Hearing officer to recommend on Baca request to split 0.77-acre Agua Fria parcel into three lots

Hearing officer Taylor Hartstein will issue written findings and a recommendation to the planning commission after a Sept. 10 hearing on a variance request from Gilbert and Rosalba Baca to divide a 0.77-acre parcel in the Agua Fria community into three residential lots.

The Sustainable Land Development Code (SLDC) allows one dwelling per 0.75 acres in the base zone and permits increased density—one dwelling per 0.33 acres—within the Agua Fria Community District overlay if lots are served by public water and sewer. Destiny Romero, building and development review specialist senior for Santa Fe County, told the hearing that the applicants have letters from the City of Santa Fe and the Agua Fria Community Water Association confirming the property would be served by public sewer and water if subdivided. Romero said staff’s review found code violations on the site and concluded that “the facts presented do not support the request for a variance.”

Nut graf: The hearing centered on whether extraordinary circumstances tied to the property and family hardship justify a three-lot subdivision that exceeds the base density standard. Staff recommended denial, citing the SLDC variance criteria; the applicants argued the parcel was made substandard by prior eminent-domain takings and that a three-lot split is necessary for intergenerational housing and affordability.

Romero told the hearing that staff’s site visit on Sept. 3 found a recreational vehicle connected to utilities and being used as a dwelling, approximately five mounds of fill, and an unpermitted Connex container. She said those findings led building and development services staff to determine the variance criteria in SLDC section 4.9 (as cited in the record) had not been satisfied. Romero stated staff would deny the requested density variance but offered a set of conditions the county could impose if the hearing officer nonetheless recommended approval; staff also asked to add a 14th condition requiring compliance with Ordinance 2023-04 on abandoned or inoperable vehicles.

Agent Benito Martinez, representing Gilbert and Rosalba Baca, said the family seeks three lots for the Bacas’ two adult children, and described the parcel’s reduction in size after county road-widening projects he characterized as an eminent-domain taking. Martinez argued the site is otherwise physically suitable—generally level, rectangular, with utilities at the property line—and described the request as a hardship case driven by local housing affordability. “This is a hardship case,” Martinez said, adding that the family has lived in the traditional village for generations. He also said the applicants intend to address the identified violations and work with county staff to comply with conditions before the planning commission.

Applicant Gilbert Baca testified that he and his family still reside in the immediate area and that one of the existing dwellings is rented; he confirmed the recreational vehicle was connected and in use as of the agents’ most recent meeting with staff and that the family would comply with the staff conditions if the variance were approved. He said his son (29) and daughter (25) would be the intended future occupants of the new lots.

William Mee, president of the Agua Fria Village Historic Association, joined by phone and said the association submitted a letter supporting the variance and that the group “still support this particular variance.”

Hartstein closed the public hearing and said he would prepare written findings of fact and conclusions of law within 15 business days and forward his recommendation to the planning commission. Romero stated staff will conduct a follow-up site visit after the applicants notify staff that conditions 11–14 have been satisfied; staff emphasized that presenting conditions does not mean staff endorses approval.

Ending: The hearing produced no final administrative decision; the record will reflect admitted exhibits (including staff memorandum/exhibit H) and the hearing officer’s forthcoming written recommendation to the planning commission. Any final subdivision approval would depend on later action by the planning commission and compliance with the SLDC and any conditions the county imposes.