediately adjacent to this project. I am immediately adjacent to this project and we both support what this applicant is attempting to do and I just stand for questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Sero. Uh um I just want to be clear uh and just ask

question of staff. Um, I believe that the speaker indicated that it's the community overlay district that is limiting things to two and a half, but it's it's the underlying zoning. Isn't that that correct, Mr. Chair? Um, whenever you're in a 2 and a half acre part uh overlay or within regular county jurisdictions, not within an overlay, 2 and 1/2 is the minimum lot size. the two and a half acres back in before 2016. Um we found that a lot of the small lot family transfers of one and a quarter acre were being um extorted or taken advantage of and a lot of people would come in and do 5 acres into two into the one and a quarters and then you'd end up with a serial subdivision where there were 10 acres and they would do the same and they were utilizing family transfers as a as a provision to do so and essentially developing subdivisions serial and so we didn't have proper proper access. We didn't have proper water sources. We didn't have proper fire protection to access these sites. That was a major issue for the change in the ordinance. And that's why they started allowing um ADUs as a provision to that standard. Thank you very much. And thank you very much, sir. Thank you. Any other um interested parties online or Mr. Chair, planning commission members, we do have Anhelica Sanchez online wishing to speak. Okay. Uh, if you could unmute and um turn your camera on if you have one. Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Anelica Sanchez. Um my questions

that I had concerning this subdivision or this proposal have been answered through further discussion. I was um concerned about the ADUs which would make it the 14 on that property also with the setback of the 250 but through the discussion I think I've got the answers. Thank you ma'am. So no further questions. No. Thank you very much. And I do not see any other hands up. Uh so with that, let's close the Mr. Mr. Chair. Um a second hand just went up. A Jay Kennedy is wishing to speak on this matter. Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. Um yes, you need to be sworn. Miss Kennedy, can you hear me? Mr. Kennedy or Miss Kennedy, would you please unmute and speak? Is Zoom still operational? I seem to have lost screen. is working on our end. They've lowered their hand. It It doesn't seem like their audio might not be working or their microphone might not be working, but they've lowered their hand. Okay. Thank you very much. So, with that, let's close the public hearing portion and commissioners, any questions of staff or any discussion? Commissioner Pava. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have

a few questions for staff. Uh before we entertain any kind of motions, first question would be um re regarding the structure of the the case presented to us. There's three separate variances, albeit related. Are we making when a motion is made pro or con are we making one motion to cover all three variances or are we making motions for each variance although some are dependent on others for the case? Mr. Chair, Commission Member Pava and the rest of the commissioners, I think it would be appropriate to make a motion on each individual for clarity. Thank you. Um I thought so as well. Um the issue of housing types comes up in the record that I read through prior to the case. There were comments about or concerns during neighborhood meetings and during zoning hearing meetings uh about the types of housing. So I think manufactured housing, it may have been referred to as mobile homes, but I think we're talking about manufactured housing. Um, is it permitted so and so on on these parcels whether they're seven parcels or three parcels or one parcel? What what is the county uh code uh what does the code state as regards manufactured housing on lots in this uh this district and and the overlay? Mr. Chair, Commission Member Pava, Santa Fe does Santa Fe County does not discriminate on the type of home you may place on your property. However, we do make aware to potential buyers or applicants that there could be private coh covenants which they can be held in litigation on. Um, so that's basically what Santa Fe County stance is. They

