Santa Fe historic board told rescind of June status review would require agenda item, high threshold

Camilla Kennedy, a Romero Street resident, told the Historic District Review Board on Sept. 9 that she had tried to appeal a June 10 status review for her property at 140 Romero Street and asked the board to reconsider a decision that made street-facing walls “contributing.” Kennedy said she had filed an initial form “on time with 2 days to go” but was later told her appeal was rejected for not meeting filing requirements. "The front wall, the garden wall, is made out of cinder block. It is not it's historic in that it's old, but the materials used to make that wall...I can go to Home Depot tomorrow, buy, and build a new wall," she said, and asked the board to revisit the determination so she could make safety changes such as raising a fence and shifting a gate.

Board Chair Rios and staff paused the public discussion to ask the city attorney's office for guidance. Assistant City Attorney Rubalit told the board the land-use code sets the appellant's filing window and that, in this case, the findings and the appeal window had closed: "The hearing took place, and the vote was made on June 10. The appeal window would have opened on July 15 and would have closed on July 30." He also cited Robert's Rules of Order on motions to reconsider and to rescind, explaining the different time limits. "A motion to reconsider ... must be moved either on the same day the original vote was taken or on the next succeeding day within the same session," he said, and noted the board had held multiple meetings since June so that opportunity had passed. By contrast, he said, a motion to rescind has no fixed time limit but “would have to be placed on the agenda pursuant to the Open Meetings Act,” and, if made without previous notice, would require either a two-thirds vote or a majority of the entire membership (four members of a five-member board that evening).

Kennedy and several neighbors who spoke during public comment — including her two-door-neighbor who said someone had left clothing and human waste by Kennedy's door, and others who described safety concerns — asked the board to act quickly. Kennedy said the cost of seeking individual exceptions to alter the wall for safety would be prohibitive: each exemption would cost about $250. Chair Rios and staff said they would consult with the city attorney and staff about placing the rescission or reconsideration on a future agenda and would notify Kennedy of next steps; they emphasized any formal board action to rescind a previous decision must be agendized and would require a member to move the rescission and enough votes to adopt it.

Why it matters: property status in a historic district affects what exterior changes homeowners may legally make and whether they must seek exceptions; residents and applicants frequently cite safety and cost as drivers of requests to alter yard walls, fences and gates. The board and the city attorney stressed that remedies for a denied appeal are judicial appeal or the formal agendaed process for rescission, not immediate reconsideration during the public comment period.

The board did not vote on Kennedy’s request that evening; staff and the city attorney will review process options and advise whether the item should be placed on a future agenda. Kennedy and several neighbors who spoke asked for prompt notification so she would not need to remain at subsequent hearings.

Additional details: Kennedy said she hired a private surveyor, John Murphy, who recommended the house remain noncontributing, while staff had recommended the house noncontributing and the wall contributing; the board’s June action did not follow those recommendations, according to Kennedy. The assistant city attorney said the land-use director rejected Kennedy’s appeal as untimely under the ordinance and that, if the board were to consider rescission without prior notice, the measure would require either a two-thirds vote or a majority of the entire membership. The city attorney’s office advised the chair and staff to coordinate on placing any rescission request on a future agenda and to research the precise legal steps.