Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Sorry for the delay. I'd like to call to order the September 17th, 2026 meeting of the Santa Fe County Planning Commission. May I get a roll call please?

Dan Pava. John Nunebel. Present. Steve Brugger. Here. Jose La Cruz Crawford.

Here.

Erica Bowe. Here. Jessica Griffin. Here. Carl Trujillo.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you very much. Now please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you all. The next item on the agenda is approval of the agenda. Staff, are there any changes to the agenda?

Chair Bowe, Planning Commission members, yes, there are a few changes. Agenda item 2A and 2B, those transcripts are not yet ready. Those were in place just as a placeholder. Our new contracted stenographer is still working on those as well as some other meeting minutes. So we should have those by next month. And agenda item under the consent agenda 3B, that final order is not ready. So that one will be removed today as well.

Thank you very much. May I get a motion in order to approve the agenda as amended with removal of section two and item 3B?

So moved.

I'll second it. So I got Commissioner Brugger and Commissioner Pava as the motion and the second. Thank you all very much. Now, all those in favor of approval of the agenda as amended, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. That passes. Next item is the consent agenda, which consists of one item. Item 3A may get a motion for approval of the consent agenda. So moved. Thank you, Commissioner Nunez-Bell. May I get a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner. All those in favor of approval of agenda item 3A, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thanks very much. Next is approval of the administrative decision in case number 26-5140, 5141, and 5142. May I get a motion for approval of that action item? Thank you, Vice Chair. May I get a second? I'll second. Thank you, Commissioner. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Approval of that action item is approved. Next is action item 26-5070, the Daniel Weed variance request. May I get a motion for approval?

I move to approve.

Thank you very much. May I get a second? We got a motion and a second. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you very much. Next is new business, item 5A, which is legislative amendments to the Madrid Community Center overlay.

Thanks.

All right. Good afternoon, Commissioner and Planning Commission. My name's Nate Crail, senior community planner. And this afternoon, we're presenting the proposed legislative amendments to the Madrid Community District overlay. And so these were requested by the community. Kind of the overarching purpose was to match the intent of their community plan. Most notably last year around this time, several community members came to us saying, we want to open a restaurant right on Main Street in Madrid, but for whatever reason, their rural commercial overlay in their community district overlay omitted a restaurant from that section, even though there's a coffee shop an existing restaurant in that real commercial overlay and so many community members were like we didn't intend for that and so we did an abbreviated planning process from November 2025 to March 2026 where we kind of did a comprehensive look at the real commercial overlay as well as some other aspects of that of the overlay And so just kind of a brief summary, and I can go into detail if you would like, but there's kind of three major changes to the overlay. First is the organization. So in a lot of our other overlays, the real commercial overlay will be oftentimes text in the overlay section. So it will be like, Rural Commercial Overlay in Madrid, and it'll just list out the permitted and conditional uses in a paragraph form, which is not user-friendly for the public or staff. And so our proposal is to reorganize it and put it into the use table as a separate column in the use table user-user friendliness and just to make sure there's not any inconsistencies. Like just one inconsistency, for example, that was in the Royal Commercial Overlay text for whatever reason, it listed exhibition and art galleries as a permitted use and as well as a conditional use in the different paragraphs. And I was like, you know, which one is it? And so by moving the Royal Commercial Overlay kind of permitted and conditional and prohibited uses to the use table, it really just makes things clear and we won't have any conflicts between those. And then kind of the second overarching amendments are kind of more the town-wide ones. And so this kind of came out of the process that that we knew that some of these were issues, but other ones that kind of came out through the different community meetings that we had. And so one of them was about amending the sign standards. And so for a lot of these town-wide amendments, including the sign standards, the existing town of Madrid covenants have, they have a lot of these existing covenants, but a lot of them are not reflected in the current overlay. And so it was a request of the community as well as in the community plan to make them more consistent. So the first one was the signage standards. And so we currently, the only standard that we have in the overlay is backlit plastic and neon signs are prohibited, but we're proposing to be consistent with the covenants, have a maximum size of four square feet of four typical signs. And of course, any historical signs will be maybe replaced by signs of the same size. And then another proposed amendment that kind of affects the townwide is the parking standards. And so as many of you know, in Madrid, parking is a continual issue there, but the community doesn't want to be forced to add parking in the town if they're doing like a restaurant or new business. So we're proposing for the parking standards that on page three of the red line draft that new uses are exempt from the minimum parking requirements that they fall within the same use classification categories, the same use. So if you have an art gallery or something and you're changing it to a different type of commercial use, you don't have to add new parking spots. because there oftentimes is not physical space for a parking spot in Madrid, but there are parking such as by the ball field where there's a very large parking spot that people can park in. And then the final most significant town-wide amendment is the architectural design standards. And so this is more or less copied verbatim from the Madrid covenants. and just reflecting kind of the general style of Madrid and the historic character of Madrid. And notably, like in the past, they've had some issues with mobile homes that don't conform to that style and things like that. And there are prefabricated structures that can conform to these styles. So we're sure to include that clause. but those are kind of the town-wide stand standards that we're proposing to amend and then of course as i mentioned earlier the kind of the core focus of this was going through kind of use by use for the real commercial overlay um where we kind of looked at all the different uses all 200 plus uses and went through every single use in the real commercial overlay So I think, yeah, that's the summary of the amendments. And then just some additional administrative things I wanted to cover. This was heard at the August 13th hearing officer hearing and the hearing officer based on the evidence presented recommend approval of this request and his written order is attached as exhibit B. And then staff's recommendation is that we recommend approval of these overlay amendments. And I stand for any questions about the proposed amendments. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Nate. And just to clarify, is this approval something that this body does or do we recommend approval to the BCC?

Yeah, Chair, yeah, this is a, you recommend approval to the BCC, and they'll make the final decision.

Perfect, thank you very much. Commissioners, do you have any questions of staff?

Commissioner Pava? I'm not going to do karaoke, okay? Thanks, Nate. Interesting update on the plan. I noticed in the table that this is just editorial, that's all. Gasoline station, I think you need an X since it is not allowed in any of the sub-districts and it's just left out for some reason. I think it's an oversight.

Chair, Commissioner Pava.

Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, Commissioner.

What is a tourist court?

Yeah, Chair, Commissioner Griffin. I think that's one of the uses that's defined in our exhibit A of the code. And I don't know off the top of my head, but I would essentially think of it as like in town, like Alray Court or one of those types of kind of motel, drive-in hotels.

Commissioner Brugger.

Thank you, Chair. Thanks for the good work, Nate. I have a few questions. How was the planning committee created?

Yeah, so Chair, Commissioner Brugger. So like every community planning process, we, you know, sent out postcards to and mailers to every single property owner, as well as noticed it with physical posters at the Surios post office, which is their closest post office to Madrid, as well as at several kind of community poster boards throughout the community, including in front of their little radio station. And so that was a kind of primary way of reaching people. But of course, it is a pretty small community. And so word of mouth. And also, I think we had six total different meetings.

Yeah. Thank you. So the sign, one of the big changes was the sign limitation, with the exception of historical signs. Are historical signs just, are there any commercial signs in there? Or is it just historical like, I can't think of any offhand. But are there any commercial signs that are viewed as historical that are allowed to be bigger than the four square feet?

Yeah, Chair, Commissioner Brugger. So yeah, there's a couple buildings where there are kind of historical commercial signs that reflect like the current uses of the historical use. And so the most The largest example is the old soda fountain building in Madrid where they have a kind of, you know, above the portal there, there's a large, kind of for each little storefront, there's a large, it must be, you know, 10 feet by four feet, you know, in size, but that's just on the facade. And that is the type of thing where the community doesn't want to remove those permanently, but they also want them to reflect the character of the community as well as give the business owners the ability to change them a bit to make them relevant to them as well.

Thank you. Or you'd mentioned that there's an exception It's been added for new users are exempt from minimum parking requirements. If they fall within the same use classification, is that, I can't think offhand if there's any like vacant lots that would fall under that, or is it just what by new uses, meaning just where there's a structure or if there was a vacant lot, uh, Would they be, if it was developed, would they be exempt from the parking requirements? Which, as you said, parking is an issue there.

