Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. There's a significant power outage, so people are rebooting some equipment and things, so it'll just be a moment. Thank you. I'd like to call to order the July 16th, 2026 meeting of the Santa Fe County Planning Commission to order. May we have a roll call, please?

Commissioner Carl Trujillo. Yes. Commissioner Jessica Griffin. Present. Commissioner Erica Bowe.

Present.

Commissioner Steve Brugger.

Present.

Commissioner Dan Pava?

Present.

Commissioner John Nunebel?

Present.

Chair, we have a forum.

Thank you very much. Please all stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. The next item on the agenda is approval of the agenda. Staff, do we have any changes to the agenda that was published?

Chair Bowe, Planning Commission members, we do not have any changes to the agenda.

Thank you. May I get a motion to approve this agenda? I so move to approval of agenda. Thank you, Vice Chair Trujillo. May I get a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Nunez-Nabelle.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye.

Any opposed? The agenda is approved. The next item is approval of the meeting minutes from the June 18th, 2026 planning commissioning meeting. May I get a motion for approval?

I so move.

Thank you, Commissioner Brugger.

May I get a second? Thank you, Vice Chair Trujillo. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The minutes are approved.

I'm going to abstain.

Thank you, Commissioner Griffin. So we have approvals. The motion to approve is... is approved and Commissioner Griffin abstains because she was absent. The next item is case number 26-57, Daniel Weed, variance request.

Staff, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Commission members. Destiny Romero, Building and Development Review Specialist Senior. Daniel Weed, Applicant, requests a variance of Chapter 8, Section 8.6, Table 8-9, Dimensional Standards, Residential Fringe, to allow two primary residences on a parcel of land consisting of 6.01 acres. The property is located at 39 Borough Bend within the residential fringe zoning, which allows for one dwelling unit per five acres. The property currently contains one permitted single-family dwelling and a permitted accessory structure. The permitted accessory structure was converted to a second dwelling unit by constructing an addition above the permitted accessory structure without obtaining the required additional permits. The lot is currently served by an approved well and permitted by the Office of the State Engineer. The property is also served by a permitted and approved septic permit from the New Mexico Environmental Department. The applicant purchased the property as is in November 2019. The primary residence is 1,934 square feet, while the second residence is 1,234 square feet. To qualify as an accessory dwelling unit, the converted dwelling would have to be a maximum of 967 square feet In 2007, the owner of the property at that time applied for a density variance but was denied at the Santa Fe County Development Review Committee. After the denial, the property owner withdrew their application and was to bring the property into compliance but failed to do so. The owner then sold the property with the violation. The property has been sold multiple times since 2007 and the current property owner is attempting to bring the property into compliance. The applicant has addressed the variance criteria and staff has responded to the applicant's comments as contained in the memo. On June 11th, 2026, this request was presented to the Sustainable Land Development Hearing Officer. The hearing officer memorialized findings of fact and conclusions of law in a recommended order on this request. The hearing officer, based on the evidence presented, recommended denial of the applicant's variance. Building and Development Services staff has reviewed this request for compliance with pertinent SLDC requirements and finds that the facts presented do not support the request for a variance. As stated above, staff does not believe applicants have justified that any of the variance criteria of SLDC 4.9.7.4 have been satisfied. Staff recommends denial of the requested density variance of Chapter 8, Section 8.6, Table 8-9, Dimensional Standards of Residential Fringe to allow two primary residences on a parcel of land consisting of 6.018 acres. There are no extraordinary or exceptional practical difficulties of the land that justify approval of the requested variance. In addition, staff recommends the applicant bring the property into compliance with all applicable code requirements of the SLDC. If the Planning Commission finds that the application has met the variance criteria and recommends approval of the variance, staff recommends the following conditions at a minimum be imposed. Mr. Chair, may I enter the conditions into the record?

Yes, you may. Consider them entered. Thank you.

Thank you. To be clear, staff's identification of these conditions is not intended as an indication that staff approves or would approve the granting of the requested variance. Staff's position is that this application does not comply with the SLDC and does not satisfy the variance criteria of section 4.9.7.4 and no conditions regardless of how carefully crafted can change that noncompliance. These conditions are presented simply to inform the Planning Commission of recommended conditions if the evidence presented convinces you that approval of the variance is in fact warranted. Staff would like to remove the conditions of denial as this was addressed in staff's recommendation. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission carefully consider the variance request, the staff report all written and oral testimony and other evidence contained in the record. Evaluate the request against each of the applicable variance review criteria and discuss or make specific findings of fact and conclusions as to whether each criterion has been satisfied on the record. The Commission's findings should identify the evidence relied upon and provide the factual basis supporting its decision to approve with conditions or deny the variance request. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I stand for any questions.

Thank you, Ms. Romero. Commissioners, do you have any questions of staff? Yes, Vice Chair Trujillo.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ms. Romero. On the conditions of approval here, it says applicants shall comply with all conditions recommended by the fire marshal. What are those conditions that have been, is it part of, maybe it's part of the attachment? Mr.

Chair, commission members, it was part of the record. It was exhibit, I'll tell you right now. It was exhibit F under comments from review agencies.

Okay, thank you. No further questions.

Thank you. Any other questions of staff? Commissioner Brugger.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good to see you again, Mr. Romero. So Exhibit H to your staff report. It's a big file. It's 296 pages. Just something for the future. I went through all of that, and some of the stuff is duplicative, so I would cut it down and make it simpler to review it if you got out some of the duplicative information. But I guess what that did was it explained the history of the prior variance request, long history. And so going back to 2008, 2009, There was a variance request from the first owner, Mr. Hampton. That was, so am I correct? The variance was denied by the CDRC, Community Development Review Commission. Then it was appealed to the County Commission, if I'm correct. Am I correct in that?

Mr. Chair, commission members. So they were denied at the CDRC and then the applicant decided to withdraw their application completely.

Okay. So my question is, but it was, it was denied then. So my question is, has anything changed since that time with the property, the use of the property, anything to do with the property or anything to do with the change in code since that time that would make something which was deemed non-allowable back then, 2009, which would make it allowable now. Anything.

Mr. Chair, Commission Member Brugger, the only thing that has changed is that the applicant or the previous applicant removed a yurt that was located on the property. In the previous code, the SLD, Land Development Code, I'm sorry, there was a requirement that allowed for accessory structures. And accessory structures were not allowed to have a kitchen or a bath, either or. And that has changed in our ordinance somewhat, but it's still very similar.

And so for, at least for our rules, the accessory dwelling unit, there's a one-story limitation. And then there's a 50% square footage of the primary structure limitation. And then there's a utility wastewater provision where it has to share the same system. And if I read your staff report correctly, this project has not met any of those three criteria.

Mr. Chair, commission members, that is correct.

I have other questions, but I'll take a break for a minute.

Thank you, Commissioner Brugger. Commissioner Pava.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Romero. My question is, in the context of this subdivision surrounding properties, is staff aware, if any, Variances to lot size, since the minimum lot size is five acres, right? Have there been variances granted to any of the lots in this subdivision along this road for lot size? I'm just trying to figure what precedent, if any, there would even be.

Mr. Chair, Commission members, not that I am aware of.

Okay, and so the only remedy here would be to apply for a variance to allow the accessory dwelling unit to be a second story and to exceed the maximum square footage that would be allowed. There's no way to look at... splitting the lot or anything like that. Is that correct?

Mr. Chair, commission members, they could look at doing a density variance, but it would be the same procedure as this one.

Thank you. That's the end of my questions.

Mr. Chair, Planning Commission Pava, I want to just be clear. This is not a variance for AD requirements. This is a density variance. So in this variance request, the applicant is requesting this structure to be identified as an additional dwelling, not an accessory dwelling unit.

Well, that's pertinent for sure. And that goes to the heart of my question. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Pava. Are there any other questions of staff from any members of the commission?

Yes, Mr. Chair.

Yes, Commissioner.

Ms. Romero, beyond the question of minimum lot size, does the development code also stipulate that there shall be no more than one primary residence per legal lot?

Mr. Chair, commission members, this property is zoned residential fringe, which would allow them only one primary residence plus one accessory dwelling unit.

Thank you for that clarification.

Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Commissioner Brugger.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ancient history, but knowing we was there back in 2008 2009. Was there a final order on the Hampton variants request? Was it was there done kind of like what we do now? So there'd be a record of it? And if so, are those final orders ever recorded?

