Socorro City historical commissioners debate certificate of appropriateness for 496 Buford Road after notice of violation

The Socorro City Historical Landmark Commission discussed a certificate of appropriateness application for 496 Buford Road after staff reported a notice of violation for construction that began without a permit and used unapproved metal sheeting, referred to in the record as “lamina.”

Staff told commissioners the applicant, identified in staff materials as Ricardo Rocha, had begun work without a permit, had submitted application materials on multiple occasions and that the material choice (lamina) is not an approved finish for the historic area. A staff member said, “staff recommend recommends the conditional approval,” and urged that any changes or modifications return to the commission for review.

The commission debated two paths. Several commissioners and staff described options to allow the work to proceed if the applicant replaces or covers the unapproved metal with approved materials and returns with clarified drawings. Commissioners urged the applicant to bring a clear set of construction documents—site plan and drawings that would support a permit application—and suggested hiring a draftsman or permit preparer to produce those materials. One commissioner advised the applicant to provide a site plan and indicated the city typically requires more documentation than what was submitted.

At the same time, commissioners expressed frustration that construction began before approval and that the applicant was not present to answer questions. One commissioner recalled a prior local incident when an unpermitted metal roof was blown away in a storm and damaged infrastructure, noting public-safety and durability concerns tied to unapproved materials. Commissioners repeatedly flagged the project’s high visibility near the early mission site and said they did not want an unresolved, visibly inappropriate structure to remain for years.

After extended discussion about materials (plywood base, parapet options, roofing paper, and possible veneers such as stucco or painted siding), one commissioner moved to deny the certificate of appropriateness; another commissioner seconded that motion. The transcript records the motion and second but does not record a subsequent roll-call or final vote on that motion.

Staff and commissioners repeatedly recommended that the applicant return to the commission with clarified drawings and a permit application showing approved materials, a site plan, and structural details so the commission can consider conditional approval tied to specified materials and a return hearing. Commissioners emphasized that conditioned approvals should require the design remain as presented and any changes return to the HLC for review.

The commission then moved on to other business without a recorded disposition in the transcript for the motion to deny.