must pass HUD housing urban and development uh requirements. They also have to pass state manufacturing uh requirements. Thank you, Mr. Lovado. Uh, a follow- on question. There was some discussion about maybe subdividing with fewer lots, maybe three lots and then having three accessory dwellings, which gives you six houses basically. And we're talking about maybe between five and seven being desired. So here's my question. Let's say we divided this into three lots. Each lot is about 2 and a half acres. how large of a main house could be built on on on a 2 and a half acre lot in this uh with the zoning currently and that would queue me into a little bit to the size of an accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Chair, planning commission member Pava, uh there would be no restriction on the size of a a residential house. They would just have to make sure that they meeting all setbacks, all open space requirements, um you know, avoiding easements, such like that. Um, but there's no restriction on the size of a primary residence that they would be able to build on the on these lots. And does the county following up either for Mr. Cisneros or Mr. Lovado, does the county code define a family specifically that would preclude more preclude certain or associations of people living in a large house in this district zoning district? Other words, could there be a big house and there could be like an extended family in the house? The code doesn't get into that, does it? No, not necessarily. Uh what staff would look for on the size, you know, when when a permit would come through is number of kitchens and access. Um if there are multiple kitchens and access seems to be closed off and access would only be obtainable through, you know, the exterior, we would look at that as two separate

dwellings. um if access was open, there was common spaces, um and it was open and and able to flow through and there was two kitchens, we would still possibly consider that as one residence. Okay, that's helpful. Um knowing about that and families and kitchens and whatnot. Um there was a letter that we were handed just before the the the hearing um signed by several people. Um it seems to be in opposition. Um but my primary um focus here is about dates and um two different hearings and whether I guess bottom line is can we state for the record in fact that uh for this public hearing tonight that uh the notification requirements were met per code. Mr. Chair, planning commissioner Pava uh that is correct. So the applicant and their agent um had missed noticing and so they had to renotice um but they have met all notice requirements for this hearing and for the prior hearing officer meeting. Okay. Um you know having heard the testimony I'll just make a statement here. Having heard the the the testimony and respectfully to what's going on here, having been a planner myself for 40 years, there is an acute problem in not only Santa Fe but uh the country. And what what we have heard tonight should as as we begin to reassess and redevelop our land use codes um as I understand may may get funded to do. We need to consider some of these situations because this isn't

the first one we've heard and it won't be the last. And uh honestly um I agree uh very clearly uh with uh Commissioner L Cruz Crawford that we have to go by the book here to some degree but the reason we're on the planning commission is also to use some to be uh judicious. Now of course I understand this is quasi judicial and the results of this of our vote could be appealed to the county commission. Is that correct, Mr. Chair? Planning Commissioner Pava, that is correct. A decision here, either approval or denial, can be appealed onto the board of county commissioners as a um denovo case and start over um for either approval or denial by the board of county commissioners. Yeah, thank you. I appreciate um knowing and I'm sure the applicant and agent understand that that's a possibility. Uh this is a real difficult situation. I think all my fellow commissioners feel uh somewhat like I do. I'm very conflicted about this. Um these are real problems, social problems. And as the former director at uh for the county ago had pointed out, there is a valid place and time and place for this family land transfer and and there were abuses. We've got to figure out some way to allow the culture of of of our community, whether we came here last week or 40 years ago as I did or in some families 400 years ago, we need to figure this out because we're going by the book and we're trying to do the right things. But, uh, this variance case just just highlights the problems that we are facing with affordable housing. So, I just want to leave it at that for the record.

Commissioner, I just I wanted to mention something. I I'm a little bit concerned about splitting up the different parts of the variance request, not understanding what the real estate transaction deals are. if we were to prove one portion but not the other portion that made the project undoable that might uh really put Mr. Solano under the gun contractually. So I I believe that uh you know straight up up or down on all of the variance requests at the same time will not put um Mr. Solano at risk. Um because I haven't seen their contract and really don't wish to. Um that's just a a comment I had. Any other uh comments from commissioners? Mr. Chair, it would be appropriate to vote on all three as well. All all three at once. That would work. Great. Thank you. Uh any other comments, Commissioner Meyer? Yeah, I guess I just have one statement. It it seems like even we if we approved it based on the staff's recommendations and the one issue that I brought up earlier was no drilling of domestic wells shall be allowed. If we somehow approve this and they can't get water service or sewer service to their lots, this approval wouldn't really mean a whole lot. So, I don't know what to do about that, but I just thought I'd bring that to everyone's attention to think about that as we consider how we vote on this issue. So, that's all I have. Commissioner, um question for the staff because so since 2016, I don't think anybody asked this, but um or maybe they did and I missed it, but uh have there any

