Planning Commission tables Simic conditional-use permit after notice deficiencies cited

The Santa Fe County Planning Commission on July 17 voted to table conditional-use permit case 25-5020, the application by Thomas Simic and Christina Mestas Simic, until the August meeting after neighborhood counsel Joseph Karnes told the commission the applicant had not met required public-notice procedures.

Karnes, representing neighbor Steven Feld and a group of residents, said he conducted a site visit and documented that the public-notice sign displayed dates for earlier hearings and did not identify the current planning commission meeting date. He told the commission the record did not show required first-class mailings to neighbors for the June 18 planning commission agenda and that the packet lacked written verification that the public notice had been posted and published in the Santa Fe New Mexican as required by the SLDC.

"The applicant has not complied, has not demonstrated compliance with their obligations and staff has confirmed that in the memo," Karnes said, arguing the failure to properly notify neighbors deprived the community of a fair hearing.

Staff confirmed that the dates on the posted sign matched Karness description and said the code requires three separate notice steps: first-class mail to property owners within 500 feet at least 15 days before the hearing; posting of the notice on the property; and publication in the local newspaper with written verification provided to the county (SLDC section 4.6.3.5 was cited in the staff memo).

Commissioners asked for clarification about which mailings in the packet related to the pre-application neighborhood meeting versus the planning commission hearing. Staff and Karnes both said letters for the neighborhood meeting were in the packet but that there was no evidence the second set of mailings required specifically for the planning commission hearing had been sent or recorded in the packet.

Commissioner Trujillo moved to table the case until the August meeting if the applicants met the notice requirements; Commissioner Pava seconded. The commission approved the motion by roll call and staff said it would verify that the applicant had completed the required mailings, affidavit of posting and proof of publication before placing the case on the August agenda. If those requirements are not met, staff said the case would not be placed on the agenda.

Staff told the commission that meeting scheduling references differed in the record: staff said August 20 would allow the statutory 15 days for re-notice, while the commission's next regularly scheduled meeting was noted as August 21 on the calendar; staff said it would require the applicant to meet the notice conditions before the item is reposted.

Karnes also flagged what he said was a lack of a traffic analysis and said community members would like an opportunity to present substantive concerns; staff said neighbors had participated at earlier stages but were not present for the current hearing, which Karnes attributed to the notice issues.

Outcome and next steps: Case 25-5020 was tabled to the August meeting contingent on the applicant providing written verification of the first-class mailings, affidavit of posting (with photo), and proof of publication. Staff will confirm the required documentation before adding the item to the August agenda.