Yeah, Chair, Commissioner Brugger. So within the current language, I think we really thought of it within existing structures, if it's changing from one use to another. That is a good question about the vacant properties of whether how we would interpret that. I think if Michael or Herbert want to see how they read it within the existing language.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner, I would suggest that if there's a new use, a new development being proposed on a vacant lot, the current standards for parking would apply. But if they're changing from one use to the next, like residential to residential, they would not apply. But if they're going from residential to a hospital, it's a different classification. So they would need to apply the new parking standards.

But to build a new building on a lot,

current standards would apply for whatever that specific zone is, for that use?

I think I got it. So if it was a commercial use already, but it was vacant, then they would be exempt? If they built on it, they would be exempt from parking requirements. And the only reason I'm asking is, this is a great effort. This is good. This is good. But it would confer an advantage on existing commercial. If somebody that was already zoned had property, they had to They had to meet the parking requirements, but existing buildings do not. Mr.

Chair, Commissioner Brugger, the way we've always run it, and I don't know what the ordinance states in this, but if it's a residential going to a commercial, it's a whole change of use. If it hasn't operated within 365 days and they're operating as a similar use, that's a whole different use if they bring in something totally different. If it's something similar for something similar and it's been under 365 days They want to operate a business that's similar to the previous business and that's just an existing legal non-conforming use as per se and That's how land use would run it Before we go forward chair about can we go ahead and have you swear in staff and

Certainly. I wonder, anybody who is interested in speaking for staff, if you'd please swear that you will tell the truth. Please raise your right hand and swear that you will tell only the truth. Thank you.

Cherubo and Commissioner Brugger, I think that's a good question that you've raised. I think the language is probably fine the way it is because it says it's a new use in a different category and a vacant lot stands in a category of its own because it doesn't have a use. So they would have to comply with our parking standards for that first new use. But then if there's a change of use, so let's say it gets built as a store and it's a change of use to some other different commercial use, but in that same classification, then they would not have to. It may be clearer if we say change of use within the same category, but I think the language is fine that at least the intent is in the language as it's written.

Thank you. That makes sense.

Thanks. I have a question about signage. I'm concerned. I just took a drive down 14 on Google Maps to look at the existing signs, which will not be subject to this limitation. And there are many signs that are 10, 12, 14 square feet from my rough examination. And I'm wondering if What would be the process if a commercial interest is interested in either changing from the mine shaft to something else and they put up a new sign? Can they paint the existing sign? And what would be the process if a new business came in to say, I need a sign that is greater than four square feet? Does that have to come to this body for approval or to the BCC for approval because Four square feet is kind of difficult when you're blasting through, you know, above the speed limit as they all do. I'm just wondering what the procedure would be because I'm concerned that that limitation, although it might advantage the existing businesses, would certainly not be fair to those people who may not even live there now but want to create a business.

Mr. Chair, the process would be that they would have to come before you all for a variance request to the signed standards.

And so we would make a determination that it would be the same variance procedure. Does this benefit the community? Is it the interest of the SLDC? Yeah, I'm just concerned that that is an overly restrictive limitation So that gets to my next question. Who was in the group and who wasn't in the group? Because I know that there are a number of people in Madrid who are really engaged with the county and with the community. And I'm wondering, you mentioned how you informed folks, but many people might not have attended any meetings and so do you know and I there may have been something in the packet but I might I might have missed you know how many members of the community how big is the community how many members of the community did participate at some point in the process

Yeah, Chair Abba, I can't remember the exact number, but it was well over 30 to 40-ish that totally participated by attending one or more meetings. And then population figures for Madrid can be a little complicated because there's, over 100 residents, but there's also a lot of property owners who are business owners who don't live in the community. And so there is that kind of complication of, as well as there's also, of course, renters. And so there's all those different types of demographic groups that, you know, they're just the kind of face public, the population figure doesn't quite reach.

Got it. Yeah. Great. Thank you very much. And I think it's not in our interest to recommend specific changes to the things that was worked out in the community, but I am interested in not burdening this or future planning commissions with, to me, the signage is a big deal. Signage and parking are a big deal. So that's all for now. Any other questions from any of the commissioners? Vice chair.

Thank you for the presentation, Nate. I actually agree with, I usually agree with the chairman, but I do agree that four square feet is pretty minimal. As I took a drive down there, there's many signs that are larger than that, and I think it'll place a bias on those bringing new businesses in. But the 1981 date, who's the body or who decides the sign that's been there before 1981 and thereafter for anybody that's looking to change? Do you know who that would be?

yeah chair abo commissioner trujillo so that would be staff based on you know historical images that an applicant would provide um for you know the 1981 date as the you know for many other land use cases that's kind of our you know trigger date um yeah and so in this code if somebody came in and they they took over a business and the existing sign is 15 square feet or whatever amount over the four and they change the name of the business

Would this be allowed to change that sign at that square footage? Is the language clear here to allow that?

Yeah, Chair Abbo, Commissioner Trujillo, from my reading, if it's existing sign, they're allowed to change it to meet the needs of that new business if they're replacing a current business.

But if I read this, I'm not sure that that language is clear. I don't know if there's language in there that makes it clear is the point I'm trying to make. I just want to get clarification how this process would work.

Mr. Chair, Commission members, again, it would depend on the use that was allowed. If you're changing the use completely, then we're going to go through the current sign standards. But if they are keeping in common with the type of use that's being generated, then we consider that a legal non-conforming use. For instance, there are signs up of 284 up north, or 285, or what is it, 284? And so most of those signs on the side of the road there are on tribal lands, but then you have a few that are also on private properties or such, and those signs are considered legal non-conforming. Now, if they haven't been in use or if they've been removed, consecutive 364 days, then we're looking at those as legal nonconforming. Unless they've been removed, then those now need to be brought up to standard.

not allowed okay but i think those signs because i'm aware of what takes what happens down there but those other signs i mean i mean i understand this is a community here that they somehow came to four square feet i know those other ones are larger than four square feet correct those are legal non-conforming signs okay and the next question i had was was on this architectural structure So somebody decides to build a home and now they bring in their plans to the county and the county will decide, a staff will decide whether it meets these listed here. Is that the way the process would work in order for them to get a building permit?

Mr. Chair, Commission Member Trujillo, that is correct.

Okay, so from what I understand is it sounds like maybe they don't want the idea of any prefabricated or mobile homes going in the area, but if somebody owned a current mobile home or a home that doesn't fit these standards and decides that they're gonna go in and remodel, would they now, when they go into the county, be required to try and bring that current structure up to one of these designs in order to get approval of a permit?

Mr. Chair, Commission Member Trujillo, not necessarily. Again, it depends on what, if they're increasing the footprint and it's more than 50%, then we got to look at that as a substantial improvement. If it's under, then we kind of consider what was existing and grant them the approval and they don't have to bring it to that standard.

So, Mr. Chair, if they went in and they're going to add 1,200 square foot and their existing structure is 1,100 square foot, then they would have to change that structure to meet one of these conditions here, this style.

Mr. Chair, Commission members, that is true.

Okay.

Okay.

Chair Bowe, Planning Commission Member Tria, and I just want to add that that would be true of any design standard as well, especially even fire code. If there's an existing structure on a piece of property and let's say the driveway does not meet the width and standards of fire code, typically they're going to be required to make an improvement to widen that driveway on any type of addition or any type of development.

But Mr. Chair and Dominic, here if you have a mobile home or a prefabricated home of a certain structure, these are completely different with much more different pitches. They would have to change it pretty drastically to meet these standards here, at least in my opinion. Anyhow, I was just trying to get information of how the process would work.

Thank you. Nate and staff, I'm hung up on the signs. You know, I think one of the things that comes before us is someone drops in to Santa Fe, buys a property, has some plans, and then two years later finds out that they have to come before us. And when I look at the recommended changes, I don't know what's magic about 1991. since this community overlay district was not in existence in 1991. And it's an incredible, if I bought the mine shaft and I wanted to change it, maybe the sign in the mine shaft did not exist in January of 1981. I'm sorry, I said 91, 1981. And so I'm, I would think that what we want to do is recommend the BCC really examine the signage portion of this, because this is going to create more work for everybody and may cause future business owners to get messed up by this. If I bought the mine shaft and all of a sudden I had to prove that the mine shaft sign, which is pretty big, it's probably 15 or 20 square feet. If I have to open a new restaurant, but all of a sudden I'm limited to this, I would not be happy with Santa Fe County and this particular requirement. So I know we don't approve this, but I think in the, information that you present to the BCC, please have them consider the possible ramifications of these sign changes. Because I think these are great if you have an existing business. These are not great if you want to create a business in the area. So I'll back away slowly. Thank you.