variances been requested at this at this overlay zone for a 1.2 25 or a density variance and have they been approved? Mr. Chair, Commissioner Dea Cruz, that um I'm not aware of any that have come forward. Yes. And uh um I think you know like when I'm kind of thinking about this right I was I was asking the question as far as like the splitting the lots whether you can get away with three you know the 2.5 acres you know there was already a question as far as like square footage how much could you build because yeah realistically you could build like you know 3,000 foot home and still build a 1500 foot uh ADU which a 15 square foot home is is a large home anyway, right? That would certainly be able to probably um you know, be enough for your families to live in. I think maybe the issue more so for you guys is, you know, being able to pass that land on, right, to your kids and so forth, because if you only have three acres of land, you know, are you going to subdivide it? Who are you going to pass it to versus having seven, you know? Um so I do get that too. Um I Yeah, I guess my last comment I would say um just from my own here is like feel like heartwise as far as you know common sense wise um well actually before I say that I guess another question real quick with staff because I'm kind of curious about this because you did mention the abuse of the subdivisions right um to the 1.25 25 scenario and I'm here with the commissioner too because I mean this this is an issue that should be addressed in some way right because um we live you know New Mexicans that's why

we have the ADU scenario we're able to like you know provide a family for aas or other family members etc and stuff so that's why it's there right um but could you speak a little bit further on just kind of that abuse and has the change since 2016 improved that in in any way as far as the County is concerned. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Dea Cruz, it has changed. We do not see a lot of serial subdivisions. We do have a provision in our ordinance that prohibits them and holds them liable for doing so. Um, as far as minimum lot size, we've stuck to what the code states. We've kept it at 2 and 1/2. Whether it's a 10 and 1/2 acre minimum, whatever it be, we usually stick to that. Um the only time I seen them any properties go below density is when they do do a geohhydraologic test and prove adequate water for 100 years. But there's a lot of studies, reports, and assessments so on and so forth that go along with those provisions. Okay. Thank you. And I guess that was my my last comment I was going to say before I asked the the previous question. It's just that yeah, as far as I'm concerned, my heart and common sense says, hey, you know, uh what you guys are doing is great. you guys are trying to do something for your family. Um, you know, the fact that you would probably use this land for that purpose. I believe you guys, you know, uh, and that you're not necessarily trying to abuse, uh, you know, the the potential of, you know, subdividing it, you know, etc. Like, uh, like staff mentioned, it's been kind of abuse in the past. Um, so my heart goes out to you, man. And um I also just have to look at this in light of like I said these kind of provisions that are in place and what does it mean? Are we doing this just kind of you know uh are we being is there any kind of favoritism you know uh with respect to approving or

disapproving this etc. Um and this is a hard one like our commissioner Pava mentioned. Um, I find this one really difficult and I have to kind of think it over in my head because one part of me, you know, is there's opposing views in my own head as far as like how to go about this because of X, Y, and Z. So, just want to put that out there. I feel for you guys. Thanks, Commissioner. Any other commissioners have questions or comments? What's the will of the commission? Commissioner Buger. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, with your permission, um, I'd make a motion, uh, to regarding case 25-5010 to deny the variance request uh, enabling seven lots on this 8.95 acre 954 acre parcel. and to deny the variance of the setback from 250 ft to 25 ft and to deny the open space variance request. Thank you, commissioners. Is there a second to that motion? I guess I would second that motion. Okay, we have a motion for denial of all variance requests and a second. May we have a roll call vote, please? So, so correct me if I'm wrong, but a yes is for denial. Is that right? Thank you.

No. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. The the variance requests have been denied. And Mr. Chair, before you go further, you need a majority of four of the seven members. So therefore, the motion dies. So four of the seven me the motion dies. Okay. So what are our let's see the lawyer is playing tennis. So So it comes back. We make a a motion for So in order for this in order for a decision to be made, there needs to be a motion for approval that fails. Is that correct? Before you come back, you need four of the seven members to vote either yes or no for the approvals or denial. So we are high centered. We basically what what's the procedure? Mr. Chair, I believe it would be tableabling and coming back before the seven members. Okay. and or rein or the other option was reinstate another motion and vote once again. So if we so if we table and

bring this up with more members present what h is the other members read the record what or do we do this rodeo all over again? I believe you would need to to to start all over again. Start all over again. So the other members have the opportunity to hear the case. Got it. And so that's one option. The other option is to make another motion that gets four votes one way or the other. Is that am I stating that correctly? Mr. Chair, planning commission members. Yes, that is correct. So what are our Let's see. I I believe we've discussed it. We've we've discussed many of these a number of the issues that have been brought forth and I'm just trying to f find out what if there are any if there's any interest in a planning commission member making a different motion or is everyone pretty clear on I guess the real question is is that your final answer? No, I'm sorry. I just I I don't see I don't see it. It seems fruitless to me to try and revote this because folks were clear in their votes. There was no wiggling. Um so Mr. Chair, before you go any further, let us look at the actual factual evidence that we have in our ordinance. You don't mind? Are we do up there? We're we're doing the research. Okay. Got it. So let's please hold

And where would I find that to? Maybe I can raise you for it. Where where are you guys looking, Mr. Chair? I'm looking in chapter 3.3. Okay. Thank you.

So, let's let's go into recess. Um, and then we'll call back in case anyone needs to use the facilities. So, we're now in recess. Thank you.

Uh we're back in session. So uh the motion for denial failed because we have two we we need a majority of the planning commission. So, what we can do and what we I will make a motion to postpone a decision on this matter until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the planning commission, which is July 17th at 400 p.m. We will put this at the top of the agenda after consent and uh uh minutes and things like that. Um and at that time uh we will consider what to do about this case at because our attorney is not present. We are not really aware of the proceedings, but the land use administrator, Dominic Cisneros, has promised to communicate with the agent and the applicant. Well, I guess the applicant hasn't been here to communicate with the agent so they can pass that information along to the interested parties. Um, so we we really need to know how we bring the other abs currently absent members of the planning commission up to speed whether we need to reopen the hearing or whatever. We're not quite sure, but once we get legal advice, we uh Mr. Cisner will pass that along to the interested folks. So, um, so I've made a motion to postpone, uh, the consideration of this case until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the

planning commission, which is July 17th, um, at 4 p.m. May I get a second? Second. Oh, you you you go ahead. So, we have a motion and a second. Do we have any discussion, Commissioner? Mr. chair just to just to make sure everybody understands. So the the motion for denial failed. So and we'll come back next month and run it back. Yes. and and we're not really sure about how to um what the specific mechanics will be, but um it'll be next month and on the 17th of July at 4 p.m. Uh so we have a motion and a second. May we get a roll call vote? Yes. Yes. Mr. Yes. Sorry for the delay and confusion. And the lesson here is never let the attorneys leave the room early. Um, so what's next on the agenda? Abled. Abled. Are there any petitions from the floor? Thank thank you all and sorry for the confusion. We appreciate your participation. Any matters from the commission? Commissioner Pava? Yes. uh in in reviewing the agenda when I go to the homepage for planning commission, I I know you've got a lot on your t on on on

your plates, but it needs to get updated with uh who are currently on the who the commissioners currently are and and of course we still have a a now departed staff member as the point of contact. So, uh just I I noticed it and if members of the public notice it, I mean, I know, but others wouldn't. So, so you could pay some heed to that. Oh, yeah. You're not on there. Thank you very much, Commissioner Pava. Any other matters from uh the commissioners? Matters from staff? No additional matters from staff. Okay. Thank you all. uh appreciate your attendance and uh we will see you on July 17th no later than 4 p.m. Thanks so much. We're a motion to adjurnn. A move to adjourn. Okay, we're adjourned. Everybody.