Mr. Chair, Commission Member Brugger, we were unable to locate any final order. Looked at previous drives to see if there was even a draft and we were unable to find or locate any of those.

Last question for the staff. I think.

If

If the variance request is denied, then what will you require the applicant to do?

Mr. Chair, commission members. So there's several options that the applicant could pursue. One of them would be that they would have to remove the kitchen and bathtub or shower from the secondary floor of the accessory structure or bedrooms to be removed either by removal or partition walls or identifying a separate use other than dwellings. They could also, I'll refer this one to Mr. Cisneros for the other.

Chair Bowe, Planning Commission Member Brugger. So as Ms. Romero stated, so in order to come into compliance, the existing structure, the kitchen would have to be removed as well as either the shower or the tub. And interior partitions would have to be either removed or modified so that they're not identified as bedrooms or designed to be bedrooms. And that would be, you know, the current process for, you know, converting that structure into its natural use as an accessory structure.

And I presume that if you request this, if it goes down this path, that would have to be done at the applicant's expense?

Mr. Chair, Commission members, that is correct.

Thank you. Any further questions for Ms. Romero from any of the commissioners?

Thank you very much, Destiny.

Thank you.

Is the applicant here? And please use the microphone, move the microphone so that your voice is heard. Thank you. So please raise your hand and swear that you will tell the truth and state your name and address for the record.

Daniel Weed. i'm presently living at 39 i'm sorry that's the property we're doing here at um 2410 camino capitan in santa fe okay thank you mr weed please proceed well mr chair and commission members thank you for seeing me today this last last few years has been very difficult this last year trying to figure out how to handle prior sins of the original owner and I bought this property back in 2019 and I had vision for it and had to move off the property because that vision wasn't gonna be allowed. And at the recommendation of the county, I'm trying to remember what you guys are called, but the staff, I think I was advised to go through this process with you guys. And I was advised with seeking a variance to allow two separate units. However, I am agreeable and open to any type of resolution, be it dividing or switching, you know, which units considered the primary residence, which ones considered the accessory dwelling. So really I'm here at your mercy just to see what you guys would best recommend. I'm happy to answer any questions. I made a couple notes from what Mrs. Romero went over and let's see. So there was a question, I think it was Commissioner Berger, or Berger, I'm sorry. You asked, there was like three conditions, one story, 50% of the size of the main one, and then wastewater. Was that in regards to having two separate septic tanks, or what's the wastewater?

It was... that if it were to be considered an accessory dwelling unit, which I understand that's not this application request you have, but if it were, then it would have to be on the same septic tank as the primary because it's an accessory dwelling unit.

Okay, so not having two separate septics, but on one, a large... Okay, that makes sense. So... Does anyone have any questions about the letter that I wrote or my appeal process or anything in that regard?

If any commissioners have questions of Mr. Weed, please ask them.

Thank you.

Sure. Mr.

Chair and Mr. Weed, I think I did read in your letter that I understand as you purchase land in the state, you hopefully do all your due diligence. It's hard to understand all the different codes that pertain to everything. I know that at one time I thought we should have a little bit more disclosure by realtors at the state level when people are purchasing.

People are purchasing land.

And so it's interesting because you can ask a question of a realtor, and I'm not here to throw any realtors under the bus, but a lot of times they're there to make a sale, and maybe they haven't done all their due diligence as well to inform the potential buyer. And they should be knowledgeable of being in the area. So I do feel for you from the perspective that That you know you it's it's hard to gather all the information on a piece of property when you're buying it and especially in rural places So I did I did see that in your note that you did ask that question Obviously these were the sins of somebody that was prior to you and that's that's well taken by by me as well And so that's that's the comments that I have For right now. Thank you. Okay.

Yeah in in regards to that part of my due diligence was When I first purchased the property, there was a yurt with someone living in it at that time. And he had told me that the prior owner had been living in the two-bedroom during her ownership and had rented out the three-bedroom. So from my perspective, everything was fine. I had known that there was other structures or other properties within that subdivision that had renters as well and so when I went to qualify for my mortgage I included the rental income and without being able to rent out both structures it's not sustainable for me to be able to keep the property and see what else I want to say in that regard so part of the concerns of the neighbors are water usage and like I had said I am agreeable to whatever types of solutions we need to come to on that. One of them was metering the two buildings separately. But in terms of it being too large, like square footage wise, just before I came here, I just looked up a few other properties in the area. For instance, Seven Hampton Road, has a total combined square footage of over 4,000 square feet. The primary dwelling is 2,772 and the secondary dwelling is 1,280. Second example would be 60 Sam Sebastian Road with the primary residence 2,645 and the secondary dwelling 932 square feet, which total 3577 square feet. Third example would be 8 La Luz Lane. First dwelling is 3510 in square feet and then the second accessory is 1148, which total 4658 in square footage according to the county assessor. This property in question, 39 Borough Bend, has a three bedroom primary residence. According to the county of 1746, that sounds different than what was spoken earlier. I think it might be closer to 19, but I looked this morning and I think the county had it at 1746. And then the second dwelling is 2240, according to square footage with the county. However, that first half, the bottom half was the shop, which is half of that value. So in terms of not being outside of what's norm in that area, my total square footage, even if I were to include the shop as livable square footage, would be 39.86, which is under the 46.58. Comparable to the 3557 and it's under the four thousand and fifty two square foot so any Kind of arguments by by the neighbors of it of it not fitting the nature of the area is Is a stretch by any means? There's also been you know prior bad blood with the property I personally feel that a lot of what I've been dealing with is targeted bullying and in that regard. And when I first purchased the property, I was a young little hippie kid, kind of passive. And I think the neighbors thought that they could take advantage of that. When the development was first originated, the property that I purchased was supposed to have been community grounds. And then the builder decided to build on that. So people were unhappy about that. There are other accessory units in the area. There are other two-story accessory units in the area. And I'm here today seeking justice, like we talked when we pledged in liberty and justice for all. I want justice. I don't know what it needs to look like, and that's up to you guys to decide, and I'm willing to have conversations around that. Like I initially stated, The direction I took was at the recommendation of the county staff. Essentially, I purchased a property with two livable units that had been used for over 15 years. Later, I found out that the original builder had gone through this whole process. County denied it. So part of my question is in terms of who's at fault. Who should be liable for that? I haven't found any evidence that the county enforced their first decision. If they had, we wouldn't be in this situation. So from that angle, it's not just for the liability to fall on me. I believe that the county shares in some of that liability. If the, what do you guys call yourself, I'm sorry, the commission members decide, try to decide what's the most just situation here with county liability and thinking about what do the neighbors want. If it is denied further, I think a just consideration would be appropriate compensation and just remove that whole second unit. So part of another reason why it doesn't make sense not to allow that second unit is I could simply, though I don't have the funds right now to be able to do this, level what's already there and just build another unit another unit and it wouldn't use any more water than if we were to allow what's there presently. Any questions about any of that?

Vice Chair Trujillo?

Yeah, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Weed, you'd mentioned about, so you have a lot of neighbors that are upset at this or can you elaborate a little bit more on this?

Yes. I tried to ignore it and not give it much of my mental bandwidth, but the property that, 39 Borough Bend, is the dead end of the Borough Bend Road. There's a property just to the, I think the west of me or something like that, up the road. They were supposed to have been the dead end. I know that they have expressed that they've been very upset over the years that the property that they purchased was no longer the dead end of the road. Any other questions?

Commissioner Brugger?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the presentation, Mr. Weed. Just a point of clarification. When you're running down the square footages, it's the where, again, it's not a subject of this application, but for accessory dwelling unit, that's where the 50% square footage limitation comes in that if you were going to do accessory dwelling unit, it's only 50% or less of the square footage of your primary house. So the totals in that instance wouldn't matter as much.

I understand that. And part of my request would be including that in a variance of the square footage if we go the ADU route. which was initially a conversation, like I said, I was advised to go, let's apply for two separate residences.

Well, that was a comment, but I had questions, so.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Brugger, just to clarify, the reason why we did not recommend that path for him for accessory or a dwelling unit is because it did not comply being at two-story and separate septics and whatnot.

Understood.

That would require multiple variants.

That would be difficult to do. Just as this, the reason I asked the question of what had changed since 2009 when a similar variance request was presented and rejected by our predecessor, the answer was essentially not too much. It puts us in a difficult spot to do something different. But let me ask the questions. So when you bought, if you remember, when you bought the property, you received the title commitment. And if you- I assume so, yes. Title commitment, this would have included documentation on chain of title, liens, any title red flag issues. So do you remember anything in the package that you got that indicated that there was a structure was out of unpermitted or out of compliance.