Commissioner Brugger. Chair, thank you for that. I think with just following up on the Chair's point, it would be instructive when you do present to BCC that you could identify just how many signs are at least size-wise right now are exempt, are bigger. then four square feet, I don't know, that's too burdensome, but it would be helpful. And then with any additional clarification, if somebody buys an existing business, then what legally are they allowed to do with that existing sign dimension, even if the name of the business changes? use-wise and otherwise. Just for clarification, that would be helpful. So as the chair says, if somebody buys a business and then is surprised by the signage requirement, that would be a negative thing. Thanks. I do have one other question.

Please.

Dimensional standards, uses... 9.6.4.13. Dimensional standards uses shall not exceed 2,500 square feet. Where did that come from? Are there any existing uses that surpass that? Justification for that.

Yeah, Chair Abbo, Commissioner Brugger. I think that's the 2,500 square feet maximum was in the text somewhere, but I can't exactly remember where it was before. But from my knowledge, in the rural commercial overlay section of the community, there is no structures that are larger than that, at least in terms of commercial usage. Thank you.

Do I have one other thing?

Please, please continue until you're done. Thanks.

It was in the existing code. And I guess it wasn't mentioned in the plan. But commercial solar energy production facility is not permitted. And we have cases from time to time where it does come up. But it's not permitted here. And I guess that's just an editorial comment. But that would be inconsistent. with what's being done in other places in the county and it would be inconsistent with the sgmp in my reading so that's my editorial comment thanks any other commissioners commissioner pava

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Nate, looking back at the matrix once again, I have a question. You can provide some background about on page three of the matrix under public assembly structures, we see that sports stadium or arena across the board, these are prohibited uses. So in context, we all know that there is a historic ball field on the north side of town there. How does that fit in and how is that different from a sports arena or stadium? It's certainly a matter of scale, but I'm just curious because it's one of the striking landmarks in the small village of Madrid.

Commissioner Pava, so this was an existing prohibition across the board for a sports stadium or arena, but as you know, the existing ball field is there and there's no plans to change it or anything. And I think, I'm pretty sure that property is zoned public institutional. But it'd be type of thing where, I mean, currently it'd be considered a non-conforming use. So it might be worth... yeah yeah so there's also just kind of you know, as you know, there are a lot of I would say overlapping uses and so further down on that the use matrix there's the active open space athletic fields golf courses and that's where that's a permitted use in public institutional. yeah.

Okay. I think it's a unique and important feature in Madrid. I was just curious as to how, during the discussions that were held to a public meetings, if there's some context in the plan about making it really clear that this is obviously a use that precedes any ordinances anywhere because it goes back over 100 years, probably. It's historic. Another observation on page one, we have commercial, I'm sorry, under hotels, motels, and other accommodation services. Recently, this commission entertained a proposal in another part of the county for what was billed as a retreat, and others in the surrounding neighborhood were saying it was essentially a resort. Is there clarification on adequate clarification either in this plan or in the sustainable land development code that would that would preclude, prevent that kind of confusion in Madrid between what people claim to be a resort, but it's actually a retreat. And is retreat to find something more specific in the Madrid overlay versus the sustainable land development code? It was just three or four months ago we had this whole controversy.

Chair Abbo, Commissioner Pava, I believe retreat is specifically defined countywide in Exhibit A of the code, but there's no specific definition for Madrid.

Any other questions of staff from the commission? Yes, Commissioner.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Crail. Just to touch upon the revised parking standards once more. During the planning process, did the revised standards become a point of contention on the part of any property owners or business operators, do you recall, or not?

Yeah, Chair Abba, Commissioner Nunebel. No, there wasn't really any controversy. It was really a staff recommendation that we kind of foresaw the ongoing issue for a lot of the existing and potential businesses. So we didn't hear any, you know, criticism of that addition by the community. Thank you.

Vice Chair Trujillo. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to address a couple more questions on the number two and number three of 9.62-10 and number two and three. So I just looked on Google Maps just to see how many mobile homes there are there or campers. And has the county done an assessment to see how many mobile home and campers are there currently? I'm just wondering if there's not something going on here where they want to get, some of these people that might be less fortunate off their property. Because if I read number two, it says temporary portable or wheeled structures such as mobile homes. And so if there's already a mobile home that's been there for an extended period of time that's not on a permanent foundation, according to this, would have to be removed after 30 days. I'm just wondering if there's been an assessment of such. And then secondly, it says, number three, none of these regulations shall prevent the use of a prefabricated structure if they are shown to be in conformance with the historical styles and are on permanent foundations. Well, that means that if I read this the way I read it, the prefabricated structure had to be fabricated to one of these styles already, I don't really, I mean, I build homes and I don't, I mean, I've never really seen one of these built as a pre-publicated structure to be delivered somewhere. And so I'm just worried that there's, maybe are some people living there in campers and maybe there are, there's certainly people that are living in mobile homes and the way I read this, they could legitimately be told by the county they have to remove the structures.

Mr. Chair, commissioners, I can tell you from land use standpoint, we have not done that observation of how many are mobile homes, how many are RVs, whatnot, I can tell you that RVs are not allowed to be utilized as dwellings. So based off of that, I'm not sure how many are out there in that scenario. Mobile homes, certainly that's something we've got to really look into because if these were permitted or if they're legal nonconforming, there's really nothing we can do to have them remove those structures because they were placed there prior to this ordinance. So they're considered legal nonconforming.

Right, but excuse me if I might interrupt, but if they were to request some action, then it kind of opens the case up again, doesn't it?

Yes, that would.

Do they want to put solar on the roof or do something like that, then all of a sudden they're in the trap?

Well, not necessarily. We would be looking at the structure to see if it's a legal non-conform. They're adding on solar. Well, then that's just an addition to that structure. But if they're removing it and putting a new one in that's going to be operated as a bed and breakfast for such, then we'd be looking at a use of change and then that whole scenario kicks in.

But if they're adding just a bathroom or something, then they would would fall back into this and it would be non-conforming, correct?

Commissioner Brugger.

This is great.

This is great commentary.

So what you're saying, John, is that if the mobile home's there already, it's been there prior to this, it would be legal non-conforming. So there's no code enforcement action that would be taken.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Brugger, that is correct, unless it is illegally placed on the property without proper permitting or it's not shown to be legal non-conforming.

And the second thing, unless there was, as you define, a substantial modification, which I think you mentioned 50% either square footage or value of the structure, however you define substantial modification, unless there is a substantial modification, if there isn't a substantial modification, then it would not have to comply with these architectural restrictions.

Mr. Chair, Commission Member Brugger, that is correct.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff from Commissioner Griffin?

Yes. Nate, what kind of public input opportunities were provided and notification? of like property owners, the community, what kind of notice was provided for these meetings and opportunities for input?

Yeah, Chair Abba, Commissioner Griffin. So the, you know, in addition to the mailers and flyers that we, you know, as I mentioned earlier, the meetings are the primary format of where we received community input. We did receive some, you know, input via email too. But the meetings are really kind of the primary avenue for input. Yeah.

And was it kind of the same group of people at every meeting?

Yeah, so there was kind of a core group that, you know, a few people that came to every single one, but there was, you know, new faces that would kind of, you know, come to one meeting and then not be there the next, that type of thing. Yeah.

And I actually have another question, too.

I'm looking at Google Earth. For example,

Uh, chair about planning commissioners. I just like to remind everyone to please speak into your microphone loudly in order for the audio to pick up, especially for transcription of any, um, yeah, transcripts.

