[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6268071,"mediaKeyId","3059854-e7c1fc0b601f2ec55fb1a7ad162d0cf9","parentId",3059854,"title","County planning staff reviews transfer‑of‑development‑rights pilot, says 28 certificates in bank","audioSeconds",796,"startMs",3603000,"endMs",4399000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3059854-e7c1fc0b601f2ec55fb1a7ad162d0cf9&start=3603&end=4399","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3059854-e7c1fc0b601f2ec55fb1a7ad162d0cf9/thumbnail_3603000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6268071/Santa-Fe-County/New-Mexico/County-planning-staff-reviews-transferofdevelopmentrights-pilot-says-28-certificates-in-bank","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6268071-f118e71e08d9f22a7c8181b6a927a804/orig.mp4?Expires=1770916981&Signature=WqcVcj6LcgHYLgLu-YkEeR5lnlp-T4CLv34FReLf1aPI78n9N8xv8f~TuXXXz9DHxtV05TDca-UJc9vAXknBASOL4tKdrD1wS16r9Sru3o7-JOmFiP2yembDAQmkMab5oAORwIW1Q6oIDUA1w3FUI5n-ZWmJup9FlZEUu4Oroq14~CAX1lnxPZILMu0BC12LDebGls8MYEkrvN--kMuHNKGOamLyqMeBSR0kOZYdv~cBHL6hgiaJeKUBqKLLQRxLWXLYBIdLuNrnnd0tsIZ7VVYGOtoXDPG0y7jj62u3Xi2oC88eaFsl5I-q6A-MPucpCtdvZxGVBN4Dv9IJpYldCg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Santa Fe County, NM","date","2025-04-19T08:22:04.747Z","article","Santa Fe County planning staff presented an update on the county’s Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program to the Planning Commission on April 17, describing how the voluntary program works, current pilot outcomes and next steps toward a TDR bank and pricing methodology.

Herbert Foster, a growth management team lead, summarized the TDR mechanics: owners of environmentally, culturally or agriculturally sensitive land can voluntarily sever (permanently relinquish) development rights on a parcel and receive certificates that can later be sold to developers who want higher density in designated receiving areas. Foster described the typical incentive structure used by the county: \"Certificates represent foregoing building 1 house on a property; the buyer can, in many cases, build a density bonus elsewhere,\" he said.

Foster told commissioners that three private owners have participated in the sending side of the pilot, resulting in four properties and 11 certificates recorded or under agreement; four of those certificates have already been sold. The county itself is also participating: the Board of County Commissioners has authorized severing development rights on multiple county open‑space parcels as a pilot, and the county currently holds 28 TDR certificates in a preliminary bank. Those county‑held certificates are not yet on the market while staff and the Board prepare a pricing approach.

On pricing and administration, Foster said the county had signed a consultant to develop a methodology for setting and updating certificate prices annually and that procurement and legal review will inform how the county sells certificates from the bank. He noted that one certificate has been structured to provide a five‑to‑one residential density bonus (one certificate enabling five single‑family units) and that multifamily/rental calculations differ under the ordinance.

Commissioners asked technical questions about permanence, water rights and how the certificates interact with normal subdivision review. Foster reiterated that severing development rights is permanent, that a sending parcel can be assigned areas retained for limited future development, and that TDRs do not change zone designations; rather, certificates are used at the time of final plat recordation in an eligible receiving zone. The county legal team and water‑rights staff continue to refine how water rights are treated in TDR agreements.

Foster said the county will continue to develop the TDR bank, finalize purchase/sale procedures and publish a marketplace on the county website for buyers and sellers; staff encouraged developers and owners seeking to participate to contact growth management for qualification reports and site visits.

The presentation was informational; no action or vote on the TDR program was taken at the meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","4/17/2025 Planning Commission Regular Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Santa Fe County planning staff on April 17 updated the Planning Commission on the county’s Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) pilot program, reporting that three private owners have produced 11 certificates and the county currently holds 28 certificates in a nascent TDR bank.","taxTitle","Santa Fe County, New Mexico","taxId",2698,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6268076,"Planning commission approves variance allowing second dwelling on 2.5‑acre Santa Fe County lot over staff objection",6879,2240000,9119000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3059854-e7c1fc0b601f2ec55fb1a7ad162d0cf9&start=2240&end=9119","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3059854-e7c1fc0b601f2ec55fb1a7ad162d0cf9/thumbnail_2240000.jpg","/articles/6268076/Santa-Fe-County/New-Mexico/Planning-commission-approves-variance-allowing-second-dwelling-on-25acre-Santa-Fe-County-lot-over-staff-objection","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6268076-a2b9ab9b7f94d97fdf9ebe976a6d38fd/orig.mp4?Expires=1770916981&Signature=L-otG~oaIxwQIiUfD8iGZNCuqmGgxEqAH9X~75CGKFD0s6VUdXAcC4UF5NeRJEWNf-UtnEDpCE~VVViXnmiDQAxIa5HyW3EoSJjXRLeJybvpan1HGT2xy~9GmyUhYZwp-TcBHuEg7jyVowjhMKtwjBI3zgOoDz6KQKHjnRXhIuWFOGD6lMwwvpzPkGbya8ra8~bnYep1e8iZ8RSy2Q~6dIPNN3bx4GWXHKE-jXVSjFQqMnv0BzjT-sRwnTEvcZwl7zAqZ8If3LoWy6fMlCUWwIKFOn6~-Zhlhv26PW~HA1L7mh0Yj69e119FlnY5PkMW0ad43ZQMgXdaFsjfed~pfg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Santa Fe County Planning Commission on April 17 approved a variance that allows a second two‑story residence on a 2.5‑acre parcel at 28 Estrella Estano, granting the property owners relief from the Sustainable Land Development Code density limit of one dwelling per 2.5 acres. The vote followed extended staff presentation, public testimony both for and against the request, and legal discussion about nonconforming uses and “grandfathering.”