This was years ago and this young kid trying to remember. All of this was so new to me and still is quite new. This whole process is very new to me. So I appreciate that understanding. But what I was told with my realtor when we looked through what papers there were was There's a permit for the shop, which then the casita is built on top of. There's a permit for the main residence. We don't have a permit for the square footage that was built above the shop, caveated by this is extremely common for this area, which is true.

Thanks. So back then, did... The listing realtor or the selling realtor, I don't know if there was one or two, did they state that the subject structure was unpermitted and out of compliance with county code? Did the realtors give you anything?

I haven't heard anything regarding the code.

So before you rented out this structure, did you check... all available records regarding the structure, whether it's permitted or unpermitted, compliant with state and local codes in order to protect yourself and your tenants? Did you do any of that at all?

I relied on my realtors. And I will say, if there had been evidence of the county's enforcement measures to their prior denial, that would have been there. However, that documentation was not available.

That's all I've got for now. Thanks.

Thank you, Commissioner Brugger.

Any other questions for the applicant from any commissioners? Mr. Chair, commission members, I just want to also point out for understanding that this is a violation that was brought before county staff as well.

so can you repeat that or so county staff received a violation complaint and it was addressed through our code enforcement this is why this case is before you guys today so someone complained that the strip the property was not in compliance with code it was kind of that generic

Mr. Chair, commission members, correct. And they also located an STR on the property in which was identified on our log system through GeoCivics and our other program that we run.

Understood. Got it. So, and yes, just to confirm, Mr. Weed, so you had a short-term, you had this

sub this casita listed as a short-term rental and and then once receiving this violation you Changed that yes, I had Played around with the short-term rental idea and this was prior to the county's requirement or expanded requirements for permitting in that regard so prior to that I had I believe it was maybe for a year or so, had some shorter term tenants occupying the space while I lived there.

Okay, thanks very much. Any other questions? Commissioner, Vice Chair Trujillo.

And so Mr. Chair, Mr. Reed, so after this, this was at some time ago. So currently, do you have long-term renters in there or have you seeked long-term renters?

I have not been able to rent out the property since this whole, like in good conscience with this whole thing. I don't know if someone's gonna come knocking on the door, hey, you have to get out of here. this is part of why it's been such a financial strain for me is i've been paying for that mortgage as well as a property in town and i've just it's been it's only by the grace of god that i'm standing here not bankrupt any other questions commissioner pava

In the extensive documentation, there were some photographs of the unit, and I noticed a lot of refuse or trash scattered around what I guess is a refuse area. Do you have an issue with bears, or what was going on there?

So during that time, I was not residing on the property. There was some trash scattered some of the trash bins it may have gotten knocked down by animals or wind or that sort of thing but but since those photos it has been resolved that that was part of what was required for attending this meeting here today thank you mr chair i do have a question for staff when it's appropriate thank you any other questions of the applicant yes commissioner griffin mr chair and commissioners and mr weed are you able to

Are you able to rent out the main residence?

It's potentially, and the reason why I say potentially is a couple years ago when I felt like I was being bullied off the property and I moved into town, the plan was to rent it. Since then, I've kind of gone through a series of ups and downs of trying to, how do I solve this problem? And I tried to list it for sale. So while it was listed for sale, it hadn't been rented and such. And it was during the process of being under sale contract that I found out some of this other information about what Winhampton went through, all this stuff. Because they apparently had done greater due diligence or such than my realtors had. So short answer, I could rent it. If I am not granted this variance, I'm gonna have to liquidate the property because it can't rent for what the mortgage payment is. Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Pava.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Weed. So this is a quasi-judicial process, and you are aware that if you or the other affected parties are not happy with the decision of this commission, this can be appealed to the county commission.

I have been made aware of this. I would love for this process to be wrapped up as quickly as possible.

I want to get that in the record just to make sure everybody's aware where we're at with this. Thank you.

Thanks very much, Mr. Weed. It appears there are no further questions. Thank you very much. Can I make one other statement? Please.

have there been changes within the county since the initial structure was built to my knowledge sometime around 2020 2021 something like that the county loosened up their requirements to expand rentals prior to that i believe it was a resident would have to live on the property to be able to rent out their second, their casita, and there was a change within the county seeking to provide and find more affordable housing to allow both the primary residence and a casita to be rented out without the owner occupying the property.

Thank you. Thanks very much, Mr. Weed. So is there anyone, That's it for now, if you could sit down. Is there anyone in the room or online who is interested in speaking either in support of or in opposition to this request? Anybody online? Dominic?

Chair, there's nobody online indicating that they wish to speak on this matter.

Okay. And Commissioner Brugger had questions of staff, and I think this would be an appropriate time. Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Pava.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Weed, in his presentation, alludes to some interesting information about more than one unit being on other lots of record. In fact, several. And I'd like to get a bit more elaboration based on your familiarity with the area. If indeed there are multiple, there are more than one There is more than one unit on several of the lots in the subdivision. And on what circumstances that might have occurred, I think that's very important, weighs in on what we're hearing right now and on the variance.

Mr. Chair, Commission Member Pava, most of what Mr. Weed was speaking about was either met the requirements for an ADU or is illegal non-conforming or there could be unpermitted development elsewhere. However, Santa Fe County is mainly driven by complaint and that's how we locate these violations. Most cases we see that they're either legal non-conforming or they meet the standard of Santa Fe County.

So this lot, this situation is legal non-conforming as well. Right now.

Mr. Chair, Commission Member Pava, a little bit correction to that. It's legal non-conforming with the structures that are on there and that were permitted, they were granted. The part that's not granted is the unpermitted addition, which is the livable structure, second story.

follow-up question if somehow by magic the top story could go away and there's a workshop whatever it is there and with an accessory do you be allowed per the code based on its size elsewhere on the property as long as it complied with setbacks and for area ratios and all of that

Mr. Chair, Commission Member Pava, yes, that is a possibility. They'd have to bring the existing structure into compliance and turn it into an accessory structure. And then he would be able to apply for an ADU that met the sizing requirements and other provisions of the ordinance.

And so following that reasoning, the conditions that staff has recommended, although they do not recommend approval of the variance per se, obviously, the conditions would also address some of the same issues as would a remedy like I just described. taking off the top of the unit, moving an ADU to somewhere else on the property, and you have three buildings on the property. And that would be okay as long as it complied with the requirements.

Mr. Chair, Commission Member Pava, that is correct. They would be allowed multiple accessory structures provided they're in, I believe this area does not have a lot size square footage allotment. However, they would have to comply with other aspects of the ordinance.

Thank you, Mr. Lucero. That kind of puts things in context for me as what we've just heard from the applicant.

Thank you. Chair Bowe and Planning Commission members, and as John and I was discussing here, if the livable space from the second story was removed and that was identified as storage or an office or workshop, and the livable space for the ADU was moved down to the lower level, that would be allowed as long as it met all the AD requirements. Obviously it's too big, so some of that space would have to be designated as perhaps storage or something else. But that's also a possibility without having to construct an additional structure on the site.

Now, I appreciate what you're saying because I think we have to sometimes be a little creative in understanding as commissioners what reasonable alternatives there could possibly be if the applicant were also willing to consider those. This is a very difficult situation. That's my observation.

Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Brugger.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Cisneros, for that alternative. I, for one, was looking for alternatives. Given the history of this case and the specifics of the project, it's difficult for me to support a variance request. Having said that, given the history of the acquisition and the non-disclosure by multiple parties involved in the transaction, and it's important to take, if this goes toward the path of denial of variance, to work as hard as you possibly can to explore all alternatives that you possibly can to limit the amount of economic damage on the applicant. And so I was heartened that at least I heard one alternative. And maybe there's some more. I wouldn't expect the applicant to have read the Sustainable Land Development Code. It's a beautiful document, but it's very heavy. So anyway, that's my piece. Thanks.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Trujillo. Mr. Chairman, and it's just a question for staff. As I read here, this residential fringe zoning district allows for one dwelling per five acres. Is that correct?

Chair Bowe, commission members, yes, that is correct.