Yeah, so for example, there's a sign. It doesn't look like a permanent sign on what looks like a permanent sign board. And so I'm just wondering, in this case, what would be, I'm sorry, I can't show it. It's the Bell of the West Gallery. And it looks like a banner that they're using as a sign. And they've got it on what looks like the historic sign backing, right? But in that case, let's say that gallery leaves and a new gallery moves in, it just seems like there's the potential for a lot of getting into the weeds on what would be allowed to replace this sign. And is this even a permanent sign? So would they be able to replace what was there before? Or would they be able to use the historic kind of total outline? You know what I'm saying? It just seems like there's a lot of gray area ambiguity around the signs. And I have experience with signs and permitting in Silver City. And that's like a huge Pandora's box. Anyway, yeah, I just think that, I think it's gonna be difficult to just go with that four-foot sign footage.

May I ask, what is the, in the general county, what is the limitation on size of signage?

Mr. Chair, commission members, that is 32 square feet.

So four by eight sheet, got it. Yeah, and I think there is other ambiguity. People have pulled out open signs that they put up. They walk out to the curb, and they put a sign that says open with a little arrow. And so I think this is a whole, what did you say, box of Pandoras? Yeah, this, I think, might be an issue that will cause grief to everybody involved.

But as I said, I'm hung up on signs.

Any other questions from commissioners? Commissioner Brugger. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And forgive this question, Nate, because you probably already addressed it, but then given the concern from at least folks who weren't part of the planning committee around the commission, as far as the maximum size of the four square feet signage, It's the best that you can. Who advocated that and where did it come from and why did the planning committee think that that's important?

Chair Abbott, Commissioner Brugger, I guess I sort of contextualized the four square feet earlier, but in the current Madrid covenants, technically the size maximum is two square feet. And so that, you know, which I think they probably need to change that on their end, but that was kind of the impetus for that and the kind of how that we, you know, with staff consideration would be like four feet gives a little more flexibility. But I think it really stems from a community desire to have those little, you know, where the wood post comes out and the little sign hang is like, I think that's what they really want to maintain in their community and not have, you know, new signs that don't conform to that type of style. And so I think that's kind of the origin of it. But I, you know, do hear the Pandora's box of, you know, signage issues that may arise in the future.

Thank you. It is the purpose of, is it not, of a community plan exercise? And then it's implementing mechanism, the overlay district, to implement the will of the community, correct? This is, in your estimation, the will of the community?

Yeah, Chair Abbo, Commissioner Brugger, I would say yes. A lot of these, the proposed amendments are what we heard in this planning process, but also are reflected within the 2015 and I think 2008 Madrid community plans as well.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other questions?

Vice Chair. Staff, what are the motions that can be made on this case?

Maybe for Roger, I'm not sure. Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but I would imagine that the Planning Commission would either move to recommend to the BCC for approval of the present, of the revisions to the community plan, and request that staff synthesize our conversation in their presentation to the BCC. So something like that, is that?

Yes, Chair Bowe and planning commissioners, you can recommend approval as it's written. You can recommend approval with modifications that the board consider, or you can recommend denial to the BCC.

Thanks.

Mr. Chair and Michael, I recommend approval with modifications. Do we have to have the specific language? or is it something to the effect that to address the Planning Commission's concerns regarding signage and parking so it's fair and equitable?

Chair and Commissioner Brugger, it's certainly easier for staff the more specific you are And that would also make it easier on the BCC to say, if we bring something to them and they say, hey, this changed, if it's in direct response to a very specific request by you all, it's easy for them to say, okay, the Planning Commission recommended that. If the Planning Commission recommends something more vague and then we bring something forward that is a change, then BCC might spend more time trying to figure out if it was done the the way you wanted us to, or is it still the voice of the community and things like that? So I would ask you to be as specific as possible in outlining recommended changes for our staff.

So, for example, we could recommend approval just to take the signage issue, for example, recommend approval with the elimination of those changes to 9.6.2.2, which are the four square feet and the must be after 1981. So we could... recommend approval in that manner. And then parking, we would also need to be explicit in that recommendation. Does that make sense?

Okay. So, Mr. Chair, wouldn't it be another possibility and maybe fair to the community by doing that, you basically, maybe it's all gutted, the recommendation of what they've put forward is what if it goes, if it's denied and goes back to the community and they, I mean, who's from the community is here today at this meeting right now?

Do we have anyone online?

Yes.

Chair Bowe, Planning Commission members, yes, we do have Jessica Kaplan online.

And so is there just, there's one person online from Madrid?

That is the only person I recognize and I do not see anyone else indicating otherwise.

So then there's one person that's heard conversation that I'm not sure they've been participating in these meetings, but they could take it back and address some of these issues to be more fair to themselves rather than us gutting everything. I mean, that's just an opinion of mine.

Thank you.

yeah that's where i'll chime in here i've just been kind of listening here and i really appreciate everybody here making comments and actually taking a thorough look at the um design revisions here um and that's one thing that i'm thinking right it's like we as a board are going to say hey cut out these particular provisions i feel like you've gone through a community process right and the community has has come up with this. The other little caveat that I heard recently is, I guess, like you mentioned, the covenants at Madrid had even a smaller sign requirement. So this is actually an increase, technically, to what was present. Is that correct?

Yeah, Chair Abbo, Commissioner LaCruz-Crawford. Yeah, that would technically be correct. I mean, one of the, you know, asterisks to their covenants is that the Madrid Liners Association doesn't have the capacity to, you know, enforce the covenants. And so that's kind of been the sticking point.

And I think maybe some of this has been answered throughout, but I'll ask it again, I guess. So this went through a community process. You mentioned there were some 30-some people that were there, right? And somebody came up with this four square feet requirement, right? Was that the community or was that a staff recommendation?

Yeah, Chair Abbott, Commissioner Cruz-Cofford. So at least among the community, I think ideally they would have preferred the two square feet, but it was really staff being like, that is, you know, too burdensome on especially even our end and so we recommended the four square feet. And that's where as a body you can weigh what the community is intending and also making sure that you aren't hearing 20 variances about signs. And so my personal recommendation would be not necessarily to strike them, but if you're thinking, eight or 10 square feet, you know, or something larger would be more amenable to you. That kind of like is less than the maximum of the county standard, but is somewhere that is, you know, still reflecting the community input to some degree. I think that would be, you know, a balance to strike that you can consider.

And I guess that's where I'm a little bit hesitant on some of this, because obviously I agree, I think maximum four square feet is insanely small for a sign, and I think that's what everybody is saying. But if the community themselves is saying this is what we want, or in fact we want even smaller, then... who are we to tell them to do otherwise, right? The other concern though there is that okay, in any community process, you're only gonna get the people that are technically wanna be involved, right? That's why you're gonna get only a certain small percentage of people that are there. The majority of the rest of the Madrid community might not necessarily even know that this is happening, right? so it's also hard to gauge that as far as like you know is this really the will of the community this is the will of a small percentage of the community that's saying hey this is you know what we want um i guess those those are my comments for now commissioner bruger so um just follow up on commissioner lacruz crawford's uh

statement, then if we trust the community planning process that professional staff has overseen, then I guess I think we should trust the recommendations that come out of it, even though that's, so that's, so I guess I trust the process.

Thanks. Understood, Commissioner. And so does that mean if a variance request comes in, we deny that request? Because, oh, the community wanted nothing greater than four square feet. And the mineshaft tavern has changed ownership. And that sign was built in 1987 instead of 1981. Therefore, we'll need a telescope in order to see where to go to eat in Madrid. I think that's not in the interest of the community. I hear it. What I think, because we are not the approving body, we are the recommending body, I think we recommend what we feel in our judgment will be best for the community. Because this might not have been fully vetted. It might have just dropped in from space. It's an unenforced covenant from the Madrid covenants. Because if you look at Madrid right now, you would not find a sign that's two square feet or less. And then staff said, well, let's just double it. That's just a dart on the wall. So I don't know. I think we have the responsibility to recommend. We think the BCC would best serve the community and the county by considering this. And in that recommendation that we make, if that brings the community and the hall fills up during the consideration by the BCC and everybody says, no, no, we want to get rid of all signs, that's our ultimate goal, then great, let the BCC hear that. Man, I'm too hung up on signs, I'm sorry.

We've asked this before, but this clarity is important. So a question of staff, if a new user for an existing business comes in and they have a sign, the existing size of the sign, can they keep that, as long as the use doesn't change, can they keep that sign and just change the color and the lettering of the sign?