The decision matters because it changes how the county enforces single‑dwelling density on the affected lot and sets conditions on a property that has operated short‑term rentals and a home‑occupation wellness business. Staff, the county hearing officer and several neighbors had urged denial, citing code, septic and road and water‑use concerns.

John Lovato, Building Development Services supervisor, presented staff analysis and told the commission that the structure in question had characteristics that prevented it from qualifying as an accessory dwelling unit under the SLDC: the unit is two stories, measuring about 19 feet 6 inches in height, and it had a separate septic system whose registration status was initially unclear. \"Staff recommends denial of the request for a variance to allow the 2 dwelling units on the 2.5 acre parcel,\" Lovato said, citing the hearing officer's finding that the application did not meet the SLDC variance criteria.

Applicant representatives argued the guest house predates the current code and should be treated as a lawful, nonconforming structure. Danny Martinez, the applicants' agent, said his review of records and state files indicated the guest house and septic work date to about 1989–1991 and that Construction Industries Division records are limited that far back. \"We firmly believe that this is a legal conforming structure,\" Martinez told commissioners, adding that the applicants are prepared to submit after‑the‑fact permits to clarify documentation if required.

Robert Sherwin, the property owner, described long‑running short‑term‑rental operations on the guest house: \"We've been renting it out for 9 years since 2016,\" he said, and noted the main house and guest house share a driveway and utilities. The Sherwins and their agent told the commission they would comply with reasonable conditions and had already removed or agreed to remove some exterior uses that neighbors complained about.

Neighbors opposed the variance at the public hearing. Terry Graves, a resident who said she lives directly across the street, told the commission the neighborhood already shares a private well and maintains an unpaved road that has seen increased traffic. \"We in turn share a well. We maintain the road ourselves,\" Graves said, and said the group had safety and water‑use concerns tied to guests and increased vehicle trips. Another nearby resident emphasized the fire‑risk concerns connected to an on‑site fire pit and said some neighbors have faced insurance impacts in the ZIP code.

Commission discussion centered on three core SLDC variance criteria: whether the request is contrary to the public interest, whether it maintains the spirit of the SLDC, and whether extraordinary or exceptional conditions of the property justify the variance. Commissioners asked staff whether the studio label on the original 1991 plat and the absence of a retrievable building permit meant the structure was lawfully constructed at the time. Lovato said staff recognizes the structure as previously labeled a studio on the legal lot of record but that the burden to demonstrate a lawful nonconforming status rests with the applicant.

Commissioner Dan Pava moved to approve the variance with a revised set of conditions; the motion replaced a previously noted condition requiring an OSE/NMED septic permit (staff stated that documentation had since been provided) with a requirement that the property post its 911 address at the gate or otherwise provide wayfinding/address signage consistent with county rules. The motion passed by roll call 4‑1. The commission did not identify every individual vote on the record beyond those who verbally indicated yea or nay during the roll call; the final tally announced on the record was four in favor and one opposed.

If the commission had denied the variance, staff said the property owner’s remedies to bring the accessory structure into compliance could include removing the loft or otherwise altering the outbuilding so it met single‑story ADU height and plumbing standards, or submitting after‑the‑fact permits for review by county staff and the Construction Industries Division. The approved variance carries the conditions set at the hearing and the replacement condition requiring visible address/wayfinding signage for emergency response and guest navigation.

The planning commission action resolves Case 24‑5270 for now; the decision may be appealed according to county procedures or revisited if subsequent compliance steps or permit reviews change the factual record.","The Santa Fe County Planning Commission on April 17 approved a variance (Case 24‑5270) to permit a second two‑story residence on a 2.5‑acre parcel belonging to Robert and Denise Sherwin, despite staff and a hearing officer recommendation of denial. Commissioners voted 4‑1 with conditions including address wayfinding signage.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

County planning staff reviews transfer‑of‑development‑rights pilot, says 28 certificates in bank

Planning commission approves variance allowing second dwelling on 2.5‑acre Santa Fe County lot over staff objection