Okay, and so if I go to the property of Mr. Weed, and I mean, I'm just getting into very details here in semantics, but the property to all properties adjacent to his property that even have accessory structures. This one just adjacent to the north is 4.3 acres. This one here is 4.366 acres. This one here is, this one's 5.05. This one's 4.94. I mean, it seems like we'd have a lot of properties that are not in compliance with the five acres if that is the rule.

Chair Bowe, Commission Member Trujillo, so this happens quite a bit in Santa Fe County where a lot, a legal lot of record or a lot was created prior to the code or prior to the existing code where it didn't meet the current standards for density. And so that happens quite often. But as long as the subdivision was created or the lot was created legally by approved plat, it would be identified and they would still be allowed, like if the parcel was vacant and there was nothing on it, they would still be allowed the one dwelling unit and one accessory dwelling unit, even if it was under the five acres.

Okay. Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairman, yeah, I just, I mean, here it's acceptable, but somebody goes and does the accessory structure with no permits, but that's prior to purchasing. It's kind of, I don't know. Anyways, I'll reserve my mic.

Thanks, Vice Chair. Any other questions of staff from any of the commissioners? Thank you, Destiny. What is the will of the commission?

Mr. Chair. I so move that case 26-5070 that we do a due pass on the variance.

So we have a motion from Vice Chair Trujillo to approve the variance request. Do we have a second? Commissioner Pava, we have a motion and a second. Let's, if we could, any discussion, any considerations of, so I assume it's including conditions recommended by staff? That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Okay, we have a motion and a second for approval of the variance request. Can we get a roll call vote, please?

Yes, chair, planning commission members. We'll do a roll call vote. John Noonan-Bell.

No.

Steve Brugger.

No.

Erica Boe. No. Jessica Griffin.

No.

Chair, motion fails.

Thank you. Do we need, so since the motion for approval has failed, the variance request has been denied. And as Commissioner Pava mentioned, this is appealable to the Board of County Commissioners. And I would encourage the applicant to consider the various options that have been suggested. So thank you very much. Commissioner Brugger.

Chair, so we don't need a motion for denial?

I don't believe we need a motion for denial, do we, or do we? Since the motion for approval failed, isn't that the same? Let's let the lawyer weigh in.

It's a reasonable assumption to say that the variance is not granted.

It does fail.

And since your discussion has clarified that as well, I don't think there's any particular need in this instance for a new motion to deny.

Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, sir. The next item on our agenda is case number 26-5080, Teen Challenge of New Mexico. Ms. Serrano.

Hi.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. Kimberly Serrano, Development Review Specialist Senior. Team Challenge of New Mexico Inc. applicant through the agent Modulus Architects and Land Use Planning Inc. request approval of a conditional use permit for a residential treatment campus per the SLDC Appendix B use matrix. The proposed use is classified as community home. thus request a conditional use permit. The 5.67 acre property is within the residential fringe zoning district. The site is located at 25 Vista Point Road within Section 19 Township 16 North, Range 10 East, SDA 2, Commission District 4. The applicant states the property has a longstanding history as a residential behavioral health and life transition facility with operations dating back to 1981 and most recently the Life Healing Center. The site is developed as a campus environment consisting of residential cottages, dining, and assembly space. administrative buildings and internal circulation. The existing development pattern reflects a cohesive low density layout that has historically supported residential treatment operations. Importantly, no expansion of the building footprint is proposed. The project focuses on reactivating the site while aligning it with current code requirements and operational standards. The Life Healing Center of Santa Fe operated until 2020. The center was prominent residential mental and health addiction treatment facility that focused on trauma-informed care before its closure in 2020 due to economical challenges. On December 29th, 2023, the Life Healing Center officially closed and asked to have its business license closed out. The property is made up of a fully established institutional campus that has been used for residential purposes in the past. The land has 21 existing buildings totaling about 20,025 square feet of building space. The applicant is now requesting approval of a conditional use permit for a residential treatment facility for men. Participants commit to an approximately one year residential program, which emphasizes stability, accountability, and personal growth. The proposed use provides a clear public benefit by expanding access to essential recovery services, supporting long-term outcomes for individuals in need, and contributing to the overall health, safety, and welfare of the community. The application has been reviewed for compliance with the applicable standards set forth in Chapter 7 of the SLDC as follows. Access, road design, traffic impact, parking and loading, lighting, fire protection, open space, landscaping and buffering, terrain management, water supply, wastewater and water conservation. The applicant has addressed the CUP criteria as outlined in the memo. Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with pertinent SLDC requirements and any relevant ordinances and has found that the facts presented support the request for a conditional use permit to allow for a residential treatment center. The use is compatible with the current development within the affected zoning district. The use will not impact adjacent land uses, and the application 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. On June 11th, 2026, this request was presented to the Sustainable Land Development Code hearing officer. The hearing officer memorialized findings of facts and conclusions of law in a recommended order on the request. The recommendations of the hearing officer based on the evidence presented is for approval of the conditional use permit to be adopted subject to the following conditions. Mr. Chair Abbo, may I enter these conditions into the record?

Yes, you may. Consider them entered. Thank you.

Thank you. This report and the exhibits below are hereby submitted as part of the hearing record. I stand for questions.

Thank you, Ms. Serrano. Do any commissioners have questions of staff? Commissioner Brugger?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Arno. So in your staff report, you mentioned that New Mexico Environment Department has reviewed and given its approval with conditions. Exhibit F, I looked at Exhibit F and said, I didn't get that. I got that it said there was seven wastewater systems in place. three of easements that extend into adjacent property, but they can't find the easements, so that if they couldn't find the easements or if they weren't recorded, then the applicant would need to secure actual easements. Otherwise, those three of the septic tanks, the permits would be voided. Has there been new information that's come up that wasn't in our packet that changes that?

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Brugger, I am not aware of any of that, but I believe that the agent would be able to answer that question.

I'll save the question for them. What's the proposed scale of this? I read that there's Yeah, at least what's proposed is 36 clients, 36 beds. Is that correct?

I'm not sure.

I might have imagined that.

I don't have that information. I just have how many existing buildings.

I might be wrong. That'll be a question for the applicant as well, because I thought I saw that somewhere, but then they had a site data table that said that the occupancy could be 80 with the existing fixtures. And then if they wanted to change it, compliant with international building code and fire code, it could be 115. So just wanted to get a handle on what was presented in this application, because if the scale changed from what was presented, then if it changes dramatically per code, rules for conditional use permit, it'd have to come back to the Planning Commission, I believe. So hence the question.

Thank you, Commissioner. Any other questions of staff from any of the commissioners? Commissioner Pava.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So my question for staff is, granted that the facility has been vacant for five plus years, can you give us a description of the condition of the campus and Would you say that much of what is being proposed, let me rephrase that. If I understand it, no new structures are proposed, but considerable upgrades for life safety are being proposed. Am I following that correctly?

Mr. Chair, Commission Member Pava, I did a site inspection on the facility. The facility is close to operational. At that time when I visited the site, that was over a year ago. They were upgrading some of their alarm systems, some of their interior issues such as smoke detectors, fire alarms, so on and so forth. And fire's been working closely with the applicant on finalizing all those aspects. So I would say it's fairly close where it would be able to, you know, with some additional, some remodeling, some whatnot, close to operational.

But in terms of square footage, additional structures, I didn't see anything in the application indicating that.

Mr. Chair, from my understanding, there is no additional structures being proposed at this time, from my understanding. Thank you.

Commissioner Brugger.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I did have one other question. So the conditional use permit is being requested pursuant to the use table in the code for the residential fringe zoning category? that there is a specific provision for community home NAICS 623210, which the 623210 I believe is the residential intellectual and development disability. And my question is, does this proposal fit into this category or the 623220 Residential Mental Health and Substance Abuse Facility category?

Chair Abbo and Commissioner Brugger, Michael Voss, County Land Use Administrator. This isn't an exact response to your question. The NAICS code for developmental disabilities group homes is the only NAICS code referenced in our use matrix in the SLDC. So I don't know exactly what code the applicant's proposal falls under in the class of individuals that will be residing here in that respect. But when the use matrix doesn't have a specifically enumerated use, we pick the closest materially similar use. And so this is a proposed group home or community home. in its use no matter what the class of individuals are. So that's why we chose that use in the use table.

Thank you, Commissioner. Any other questions of staff from any of the Commission?

Thanks, Kimberly. Appreciate it.

So is the applicant or their agent here to present?

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Hello, please raise your right hand and do you agree that you will present the truth and only the truth? I do. Please state your name and address for the record.

My name is Angela Porowski, Modulus Architects, 8220 San Pedro Drive, Northeast, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Thank you, Mr. Porowski. Please proceed.

Commissioners, I do have a presentation, but I would like to ask, would you like me to address your questions now, or would you allow me to give this presentation and perhaps address them after?

I think let's go through the presentation if we can, and then that might answer some of the questions. So it's up on screen, and folks, you should be able to see it on screen if you toggle.

Excellent, are you able to see the presentation commissioners?

Great, thank you.

And I'll be very short, thank you. My name is Angela Porowski. I'm the CEO and managing partner at Modulus Architects and Land Use Planning. I'm the applicant's representative and agent for this conditional use permit request. Today we are requesting approval of a conditional use permit for Teen Challenge of New Mexico at 25 Vista Point Road in Santa Fe County. The purpose of today's presentation is to demonstrate that the proposed use satisfies the requirements of the Sustainable Land Development Code, is compatible with surrounding development, and can be safely and effectively supported by the existing site and infrastructure. Most importantly, this request is not for a new development. It is a request to reactivate a longstanding residential treatment campus that has served individuals in need for many decades. I believe this slide is one of the most important in understanding the nature of this request. The property has operated as a residential treatment campus since 1981. For more than four decades, this site served as a life healing center, providing behavioral health, recovery, and life transformation services to residents from throughout New Mexico and beyond. The facility operated successfully until its closure in 2020. This request before you today is not a rezoning or subdivision, not a new development and not the introduction of a new land use into the area. Rather, it is a continuation and reactivation of an established residential treatment use on a developed campus. The property contains 5.67 acres, 21 existing buildings and 20,025 square feet of developed building area. No expansion of the campus footprint is being proposed. Teen Challenge is seeking to bring this property back into productive use by providing long-term residential recovery services for men. In many respects, this application restores a community resource that has existed on this property for more than 45 years. Before discussing technical compliance, it is important to understand who Teen Challenge is. Teen Challenge is a nationally recognized recovery organization with more than six decades of experience helping individuals overcome addiction and life-controlling issues. Their model differs from many traditional treatment programs. It focuses on long-term transformation rather than short-term intervention. Participants engage in a structured residential program lasting one year at a minimum. The program emphasizes accountability, personal responsibility, counseling, mentoring, education, work skills, and life restoration. Teen Challenge already operates successfully within New Mexico and provides an important public benefit by helping individuals become healthy, productive members of their families and their communities. This program ultimately contributes to stronger families, safer communities, and reduce societal costs associated with addiction and homelessness. Next slide, please. Thank you. The property is a fully developed and already contains the buildings and infrastructure necessary to support the proposed operation. The campus includes residential cottages, a dining hall, administrative facilities, counseling space, open space, parking, and internal circulation. Again, no new buildings are being proposed. The only improvements being contemplated are those necessary to satisfy fire marshal requirements and to rehabilitate aging infrastructure. Those improvements include roadway widening where required, emergency vehicle access improvements, turnaround accommodations for the fire truck, and other life safety enhancements. This application has undergone an extensive review process. Beginning with the technical advisory committee review, multiple agencies evaluated the proposal and identified items requiring further analysis. Our team coordinated with county staff, the fire marshal's office, infrastructure providers, wastewater consultants, and other stakeholders. We subsequently conducted community outreach, completed utility and infrastructure analysis, performed occupancy and code reviews, and incorporated agency comments into the final application. One of the most important takeaways from this slide is that every TAC comment has been addressed. There are no unresolved agency issues before the commission today. The application before you reflects months of collaboration and refinement. A major focus of our due diligence effort has focused on the infrastructure capacity. Beginning with water service, the property is served by Sunlit Hills Water System. We analyzed historical usage records and coordinated directly with the utility provider. Sunlit Hills has confirmed that service is available to support the proposed operation. Regarding wastewater, the property contains seven existing wastewater treatment systems with an aggregated permitted capacity of approximately 3,600 gallons per day. The system has historically supported residential treatment operations at this site. The New Mexico Environment Department reviewed the proposal and issued comments and conditions that have been incorporated into the application. Traffic impacts are minimal. Residents do not maintain personal vehicles resulting in approximately 42 daily trips per day, which is significantly lower than many other institutional commercial uses. Finally, we worked closely with the Fire Marshal's Office to evaluate emergency access and life safety requirements. Required roadway improvements, emergency turnaround, and apparatus access requirements have been incorporated into the project. Collectively, our findings demonstrate that adequate infrastructure exists to support the proposed use. On March 18th, 2026, we conducted a neighborhood information meeting and invited surrounding property owners and residents to participate. Approximately 25 individuals attended. The project was presented in detail, questions were answered and attendees were provided an opportunity to express any concerns. Importantly, no objections were received during the meeting, no opposition emerged, no follow-up concerns were submitted after the meeting, While public participation does not determine compliance with the code, the outreach process demonstrated that neighboring property owners understood the project and did not organize opposition to this request. As of today's hearing, we have still not received any opposition to this project. This slide summarizes the county's conditional use permit criterion. The question before the hearing today is whether the proposed use satisfies the standards established by the Sustainable Land Development Code. Based on our analysis, county staff's analysis, agency review, and the evidence contained within the record, the answer is yes. The project satisfies the health, safety, and welfare criteria. It will not create undue traffic, congestion, It complies with applicable fire protection requirements. It does not adversely impact population density. Infrastructure capacity has been demonstrated. The project does not impair light and air available to adjacent properties. And the use is consistent with both the zoning district and the sustainable land development code. Perhaps most importantly, our findings and analysis mirror the county's own findings. At this point, I would respectfully submit that the record supports an approval. First, this is a continuation of a long established residential treatment campus. Secondly, the infrastructure has been thoroughly evaluated and addressed. Third, the project provides a significant public benefit through long-term recovery service. The county's own findings conclude that the use is compatible with surrounding development. The county has determined that the use will not adversely impact adjacent properties. The county has determined that the application satisfies the conditional use permit criterion and county staff has recommended approvals subject to conditions. When we consider the history of the site, the compatibility of the use, the infrastructure analysis, the agency review process and the public outreach effort, the evidence consistently points toward an approval. Hearing officer or commissioners, After reviewing the record, the question is no longer whether this use can operate safely and compatibly at this location. The evidence demonstrates that it can. The question is whether this long established community resource should be allowed to continue serving those in need. And we respectfully believe that that answer is yes. On behalf of Teen Challenge of New Mexico and Modulus Architects and Land Use Planning, thank you for your time, your consideration, and for your service here today. And with that, I would stand for any questions that you may have.

Thank you, Ms. Biarowski. Do any commissioners have questions of the applicant agent? Commissioner Pava.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the nice presentation. I think you covered all the bases there. Question about the 42 trips a day. What's the size of the staff serving? I understand that...

folks being at the center there will not have their their vehicles but what's the size of the staff um thank you for the question commissioner um we were told that they will be about 15 to 20 staff approximately throughout the day and we did hire a traffic engineer to come up with those trips per day and that traffic study analysis threshold is part of the packet

Okay, that's good. And a question about the age cohort of the clients being served. I noticed that it refers to teens, but could you tell us what the spread in ages is typically at these centers?

I would defer to my client. I don't want to misspeak on the age. I want to make sure the record is clear.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Please, gentlemen, anyone interested in speaking, please raise your hand and swear that you will tell the truth. And before you speak, please give your name and address for the record. Thank you.

Jim Goins, 2833 Edgewood Road, Columbus, Georgia.

I swear to tell the truth.

Thank you. Board chair and commissioners, we typically see Maximum age range is around 55, maybe 60, but the minimum age that they have to be is 18. The Teen Challenge brand name comes from its historical origin, reaching out to teens primarily in gang streets in New York and stuff like that about 70 years ago.

But it's not limited to teenagers. It's up to 55. 18 and above.

Typically 55, 60 is what we see.

Okay. That's what I wanted to know. Thank you.

And just while you're here, sir, the presentation showed all males. Is that the intended use, or will there be a co-educational feature?

Yes, we do not have co-ed programs.

Okay.

Yes.

Thanks very much. I had a question and it was about a wastewater. As Commissioner Brugger mentioned, one of the conditions of the New Mexico Environment Department analysis was that in the absence of acquiring easements for, and I'm imagining the leach fields or the septic system, or the tanks themselves for three of the seven wastewater systems, that those permits would be voided. Have those easements been obtained from the adjacent landowners?

Commissioner, thank you for the question. We are analyzing the septic system, which seems to be a spaghetti bowl. That's not a very professional term, but there have been multiple permits over multiple years and new additional leach fields added and added and added. We have hired a New Mexico general contractor and septic company to help us unravel what has been done and piecemealed over the years. We're still working to determine what easements go to what field, but we are fully committed to bringing the full septic system into compliance, all six permits. There's actually nine septic fields with six different permits. So we are committed to bring it into whatever compliance NMED wishes, but we're still trying to unravel what goes to what at this time.

Okay, thank you very much. And it appears that one of your colleagues here, and please again be sworn, sir, and

Matt Myers, 1401 Central Avenue, Albuquerque, New Mexico. I swear or affirm to tell the truth.

Thank you, sir, Mr. Myers. Please proceed.

Thank you. And I am the attorney representing the applicant. I just wanted to answer your question, Chairman. Yes, we have the necessary easement across the adjacent property for the septic systems. But then... In addition to that, we are still going through the whole process of figuring out how to make sure it's all in compliance with environmental department.

So it appears that NMED did not have access to those easement records and were unable to close that loop. And that's work that you will do before this is resolved.

Absolutely. Thank you, Chairman.

Thank you very much, sir. Any other questions from commissioners? Commissioner Brugger.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your presentation, Ms. Biorowski. Thank you. So just one follow-up then for the wastewater. Are those easements, are they recorded easements?

Yes. Okay.

So one of my questions before was, so were you proposing a certain scale of this as far as number of clients, number of beds?

Commissioner, thank you for the question. We have not proposed a number of beds or occupancy. What we did as architects is we did a very thorough analysis of the entire facility, and we simply documented in that site plan table that you see, based off the code analysis that architects use for the IBC, the current fixture count, what that would support occupants which varies greatly from what the permitted septic allowance for gallons per day would allow and so that's where you see the difference of numbers the fixture count according to the IBC would allow a hundred and twelve occupants it's never had that many we're not proposing that many but based off in an IBC architectural analysis that's what the facility could hold based off fixtures. However, the septic system analysis is only permitted for 3,600 gallons per day, which currently would support up to 50 residents. So that was just an architectural analysis of what the facility is capable of at this time.

Thank you. Thank you. So I have some other questions, and it's not digressing. These are related to approval criteria 1 and 5 and 7. So 5, for the sewage, it appears that you've got that under control for working toward that. So you had Teen Challenge's first project in New Mexico was T-Harris, correct? That is correct. And that was 2023 that started?

My apologies, I wasn't prepared to answer that. Give me just a moment.

New Mexico Teen Challenge has been around in New Mexico for a number of decades. Our organization, which is based out of Georgia, acquired Teen Challenge of New Mexico in late 2023.

I'm glad you're here. So I think I read somewhere that the initial clients would be transferred from T. Harris and that is T. Harris being shut down?

Currently, we are evaluating the strategy long term for the T. Harris campus. With this new property, it gives us options to strategically develop and grow. There's a very big need all across New Mexico. And so as we evaluate our options, we may choose to keep it or eventually not use that property any longer.

Thank you. So would this facility be open? It's apples and oranges, but say La Sala facility here serves Santa Fe County residents. So who would you serve?

We would be able to serve anybody that is here in New Mexico residents. all across New Mexico that find out about our programs. We get referrals from various judicial systems, various churches, word of mouth, the long history and reputation of New Mexico Teen Challenge across the state, families of our graduates that meet other people in need all across the state.

Thank you. Your clients, do they voluntarily apply to be selected for this program or are they court ordered?

It is possible that they can be court ordered. We are not a locked facility. We have had people that through the judicial system, they do have that as an aspect of their experience with us, but it's not required. And I would say it's, I'd be surprised if it's over 10% of the time.

given that you're not a lockdown facility, how do you maintain control and be a good neighbor to those living around you?

Sure.

Our organization has... 19 different centers across different states. We have a great reputation in caring for our individuals when they're with us. We place a lot of time, effort, and energy in engaging well with our customers and their families to create an experience from the moment they come to us to when they leave us whether it's graduating our program or if it is not working out they get referred to a different program and so they start well they end well even if they don't complete the year-long program and i would say that uh We have had a great reputation here already in Harris and Roswell, and our completion rate is very high. Matter of fact, I had said earlier we have 19 different programs. These two programs in the state of New Mexico with the work that we're doing here and our staff have the two highest level of retention rates and graduation rates of all of our 19 programs.

Thank you. And last question for now. So Ms. Pierowski, you mentioned that you had coordinated with various stakeholders in the community. Did you coordinate with the county community services department handles the behavioral health issues on behalf of the county. So did you coordinate with them? Commissioner, I did not.

I did not for this application, but I am certain that as we proceed, if we are approved and they get closer to opening, that they will be coordinating with county services.

Did you coordinate with other providers in the area? I looked at the neighborhood sign-in sheet and there were a lot of advocates there. But coordination with any other service providers, not that they're doing the same thing as what you're proposing. It's different. Good model.

Commissioners, my focus has been on just the zoning and planning land use part of this. I don't have an expertise in that realm of this project, but I fully understand and believe that the operators who have a fantastic reputation will do all the necessary outreach and community work that they need to do, hoping that we get an approval here today.

Thank you.

Commissioner, I will also just add that we did all the required notices to the neighborhood associations, to all the neighbors. Astonishingly, in my 27-year career, we had absolutely zero opposition. Everybody that we spoke to really acknowledged and recognized the importance of these types of programs. And so this is one of the first in my career where I haven't had any opposition, so it's been rather nice, actually. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, ma'am. Any other questions? Yes, Commissioner Griffin.

Mr.

Chair, and this may be a question for staff and also the applicant. I think I just need to get closer. I'm curious about the urban wildland interface issues. Is this property in one of those designations as being extreme or high?

Chair Bowe, Commissioner Griffin, we do have Craig Fulmer from Santa Fe County Fire Prevention online. He may be better to answer that question.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Mr. Fulmer, are you available?

I did not hear the question. Can you repeat the question?

Sure. The question is, is this property in one of the urban wildland interface classifications as far as being extreme or very high hazard, high fire hazard, or moderate fire hazard?

Give me a moment to look up the property and I will give you an answer.

Okay, and really, my question relates, or my question more of it is just in, there was recently a wildfire kind of in that area, I mean, more to the north, and I'm just thinking if you have, what, how many residents there, and none of them have vehicles, and there happens to be a fire, is there any evacuation plan, like, what is the process for that? Or I don't need to know the process, but is there a process?

Commissioner, would you like me to answer that?

I can't hear you. I couldn't hear the question.

Okay, so I was, well, I was asking you about if this property is located in one of the fire hazard areas, but then I was asking the applicant if they do have a evacuation plan in the case that there is a wildfire in that area.

Commissioner, would you like me to address that? I'm sorry.

Yeah, Mr. Fulmer, while you're looking that up, please just chime in whenever you found the answer to Commissioner Griffin's question. But in the meantime, I have the answer. Oh, yes. Let's please.

And so it is in a it is in a high WUI risk area. And the three different risks are moderate, high and extreme, and it is in a high area.

Okay, so then my question, Mr. Chair and everybody, is so there are specific requirements, you know, if it is in a class two high fire hazard having to do with roof covering, protection of eaves, exterior doors, et cetera, would those requirements come, you know, apply in this situation? Or would that only happen if, for example, they apply for a building permit or any something like that to make any changes to the structures?

»» That sounds like a question for staff. So, and in the TAC process, were the existing conditions compared to the current WUE Class 2 requirements? Is that a good summation of your question? Okay, got it.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, commissioners, I believe that's really a question for fire. However, we do have a letter from fire in the file as an exhibit stating that they must comply with all other requirements at the time of any building permits or development permits such as a business being ran out of there. Again, I've mentioned they have upgraded their systems. I believe she was going to refer, the applicant's agent was going to refer to

the actual evacuation plan that they have in process um but as far as the evacuation plan for the county i i would not have that information and i would note that this is a stone's throw from the hondo volunteer fire department so med services are just a volunteer call away um it's a high quality unit there um but yeah if do you have something on the evacuation plan

Yes, commissioners, thank you for that. That is such a very important question, and so thank you for bringing that up. A couple of things. So yes, there is an emergency evacuation plan for all sorts of emergencies, not just fire, but many other emergencies. But I would also point out for the record that Fire Marshal Fulmer and I have done an extensive amount of work together over the last few months, and many of the greatest improvements that are going to be done to this site are to address fire safety. One of the things that we're going to be doing, we're already under contract with the general contractor, is to put a fire suppression water tank on site to assist with fire suppression. The other thing is that the dining hall where the cooking is happening is equipped with a fire suppression system. And then we are actively going to be widening roads, doing tree cutting, all of the things that Fire Marshal Flomer has asked us to do. And we are very happy to do it to make sure that it's a safe campus.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for the question.

Thanks. Any other questions? Commissioner Brugger.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to follow up on Ms. Griffin's comment on Fire safety, and this is, forgive the minute question, but a lot of fires are started by cigarettes. And it's kind of tough to enforce that, not given the clients to say you can't smoke. I don't know, maybe you do, but do you?

I'll defer to the operator. Thank you.

We do not allow smoking by anybody on the entire campus, staff or students or clients, families. It's a smoke-free campus. And I had one more thing from a previous question. You had asked if we had worked with other providers One of the things I think we're the most proud of in the last three years is given what we do both ministerially, but also from a licensed services side, we get audited and inspected regularly, not only by the health care authority, by New Mexico Medicaid and all the different New Mexico Medicaid agencies, MCOs. With every evaluation, they give us five-star reviews and they also ask us, what more can you do? What more places can you open? And so we're very proud of that.

Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant from any commissioners? Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate your presentation.

Thank you very much for your time today.

So this is a public hearing. Is there anyone interested in speaking for or in support of or in opposition to this request? Yes, please come forward. State your name. Swear to tell the truth. Swear to tell the truth. Yes, sir.

Name and address. Yes, sir. Dustin Nance, 15 West 10th Street, Columbus, Georgia. Yes, so bear with me. Staffers, you guys got to hear a little bit of this, but we at Teen Challenge, we don't believe that the opposite of addiction is sobriety, but the opposite of addiction is community. And so we're excited to be in this community, to see the history in this building, but to know the history of this campus and to work step by step with every authority that we need to to make sure that the campus is safe and that we're providing the best care that we know how to to our occupants. And so I just wanted to thank you for hearing this and appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anyone interested? Yes. Please come forward. Swear you will tell the truth and state your name and address for the record.

I do swear I will tell the truth. My name is Michael Martinez, and I am a local resident of Santa Fe County, actually Santa Fe City.

And your address, sir?

7437 Sagebrush Road here in Santa Fe.

Thank you.

I just recently retired from the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office. I worked with the Sheriff's Office for 21 years. I retired there this past August at the rank of Lieutenant. So I was a commander there. Before that, I also worked with the Santa Fe City Police Department and started out my career with Espanola City Police Department with a total law enforcement experience of 31 years. And all of this is within the Santa Fe County area. Now we know that Espanola has a real addiction issue as well as Santa Fe and Santa Fe County. And that's why I'm here. I first dealt with Teen Challenge Back in 1985 when I had just graduated high school, and I was going to school up in Arizona in the Tucson area when a friend of mine, actually my roommate, his name was Paul. He was from Tucson, and he, in one of our daily conversations, told me about this place. called Teen Challenge. He told me that he was a resident there and that he graduated from that facility and that he was so proud because he was on a downward spiral. He was addicted to cocaine at that time. And if it wasn't for Teen Challenge, he didn't know where he was going to be at that time. This was back in 1985, way before I even thought of becoming in law enforcement. In 1989, I returned to New Mexico, and I became a police officer for the city of Espanola. Back then, if you're from here, which I am, I was born and raised up in Espanola, you are going to have family that's involved in some type of addiction. Every time I got a chance, and we didn't have Teen Challenge here or in Espanola at the time, but every time I got the chance and I got to speaking to one of the addicted parties of our community, I would tell them about this great program, Teen Challenge. Now this year, when I retired from the Sheriff's Office, I was one of three candidates that ran for Santa Fe County Sheriff. And in a lot of the forums that we had, whether it be in Espanola, in Pahuaca, in Chimayo, here in Santa Fe, or down in Edgewood, everybody that would ask questions was, how are we going to help our crisis with addiction? And that always stayed in my mind. So one day, now recently, I came in contact with two wonderful people telling me that they were from Teen Challenge. And my mind blew. I was so happy to know that they still existed. I told them the story about my friend Paul, but not only that, I know the outcomes of Teen Challenge. And I was so happy that because of the requests and the demands and the concerns of the Santa Fe County community, that this is now offered. And I think that this would be a great, great asset for Santa Fe County, because I think we need alternatives. And I know that the county is putting up money for other behavioral expenses here in the county, but this is something that we do need. And I am speaking on the behalf of them. And I think that they should deserve the application. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Martinez. Is anyone else interested in speaking either in support of or opposition to this cup request? Please come forward. I swear you will tell the truth and state your name and address for the record.

Yes, I will tell the truth. My name is Laura Jankowski, 66 Quartz Trail, Santa Fe, New Mexico. I'm not a really good public speaker, so I'm going to follow my guide.

All you need to do really is speak into the microphone, please. You might need to lower it a little bit.

Thank you. My name is Laura. I am an RN board certified in psychiatric nursing. I have worked in our local hospital system for about 20 years. With 10 years as a psychiatric nurse in behavioral health units of the hospital, and now I'm currently working at a transitional recovery home. Unfortunately, through my experience, Santa Fe and the surrounding areas have a real crisis of addiction on our hands. In my field, I have taken care of so many who have been a victim of the opioid crisis and feel helpless to ever be free from these addictions. As an RN at the hospital, I have seen the same people come through the ER over and over again, crying out for help. Unfortunately, we lack the resources these people really need. Throughout my years of nursing, the most successful stories of recovery have involved faith. I have seen completely hopeless situations turn into a life that is restored and a life with purpose and a life with hope. Teen Challenge is a faith-based recovery program. Faith-based recovery programs have the foundation of teaching people to rely on God for their strength that they need to overcome. They do not have to rely on self-help, which a lot of other recovery treatment centers provide. For it is relying on themselves that was the problem to begin with. that has caused them to be addicted, why then should they trust themselves, now being it was their very self that got them into the mess to begin with? Faith-based recovery points to the one who has the power to deliver them from this evil. As the scriptures say, it is not by power, it's not by might, but it's by the spirit of the Almighty God that sets men free. I myself contest to this power, the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ. where there is reconciliation with God and forgiveness, there is power given to us by his grace to overcome any obstacle. I have seen many lives restored, old patterns broken, and freedom to live with a new purpose and hope. I do not just say this because Christianity is my personal faith. I say this because it is what I have witnessed. that those who do put their trust in God. In the recovery programs that I am involved with or have been involved with, I have seen great success. The statistics for lasting recovery are much higher in faith-based programs, so it is my hope that the city of holy faith would once again allow God's majestic, beautiful power to set these captives free. I believe having Teen Challenge in Santa Fe will be a great asset to our hurting community, to those who are captive to addiction, to those who have no hope. I am looking forward to hearing the many stories of redemption and freedom from the addictions that have made it through the Teen Challenge program. It is my prayer and hope that Teen Challenge will be approved and accepted by our community, that it'll be a light set upon a hill, and that healing would flow from that place to others. I have been a supporter of Teen Challenge for 30 years, and it has always been my first recommendation when advising families and clients on successful programs. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Ms. Jankowski. Is anyone else interested in speaking either in support of or opposition to this request? Please be sworn, sir, and state your name and address for the record. I swear to tell the truth.

My name is Brian Hallmark, 4910 Venado Peak, Santa Fe, New Mexico. I wear a couple of hats here. I'm a pastor at Christian Life Church, 121 Syringo, just adjacent from St. Mike's High School. I'm also an executive presbyter for the state of New Mexico with Ministry Network. And we run a recovery program on Thursday nights. And we know that it's limited because it's only an hour and a half. And so I've been working alongside Teen Challenge since 96 and very familiar with the one in Taharis as well. And I just want to say that this is not just about a property. This is about a place for hope. It's a place for people to go to be able to be restored. No one's going to remember the permit number after today, but they will remember they got their husband back, their father back, something like that. So I just want to say that I'm here to speak in approval for it and that I think it's going to be a huge success for Santa Fe. Thank you very much for all you do.

Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else in the room interested in speaking? It looks like no. Anybody online?

Chair, Bo, Planning Commission members, there's nobody online wishing to speak on this matter.

Thank you very much.