Chair Bowe, Planning Commission members. So again, the SLDC does address nonconforming status. And so let's say that this is the case with an owner. As long as there wasn't abandonment of that legal nonconforming status, then yes, the new owner would be able to come in and have the existing use of the size of the signage. But again, if there is abandonment of legal non-conforming status and it's gone over a year, over 365 days, then we wouldn't look at that as legal non-conforming status anymore. They would have to abide by current code.

But correct me if I'm wrong. If I read on page 10, 9.6.2.2.3, historical signs that are larger than the maximum size and in existence since January 1981 may be replaced by signs of the same size. So in addition to changing this, they have to demonstrate that this sign was in place in January of 1981. That's the way I read the plain language of this. Michael.

Chair Bowe, a distinction is between the non-conforming provisions, if you're a legally non-conforming sign, and what the new language for the historical sign is doing is actually taking those signs that existed before 1981 and making them legal. They would no longer be non-conforming. They can continue to exist with proof that they existed before 1981 in perpetuity. They would not be subject to the after 12 months termination and things like that. So this is actually creating a new class of historical signs that are legal and can be that size forever if you can demonstrate the historical aspect of it. Any other sign that happens to be larger than the code these amendments would require and you can't demonstrate the historical part may still be considered legally nonconforming And you could still replace it at the same size as long as you do it within that initial one year turnaround.

And does the staff have a method to figure out that this sign, there's a photograph of my wife and I in front of this business. How would you determine that a sign is greater than four square feet? It was in 1980 that we took this photo. I don't want you to create something that is so limiting and convoluted that you're just going to be hung up and spending time. We spend an awful lot of time on this. But if this is approved, you will spend an awful lot of time on this. Is there a method that is figured out?

Mr. Chair, that is done by historical imagery.

So historical imagery, and I understand that you can do that with aerial photography, which you do, but can you do it from a snapshot? Sorry, you know.

I guess we would have to look at the source of the actual imagery if it came from the historical, from the public records, from the archives, then we would look at that and grant that.

Okay, thanks. Commissioner LaCruz Crawford.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And I think you've got a great point. You know, at the same time, I'd say that even some of the design, the architectural design standards, right, that limits design, the style of architecture is also something that is gonna lead to variance requests, et cetera. I mean, that's just the nature of design standards and of planning and zoning regulations and in particular overlay zones, right? It's like this is the community saying this is what we want as a cohesive, you know, Yeah, the situation, right? So I do get the signage stuff as well, and I also agree with you that it might actually cause more variances to come forward, more issues, et cetera, potentially, but the same could be said about any other of these standard requests that the community is putting forth, you know? I'd say that maybe as a board, it seems like everybody agrees, and I agree as well, that hey, four square feet seems rather small, and it could cause some hiccups down the line as people are realizing that they're gonna have to meet this right so what do we how do we go about uh approving this putting some language in there and I don't know whether it's just basically a recommendation to have the BCC look at this looking look at that that signage a little bit closer and and understand whether that's going to cause uh added added I guess uh workload to everybody right is not sure exactly how to go about doing

Commissioner Nunebel, then Commissioner Pava. Yes.

My comment, I mean, my comment is that I personally, because of the nature of this historic district, I have no problem with the size of these signs proposed. So if there is a suggestion to change that standard that the Commission look at that separately and vote upon that separately as opposed to just including it in an overall approval plus look at signs. If we decide that it needs to be different, again, I would suggest that we Not to repeat myself, but we take that as a separate motion and take action on that prior to other motions that could be made.

Thank you. Is there a way for us to do that, to try and split out the recommended action to the BCC? I can't. I've never seen it.

Yeah, I don't think.

Maybe we can ask Lee to look into that. Commissioner Pava?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Following up on Commissioner Nunebel's inquiry, I would ask Roger and Legal, since this is a legislative and not quasi-judicial inquiry, we're making a recommendation, we're simply making a recommendation to the governing body, to county commission. Why couldn't we simply motion for, that the commission consider approval of this legislation, these amendments, and make a note that says the commission spent a a substantial amount of time in conversations about signage. Please read the record.

Great.

Mr. Chair, Commissioner Pava, I think that's a reasonable, practical suggestion to make. I do want to point out, and I guess I want to verify with staff what their approach has been to this, but my understanding has been that this is, in fact, a quasi-judicial proceeding because the application was brought not by staff but by a community organization. I don't know if staff's specifically prepared to address that issue one way or the other, but honestly, the proceeding could qualify either way because the proposal does involve more than one parcel. I understand the argument that it could be legislative or legislature-type issue, but I think more importantly is the definition of the quasi-judicial hearings as something that has been brought before the commission by a property owner. For me, that controls, and I consider this as a quasi-judicial proceeding.

Thank you. Vice chair. Mr.

Chair, I'm just, I'm still perplexed as why none of the community's here. I mean, you know, 30 some people and they seem pretty happy to take all the energy to do this and then nobody's here. I mean, just very perplexing.

There is one member of the community in Zoom, which as soon as we're done with staff, we'd love to hear from.

I have another question and it's not about signs. You'll be happy to know.

If folks would look at page 13 of 375, which is examples of the general styles of Madrid, in the text in 9.6.2.10.1c, it says Spanish Pueblo adobe, thick walls with soft rounded corners, small windows, and a firewall with a flat or stepped top on a, oh, never mind. I'm sorry. Please disregard that statement. I misread it. I was reading Spanish Pueblo Adobe as Adobe with sloped tin roof. My mistake. Please strike that from the minutes if we ever get minutes.

Thanks.

Any other questions of staff? Or if not, then we can go to, if the member of the community is interested in speaking, we can go there. Or is there anything else we need to?

I just think we've, you know, complicated this so much. And the BCC is, they have a busy schedule. And if we don't put something that's very specific, I mean, it's, this is, you know, we've spent a lot of time on this. I can't imagine they've got a busy schedule and they're going to spend the time we think they're going to be spending there. Just my comment.

Absolutely. Is the member of the community who is on Zoom interested in speaking?

Miss Jessica Kaplan are are you interested in speaking on this matter on this case? It looks like we do not have anyone else from the public in interested or signed on on this particular matter Okay

Yeah, and so is she just having trouble communicating or is she still on or?

No, she is signed off. It's possible she may be having some problems, but yeah, she's no longer online. Okay.

Well, and there's nobody in the audience who is interested in speaking on this topic that I can see. And so whatever public hearing portion we had is now closed. What's the will of the commission? Commissioner Brugger.

I'd like to simplify this. I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to trust the planning process and the planners that they represented the will of the community correctly and approve in its entirety legislative amendments to the Madrid Community District Overlay.

You mean recommend approval?

I mean recommend approval. Yes.

Is there a second to that motion? We have a motion and a second. So let's have a roll call vote, unless there's any discussion of this. Commissioner Pava? Yes. Commissioner Nunebel?

Yes.

Commissioner Brugger? Yes. Commissioner LaCruz-Crawford?

Yes.

Commissioner Griffin? Yes. Vice Chair Trujillo? No. And I vote no. And I would like to explain my vote. I think that we should really point out the issues that we've delved into deeply because the BCC may be really busy and confused. But the motion passes and so we've recommended approval to the BCC that the changes to the Madrid community overlay are approved. Rick?

Furthermore, I'd like to explain the vote that on my vote and on where it says temporary portable or wheel structures such as mobile homes must be removed after 30 days. And so there are mobile homes on these properties currently that people have probably been living there for years or decades. And as I read this, unless somebody can tell me differently, these structures could be subjected to being moved. Or if they're not, if they go in for a small change, at that point they would have to become conforming, which could be a problem. Thank you.

Thank you. And I'd urge staff to take a drive up and down 14 and really do a mental inventory of what you think the issues that we think are a big deal are to you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. On that note, it's a good segue. We'll spend a little more time and me personally in Madrid and take a look at a lot of the signage and... While I'm there, make sure I'm inviting people to the hearing for the BCC when we have a date certain.

Great, and get a green chili cheeseburger while it's still the mineshaft.

If I may, Mr. Commissioner, and I know the hearing is over, but my experience with the public has been we heard two overriding things from the community. that they want to preserve the charm and character of the community through regulations. That's the tool. And then we also heard that they don't really want to have any regulations. So we did what we could line by line, item by item, step by step with the public through a committee, a consensus process. There was no appointed committee members like that. That's not how we operate here. And we tried to thread that needle as best as we could.

So I have a question. Is the covenants that they have written somewhere, who holds those covenants? Because they talked about the two square feet. It sounds like now what they're trying to do is get the county to put teeth because they can't enforce anything like this. And so where do these covenants, where are they held and who holds them and who wrote them? And I mean, it's just, I know they can't enforce them. So they came to you guys to do some of this stuff.

believe that Madrid was originally created through a subdivision, a plat, and the HOA covenants are basically sufficed as that. And over the decades, the community saw development that they did or didn't like and wanted to have all new development adhere to their traditional kind of historic architectural style. And so they said, well, why don't we just adopt our covenants as the overlay?

Well, my guess is that a lot of them are going to feel sorry they did this in the future when they can't do what they want to do. I understand. I understand.

Thank you so much. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is case number 26-5160, Betty and Webb Garrison, variants. Kimberly?

Good afternoon, Tara Bow, commissioners. Kimberly Serrano, Development Review Specialist Senior, 240 Grant Avenue, and I understand that I am under oath. Betty and Webb Garrison applicants are requesting approval of a variance to the density requirements for a 5.004 acre property located within the residential fringe zoning district. which permits a base density of one dwelling unit per five acres. The subject property is located at 28 Vista de Luna Drive within Section 29 Township 16 North, Range 10 East, Commission District 4 designated as SDA 2. The subject property was established in 1982 as part of Unit 3 of the Sunlit Hills of Santa Fe Subdivision. According to the recorded property documents, the applicants acquired the subject property in July of 2009 by warranty deed from Lila Serrata, trustee of the Lila Serrata Revocable Trust. The property consists of a single primary structure containing three separate dwelling units, Unit 1 approximately 3,811 square feet, located on the upper level, utilizing its own separate access and shares a stairwell to the basement with Unit 2. approximately 3,777 square feet, which is located on the lower level, and Unit 2A, approximately 665 square feet, located on the upper level, sharing the entry foyer and a common staircase with Unit 2. accessing each unit separately. The principal structure contains a total of three kitchens, one in each of the existing units. The property also includes a separate detached second structure with a considered, with a, sorry. which is considered a fourth dwelling unit that is approximately 1,020 square feet with its own kitchen and connected to its own septic system. The applicant does not propose to create any additional units, nor do they want to do any physical expansion, enlargement, or modification of the existing structures. According to the applicants, the existing structures were constructed in the early 1980s. The applicants are requesting approval of a variance to allow the use of the existing configuration, which consists of three residential dwellings within the principal structure and one detached dwelling unit for a total of four residential dwelling units. No additional dwelling units or expansions to the existing structures are proposed as part of this request. Applicants have not provided documentation demonstrating that the existing structures qualify as legal non-conforming uses established prior to 1981, nor have they submitted evidence of valid building permits authorizing the existing development. Furthermore, the applicants have not presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the requesting variance is necessitated by exceptional physical conditions or circumstances unique to the subject property. The subject property is served by the Sunlit Hills Water System and is improved with an existing on-site wastewater treatment system. Based on information provided during staff review, the septic system permit was last amended in 2004 to reflect ownership by Lila Serrata. The current property owners, the Garrisons, have not provided documentation demonstrating that the permit has been amended to reflect the current ownership and that the system is in compliance with applicable New Mexico Environmental Department requirements, or that the required operation and maintenance of the advanced treatment unit has been continuously performed. At the time of preparation of this report, staff has not received documentation confirming that the required permit amendment has been submitted or that the wastewater treatment system is in compliance with applicable NMED regulations. Accordingly, staff is unable to verify that the existing wastewater infrastructure adequately serves the property or that the proposed variance would not adversely affect public health and safety. A previous variance application under the previous ordinance concerning the subject property was submitted under the former Santa Fe County Land Development Code by Vincent Mastrantoni and Webb Garrison. The application case number 145260, Master and Tony Garrison Variants, was filed on July 1st, 2014, and was scheduled for consideration by the County Development Review Committee on August 21st, 2014, and again on August 16th, 2014. Prior to each scheduled hearing, the applicants requested that the matter be tabled to allow additional time to submit supplemental information in support of the application. Santa Fe County Growth Management Department staff evaluated the request under the applicable variance criteria of the then effective land development code and recommended denial of the variance. The application was subsequently tabled at the applicant's request and was not acted upon by the CDRC. Therefore, no final decision or determination on the merits of the variance request was issued. In early 2025, Vincent Mastrantoni and Betty Garrison met with Santa Fe County Growth Management Department staff to inquire about obtaining a short-term rental permit for the property. As part of the staff's review of the STR inquiry, it was determined that none of the existing structures on the property had received the required county permits. Staff advised the applicants that the existing structure would need to be brought into compliance with applicable county requirements before an STR permit could be approved. The applicants attended a technical advisory TAC committee meeting on May 15, 2025. The TAC follow-up letter established an eight-month period within which the applicants were to submit the required variance application. The applicants did not submit the variance application within that time frame. The applicants then received their three-month temporary short-term rental permit starting on June 3, 2026 and ending, oh. on September 18, 2026 while actively pursuing the variance. The applicants returned to the Technical Advisory Committee on March 5, 2026. At that meeting, staff advised the applicants that no additional temporary short-term permits would be issued until a complete variance application had been submitted and processed. The applicants have addressed the variance criteria and staff has responded as contained in the memo. On August 13th, 2026, the 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 this request. The hearing officer, based on the evidence presented, recommended denial of the request to allow a variance of Chapter 8, Section 8.6, Table 8-9, Dimensional standards of residential fringe to allow three dwelling units within the primary structure and an additional fourth detached dwelling unit on the parcel of land consisting of 5.004 acres. Recommendation by staff, building and development services staff have reviewed this request for compliance with pertinent SLDC requirements and find the facts presented do not support the request for a variance. As stated above, staff does not believe the 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 three dwelling units within the primary residence and the additional fourth detached dwelling unit on the parcel of land consisting of 5.004 acres. There is no extraordinary or exceptional practical difficulties of the land that justify approval of the requested variance. In addition, staff recommends The applicants bring the property into compliance with all applicable code requirements of Ordinance 2016-09, the Sustainable Land Development Code. If the Planning Commission finds the applicant, 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 please consider the conditions entered into the record.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I stand for any questions you may have.

Thank you. Commissioners, before we have questions of staff, I wonder, there's a relatively lengthy history here, and I'm sure you've all read the packet. I wonder if it makes sense to hear from the applicant before we ask questions of staff, because many of the questions I think you have of staff may be better answered by the applicant. Is the applicant available?

Chair Bowe, Planning Commission members, the applicants are available via Teams. They are online.

They are online. So how do we see them or do we just hear them or how does that work?

So you have a toggle. You can see them on there. And I would just ask, you know, whoever wants to speak, if you'd please just raise your virtual hand. And then once I call upon you, you can unmute yourself and then you'll be sworn in.

Great, so I'm not sure Mr. Mastroianni, Mastrantoni or Mr. Garrison, I'm not sure which of you wants to speak first, but before you do, if you could unmute yourself, raise your right hand and swear that you'll tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Mr. Garrison, please go ahead.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Hearing Officer. I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Thank you very much. Please proceed.

Well, just to be clear, I'm not... I'm a psychologist, so this is not a context that I'm all that accustomed to, so I apologize for the hemming and hawing in advance. I think that we have laid... all of the information out pretty clearly in the various documentation that we have submitted at this point. It's clear that the hearing officer is recommending that the variance not be granted. We are interested in pursuing conditional use permit. If presuming that the variance is not granted, I don't know if it would be appropriate to withdraw the variance application or just allow that to run its course. And I'm not sure if we can submit a conditional use permit concurrently with like in the midst of this process. So I guess that's kind of a commentary and a question. And also both myself and Mr. Mestre-Antoni are happy to answer any questions that anyone may have. about our history with this property.