Do we want to close the public hearing portion of this?

So, yeah, let's close the public hearing portion of this meeting. And Commissioner Brugger?

I'd like to make the motion to...

Chair, Chair Abou, Planning Commission members, before a motion is made, I'd like to make a friendly amendment to one of the conditions. Condition number four shall state that water restrictions and conservation covenants by water service provider shall be filed in the county clerk's office and referenced on the CUP site development plan.

Okay. And I believe that was brought up at the hearing officer meeting. And so, yeah, I want to make sure too. So we're modifying a condition for, to be, can you read that again, please?

Water restrictions and conservation covenants by water service provider shall be filed in the county clerk's office and referenced on the CUP site development plan. Thank you very much. Go ahead, Commissioner Brugger.

I'd like to make a motion to approve case number 26-5080 with all staff conditions as amended and encourage the applicant to coordinate with county departments who handle this.

Thanks.

Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second? So Commissioner Brugger moves and Vice Chair Trujillo seconds. May we have a roll call vote, please?

John Nunebel. Yes. Dan Pava.

Yes.

Steve Brugger.

Yes.

Erica Bowe.

Yes.

Jessica Griffin.

Yes.

Carl Trujillo.

Yes. The conditional use permit application has been passed. Thank you very much for the presentation. Thank you. Next on the agenda is matters of public concern. Is there anyone from the public who is interested in presenting on this item? No, next on the agenda is matters from the commission. Anything commissioners that, let's just wait to clear the room, I guess. Commissioner Griffin.

Mr. Chair and commissioners and staff, I was a little surprised that there wasn't any mention about the WUE requirements or I'm sorry, the urban wildland interface requirements in the fire marshal's report and would like to request that future reports do consider those issues and those requirements.

Mr. Chair, commission members, we will see to that we get some sort of response from fire.

Thank you.

Any other matters from commissioners? Matters from, I have one. So my only question is, is there an expectation that by the next meeting there will be a record keeper or are we going to go through the same process again?

Chair Bowe, planning commission members. So our staff is currently looking into procuring a stenographer. But from what I have heard from what the clerk's office is going to be doing, because they own the contract for the BCC, is that we're going to do a similar contract with the same contractor. but there will be nobody present. They will be doing a review of the video online and they will provide us with a transcript.

Okay. Okay, great, thanks. Just trying to understand the procedural changes. So anything, Roger, do you have anything? Staff, do you have anything?

Thank you. Mr. Chair, I do have one issue, more a technical legal issue that arises from the first matter brought up today. Commissioner Brugger touched on this. I didn't want to raise it during the first agenda item discussion. because the order that you are inquiring about had not been found and was not of record. But I do want the members of the commission to know that we, staff, legal, do typically consider denied applications to be binding and to run with the property in fact the the code calls for those those orders to be recorded and For your reference Section 4.4.14, in fact, specifies that a reapplication is only appropriate if there has been a material change to either the facts or the law. We would have relied heavily, or staff would have relied heavily on that section to urge even more strongly a denial of that first matter if we had discovered the order, especially if that order had been recorded. but I did want to bring it to your attention, that particular provision and the fact that we do consider those orders to run with the land, so to speak.

So thank you very much. So just to be clear, if someone were to do a title search on that property, then they would have been able to find in the property the county clerk's records, the denied variance request for the, I guess it was an ADU at the time, is that?

They should have been able to find it. If it was properly recorded, identified with that particular parcel, it would be of record and a title search should find that, yes.

Thank you. And I'm, you know, I'm encouraging, you know, every time I meet a realtor, I ask them, you know, how do they, how do they help potential buyers analyze if their property is clean of any of these things. So appreciate that.

I'll also point out, to further clarify the question you asked of me earlier regarding the need for a follow-up motion, I typically will urge an adverse or the opposite motion if the initial motion was to deny. If a motion to deny is defeated, that does not assume that the application should be passed and approved. But I think the contrary doesn't work that way. I think when a motion is to approve and that motion does not pass, I think it is fair to presume and conclude that the application has been denied. Thank you.

Commissioner Brugger.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. So, so in the future, then final orders are recorded, right? So, so it's really clear that there, if something's unpermitted and there was a variance request that it's, that it's disclosed and it comes up in a title commitment, I would hope, because this, this is like the, just since I've been here a second or third time, we've had something come up and The applicant says, oh, I didn't know because it wasn't disclosed to me. Depending on the realtor community to do that isn't the best bet you could do in the world. So recording something, anything, would sure go a long way toward creating a better situation for everybody. I certainly agree.

I think the distinction to understand is that the prior activity in this particular case was, in fact, a formal hearing in front of your predecessor commission that did result in an order. That order clearly, ideally, would and should have been recorded. Oftentimes when people are coming before you saying we didn't know they're not saying we didn't know about a prior order They're just saying we didn't know that the person who sold the proper to me property to me Built that garage without a permit and there's there's nothing that that can be done to have that in a record Commissioner Trujillo says you hope to have responsible and diligent real estate agents working with you so that they can check with growth management and find out if a particular structure or any development was approved previously.

Thank you, Roger. Michael?

Thank you, Chair Bowe. Just to kind of chime in on that, we'll work with Mr. Weed and discuss all the possible options and I will just make you all aware Chair Green of the BCC is very interested and announced actually at the last commission meeting that he wants to pursue amendments to our ADU regulations. And we are actually working with, we have a red line of some of our accessory dwelling unit regulations with our consultant that we've already been doing for possible code amendments. I don't think we're gonna try to make Mr. Weed tear down a structure immediately and we'll see what ultimately the BCC decides from a code perspective.

Mr. Chair, what amendments are they, what are they trying to make to, what are the recommendations for the changes, the amendments to the ADU?

Chair Bowe and Commissioner Trujillo, I only can speak to a couple of these, but I mean, some of the items that come up frequently that don't necessarily always make sense is the combined utilities requirement. We're gonna clarify, I believe, the two-story structure part. Not that you can get a two-story structure, but maybe it's, less important if it's on top of a garage or you have a two-story house, maybe the ADU can be two stories. Nothing's set in stone and we're gonna consider all the options and bring something forward.

Thank you, that's a long time coming because you all, and we all wrestle with this a lot.

If I could follow up, Michael, so that's a kind offer. I'd offer that the commissioner had to help out with the rules there. Hopefully we get a chance to weigh in too, because hadn't brought this up every meeting, but there's, especially after the last planning commission meeting, uh i sure would be itching to offer my two cents on what i've written down over time as far as and i'm sure you've got a big notebook as well so hopefully it's a coordinated process uh with everybody including the planning commission absolutely cherubo commissioner bruger the formal process will involve

public hearing where you will make a recommendation to the BCC on the text amendments to the SLDC. We can certainly contemplate a work session because we're thinking about that with the board. And there will be some public outreach events. So there's also, since this is a legislative, it will be a legislative matter. You're welcome to come and talk to me as we develop those input sessions.

Thanks very much. Chair Bowe and Planning Commission members, I just also wanna just mention in the interim, until any of those changes are implemented or brought forward, currently staff is working with the County Manager's Office and doing some outreach. John has already been on a couple of radio stations to let people know of information. Because again, it's all informative and educational. A lot of the constituents of Santa Fe County don't know certain situations. So we're working with the county manager's office on doing some outreach on that. Great.

The next meeting is scheduled for August 20th.

Mr. Chair, before we go, there's been several members that have asked for login information. I reached out to our IT department through email, seeing if I could get you guys that login, just an update.

Okay, so you'll be providing login once you get it.

Hopefully, yes.

Thank you. So do we have items that are teed up for August 20th? And similarly, are the currently present commissioners planning to attend or will they be golfing? Okay. Do we have any items that are teed up?

Mr. Chair, Planning Commission members, from our land use development side, we don't have too much, but Michael can inform you what.

Yeah, Chair Bowe, we and commissioners, we had two cases that were just presented to the SLDC hearing officer. We've actually, he very quickly gave a recommendation on one of them already. So those two, there's a conditional use permit and a zoning map amendment that will be coming forward.

Commissioner Brugger.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This question is a new hearing examiner. So that's three since I've been here. Anything we're doing?

Chair and commissioners, I don't believe so. It's with the same firm this time around. So they had a change in staff at the firm recently. that we're under contract with. So we're using the same firm and thankfully we were able to kind of keep rolling. And I think the current hearing officer is doing a great job.

Thank you so much. So shall we get a motion to adjourn?