Thanks very much, Mr. Garrison. And I'd ask our counsel who's in the room if withdrawal of this variance request prior to submitting a conditional use permit application is kind of a required element, or if they can get two bites of the apple simultaneously, if that makes sense.

Yes, certainly. Chair Abbo, I understand the question and what the applicants are considering. The code does address pretty specifically withdrawals of applications. Applications may be withdrawn at any time by an applicant, but there's also the provision stating that if a matter is withdrawn after a public hearing has been noticed, so we are beyond that time frame, any application requesting withdrawal substantially the same relief cannot be submitted for a period of one year. And that's within one year of withdrawal. So without knowing more about what a CUP application might look like, I would certainly be hesitant to think that it could be resubmitted promptly.

Thank you very much, Roger. I understand. Mr. Garrison, does that make sense? Is that something that- I believe so.

Go ahead. The way that I understand that is that at this point, we should allow the variance process to reach its conclusion, and if we do that as opposed to withdrawing it, we should be able to submit a conditional use permit or an application for a conditional use permit without waiting that year. Am I understanding that correctly?

And let's just get clarification. So if this body denies the variance request, is that one-year timeout period still in effect?

No, a different time frame would be in effect. Once the matter's been heard and ruled on...

They can turn around.

The matter cannot be withdrawn. It would have to be a reapplication. Sure. And the factors there or the potential problem or hazard for the applicant with the reapplication is that if an item does go to hearing and is denied, another application can only be filed if there is a material change to either the facts or the law governing the application.

So Roger, let me rephrase that to make sure we understand. So if we proceed and we deny the application and it does not appeal to the BCC, then they cannot resubmit either under the conditional use permit avenue unless there is a significant difference in that application from this application is that is that a good way to summarize it yes i believe it is thank you very much and charitable planning commission members just for a little bit of background uh... when the applicant came to our technical advisory committee meeting we gave them a couple different options

One of the options was to go forward for a density variance and go that route. The other option was for them to apply for a conditional use permit for bed and breakfast. So that would be the two different applications I think that they're talking about.

So, yeah, and so gentlemen, Mr. Antoni and Mr. Garrison, do you understand the different routes? If you are, and let me make sure I get it, and Roger, please correct me if I'm wrong. If you withdraw the application, you've got to, timeout for a year, or is a B&B significantly different from the existing use? I know you've used this as an SDR for an eight-month period.

And it's not really so much the difference between current use and what's in the application. A new application couldn't be submitted within 12 months unless it is materially different from the from the most recently denied application. So it's one proposed use versus the other proposed use. So if it's withdrawn and a similar application was to be submitted, that would be the 12-month waiting period.

Okay. And so help me out with similar because a density variance request So assume there are no structural changes to any of the buildings. A density variance request allows multiple residences on that lot. A conditional use permit to allow for a bed and breakfast, is that significantly different if there are no structural changes? And sorry to work through this, gentlemen, but this is an unusual situation.

Sure, and I can't give you a definitive answer on that, but I will clarify that the language in the code is actually that an application requesting substantially the same use on the property shall not be considered or reconsidered within 12 months of withdrawal.

So substantially the same use. And I'm just spitballing, so please don't help me understand, gentlemen. But if you are granted the variance request, you would like a number of people to live there, either on a short term or a long term basis. If you are not granted this variance request, you might apply to change the use to be a bed and breakfast, which would allow at least short-term rental on this property. So you'll have to make the determination as to which path you want to take, because we just can't you know on the cuff without without considerable uh consideration research we we can't really help you understand which which route might be most appropriate for you but um if you are um we can go through this process but if we deny it then then that's a door has shut for you um so right

Understood. So, okay. So, so, so my, so again, I just want to understand, I want to make sure that I'm understanding from everything that's being described, it sounds like it would not be in our benefit to withdraw this application at this point because that would guarantee that we would have to wait a 12 month period before another application was submitted unless there was substantial change. But, but, I just want to confirm that if the variance is denied, we would still be able to submit an application for conditional use permit without waiting that 12 month period. Am I understanding that correctly? Again, if we do not withdraw the application?

I'm simply going to read what I believe to be the controlling sentence of the code. It's in section 4.4.15 of the code, and it states, after final action denying an application by the planning commission or the board, another application shall only be filed if there is a material change to either the facts or law governing the application.

And so another application is any form of application?

Yes, it doesn't specify another application for the exact same relief or another variance application. It simply says another application.

Okay. One of the reasons, if I may, one of the reasons that, like in the report that was written, you know, talked about, like one of the issues here is the multiple kitchens that we have. And so In the document that the hearing officer prepared, it talked about the fact that this could be used as a multifamily home and under those conditions, multiple kitchens might be able to be used. This is number 42 on page, let's see if I can find the page. I don't have the page number right now, but on the documents addressing applicants arguments that remedying the nonconformity would come at their great expense. That's not necessarily the case based on the record and the code. The structures on the property plainly do not qualify as single family dwellings. However, multifamily dwellings are not permitted in zoning districts rather their conditional uses SLDC chapter eight, section 8.6.5.2 exhibit B use matrix. while the hearing officer make no findings as to whether conditional use would be granted if one were sought, it's not necessarily the case that bringing the property in compliance with the code requires destruction of the kitchens or alterations to the property structures. So that's one of the areas that really is one that requires more substantial expense in terms of renovating and those kinds of things.

Right. If I remember correctly, you all submitted a rebuttal to the hearing officer's final order, which talked about your removal and then reinstallation of kitchen appliances and things like that.

Yeah, that happened in 2014. That's why the application was withdrawn at that point.

Roger, I wonder if, for example, the applicants chose to go through this process and if this application for a variance was denied and they Submit an application for conditional use permits to run a bed and breakfast. Every bed and breakfast I've been in has a single kitchen. Because who wants to cook when you're at a bed and breakfast? And so I'm just trying to understand and chart out a pathway. you know possible path forward uh... is it is if in their conditional use permit application they said we want to be able to use this structure these structures as a B&B, and as part of that, we'll remove all but the big kitchen. And so, because we're going to have someone who is the B&B host, and they're going to be preparing blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Is that significantly, have the facts changed adequately for them to be able to submit that without, and maybe I'm putting you on the spot, and I'm sorry to do that, but I'm just trying to understand what's our best path here.

No, I understand exactly where you're coming from, but I, at the same time, can't give you a definitive answer on that. For one thing, it's ultimately not legal's position to make that determination. Got it. We could advise Planning Commission or the BCC on what does or doesn't constitute a material change in an application, but I certainly can't tell you or the applicants that right now the scenario that you suggested would or would not qualify. Simply can't do that.

Got it. And I'm just really trying to lay this out for the applicant's benefit, because the decision of what to do here will affect their future with this property.

um are there other chair bowen and planning commission members i also just want to let you know um it's not staff's position that it's the number of kitchens that qualify these as separate dwelling units um john lovato bill gazelma supervisor and myself have actually walked through the structure and it's pretty clear that these are actually three separate structures um We look at connectivity when we're looking at a single-family dwelling, and there's really no connectivity here. There's an entry foyer. You go up the stairs to the left, there's one residence, and then you go up the stairs to the right, there's another residence. Fully locked front doors, and then there's another unit that, again, is accessed separately I mean, there's a conjoining basement that they can be connected by, but that's easily closed off and it could be easily used as a separate entrance or a separate structure. So when we're looking at these type of projects or cases, again, we've approved single family dwellings with multiple kitchens. So again, it's not the issue of the number of kitchens. Again, we're looking at connectivity and how the structure can be used And in fact, the applicants have already identified these as separate units, and they've had them advertise them as separate units as well. So that's what we're looking at, and that's why we've identified these as separate dwellings.

OK. Great. Commissioner Brugger, do you have questions?

Yeah. Yes. This would be a question, if I may, to the applicant. So Mr. Garrison, you've heard staff just state what they had stated. You heard the code section, the applicable code section, withdrawal, subsequent applications. that would control what happens later if you do withdraw or not. So just to simplify this, I'd like to put the question to you. Do you want us to continue with this deliberation, this application, or not?

Before I can answer that, I'd like to bring Mr. Mastrantoni into this. And my wife is also not present. She's involved in the training. She's also one of the major decision makers here. So I can't answer that question on my own, but I'd like to bring Mr. Mastrantoni into the conversation, if I may, and his hand has also been up. So is that acceptable?

Yes, please. And Mr. Mastrantoni, have you sworn that you will tell the truth and only the truth?

I do, Mr. Commissioner. Excuse me.

Thank you. Please proceed.

Yes. So what I wanted to... Well, first, the structure of our home kind of is free-flowing. I mean, it is... separate and distinct like like this is one area this is one area but it's all free flow you can go from one unit to another to another and um uh the other thing what i had to say is what mr garrison stated earlier we are considering and it's right now we're in just in the considering stage of withdrawing the application for legal non-conforming um If our understanding is, and borne out by the response that Mrs. Garrison emailed to the hearing officer, was if we do remove the kitchens and we strictly restrict the density to what we were limited to in the short-term rental permit, which was 10 overnight guests and 20 daytime guests in the main structure uh two overnight guests in the um adu and four daytime guests is that qualify as a substantial change if we so we want to bring it into compliance and meet the standards of the density that we were told that it needs to be Is that a substantial change?

I'm sorry, I can't answer that. I'm not a lawyer.

Understood, understood. But that's my question. In terms of our consideration for drawing the current application and submitting a conditional use application,

Commissioner Brugger has a question.

Yes. Yes. So the question didn't work. So let me put a suggestion out to you. OK. How about instead of withdrawing the application, Could you request a tabling of the application just so we're not in the position of having to answer the unanswerable at this point in time? Understood.

If we table the application, does that mean that it's picked back up at the next meeting? How does that, if you don't mind, how does that process work?

Yeah, please hold. Our attorney is speaking with someone else. Just a second.

Sure, of course. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair.

So if rather than withdrawing, the applicants request a tabling of this, is that something that would allow for, what's the procedure in that case?

I believe a tabling would be perfectly appropriate without impacting any substantive rights of the applicant. Dom's nodding his head. They could table up to three times without incurring any substantive negative impact.

Did you hear that? You can table up to three times. Yes. In order for it to come back to this body, it just needs to be properly noticed so that all interested parties are aware. Got it.

So we don't go back to the hearing officer. At this point, we would come straight to the planning commission meeting.

That is correct.

That's correct.

And Chair Bowe, Planning Commission members, and applicants, I do just want to remind everyone that there are temporary short-term rental licenses that are active or that were issued that do expire today. And I have let the applicant know that with the expiration of those short-term rental licenses, whether there was an approval today or a denial today or whether this gets tabled, there would be no further extensions as we have already, you know, exceeded the number of STR temporary licenses that we've provided.

Great. Thanks. Do you guys want to huddle? Are you interested in tabling this action?

I believe that Mr. Antonio, his hand went up. Please, sir.

Yes, hi. Yes, we were made aware of renewals for the SDR permit. So we have a handful of reservations that will be completed by October 14th. We will inform the platform that we are using to remove any advertisements for further rental or availability until This has been properly resolved, but we ask that we be allowed to keep the remaining reservations until the 14th because these reservations and the rental income is a big part of how we are able to pay the expenses of the house, which is a $12,500 mortgage, $12,000 in property taxes, electric, oil, and water. So I ask if we'd be allowed just an extension until the 14th to complete the final reservations that were booked during the current permit that is set to expire tomorrow. And then, like I said, we will inform the platform that has been handling our bookings that we are removing them. from the platform and will no longer advertise so that no new bookings or reservations are made.

I'm sorry to say, sir, that this body has no authority to grant that. So that's something you would have to discuss with staff to see if that's a possibility. We're limited in our authorities and that fortunately for us, that's not one of them.

Understood. Thank you. That's just our main question about At least this one, these last few, honoring them because then there's also an expense at having these guests be rebooked because now they've already made plans to come to Santa Fe and participate in whatever activities they're going to participate in. So there's a whole bunch of expense all around that would have to happen.

Thank you.

We ask. Thank you.

Okay. So, and I'm sorry, that's something you'll have to work with staff on. Are you in a place now where you would like to request tabling of this action, this consideration by the Planning Commission?

I believe so. Vincent, do you agree with tabling?

Yes, yes, I agree. If that is allowable, yes, sir, please.

And I just want to express gratitude that you made us aware of that option as well, because this has been a very complicated situation on a lot of different levels. So when we bought the property, we certainly had no idea. I mean, we lived in the property for five years. We had no idea that any of these compliance issues were a thing. So that's I just wanted to express gratitude for alerting us to the tabling option.

Thank you. So them requesting it, this action is now tabled?

Yes, you have the authority to take that step.

Do we vote on Commissioner Brugger?

Mr. Chair, Mr. Persino, can we make a motion based on what the applicant has told us to table case number 265160? Can we do that? You probably can.

Honestly, we've never been faced with a situation in which an applicant wants to table a proceeding and that request has been denied. So I'm not sure if the motion is necessary, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to do that.

Belts and suspenders, let's do it.

Yeah, I simply suggest that a timeframe be provided. Will this come back? at next month's meeting or two months from now, and that may require a little further discussion or thought by the applicants and by staff, but I think the timeframe needs to be identified.

Yes, Chair and Commissioners, I was standing up to say that exact same thing, which was we would like to avoid having to re-notice and send out letters and all the like again, so please include a date certain for when you are going to take this up again.

So the actual calendar date of our meeting next month, is that what you're suggesting, Michael? So our next meeting is scheduled for October 15th. And so do you think that would give adequate time for consideration? So Commissioner Brugger, if you'd like to make that motion, please do.

Mr. Chair, thank you. I move that case number 26-5160 be tabled until the next Planning Commission meeting in October.

October 15th?

October 15th, 2026.

Thank you very much. Is there a second to that motion? Commissioner Pava, thank you.

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

Any opposed? Thank you very much, gentlemen. And thanks to those who have joined us on Zoom, Mr. Hyde and Fire Inspector Fullman. Thanks very much. So this item is tabled until October 15th. Thank you.

And excuse me really quickly. Given that, we do not need to provide notice again, correct? That's my understanding?

That is correct, but we've set a date certain of October 15th.

Yes, yes, understood.

Thank you so much. Chair and commissioners and the applicant, that is correct. No additional mail notice or the like was required. Please keep the posted sign that you have up on your property for the duration. And if you want to change the hearing date that's listed on it, please do so.

Thank you.

Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, the next item on the agenda is matters of public concern. Are there any concerned members of the public here or online? Matters from the commission. I just wanted to point out something. I continue to be impressed by the work of Hearing Officer Haupt, and I really appreciate reading his thorough and exhaustive analysis. So if there's a contractual issue, I really encourage renewal, because I think he does an excellent job. Anything from any of the other commissioners? Commissioner Brugger.

Mr. Chair, just wanted to say that I'm going to miss the October Planning Commission meeting. My daughter's getting married. It'll be the first one I miss. Congratulations. But it was an easy choice. Oh, that'll affect the four count thing, so yeah.

Okay, anything from anyone else? Mr. Chair. Oh, Commissioner Pava.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to ask if staff could, or somebody at the county, could review what comes online when you search for the Planning Commission. The pages that come up are out of date with commission members and their terms. Commissioner Griffin certainly isn't present there yet, I don't think. Wendy is still on there. If that could be checked out. And I know we're in a transition between the old access and the much better new access with the calendar and you click on it. and the agenda comes up, I'm still in a learning process with that. But if it creates confusion for me, it probably is frustrating for members of the public. If any resources could be allocated to fix that, that would be great. And I appreciate all the hard work that you've done for tonight and always.

Chair Bowe, Planning Commission members. Yes, Commissioner Griffin brought it to my attention earlier today. Our division, we only have a couple of liaisons that are able to make these kind of changes onto the website. And I believe it's myself and Michael, but I think we'll take a look at it and we'll make sure that everything gets updated.

Thanks. Anything, Roger? Any matters from the attorney?

I don't believe so. Mr. Chair, you've heard enough from me today.

Never enough. Staff, anything? Great. Our next regular meeting, we'll miss you, Commissioner Brugger. Our next regularly scheduled meeting is October 15th. And may I get a motion for adjournment?

I'll motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor?