Socorro planning commissioners approve rezoning at 166 Tassie Way with limit of two units

The Socorro Planning and Zoning Commission on March 4 approved rezoning Lot 11, Block 2 of the Lehi Milpa Subdivision at 166 Tassie Way from R-1 (single-family residential) to R-2 (medium-density residential) with a condition that the property be developed with no more than two dwelling units and no accessory buildings.

The change was requested by property owners Eric and Yvonne Gomez Trujillo to allow up to three apartment units on the 9,060-square-foot lot; staff presented the request at the meeting and recommended approval. The applicant’s representative, Mr. Trujillo, was present and the public hearing drew multiple neighborhood speakers who said they preferred one unit but would accept two.

Commissioners focused discussion on whether the lot meets the city’s R-2 area requirements and how the code’s language treats ponding. Staff noted the lot is shown as “suburban residential” on the Socorro 2040 comprehensive plan and that, under the city’s current density formula (15 units per acre), the site could technically allow roughly 3.11 units. Staff also reported the site plan shows the required parking (1.5 spaces per unit, five spaces total) and an on-site ponding area.

Neighbors and commissioners raised two technical points repeatedly: (1) the code’s area-requirement text refers to a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet “for areas with ponding” and 10,000 square feet “for areas without public ponding,” and (2) whether the ordinance language was intended to reference public ponding, on-site ponding, or both. Commissioners and staff traced the discrepancy in part to the subdivision’s age — the subdivision was recorded in March 1973, before the city’s 1989 Ordinance No. 76 that first adopted zoning regulations — and to inconsistent wording in the code that staff said should be clarified in the planned Unified Development Code rewrite.

During the meeting a motion to approve with a strict cap of two units and no accessory buildings failed on an initial vote. Following additional public comment and further discussion about neighborhood character, parking, and ponding, commissioners voted to approve the rezoning with the conditions limiting the parcel to two units or fewer and prohibiting accessory buildings. The motion was recorded as carried; the transcript does not include a full roll-call tally for the final vote.

What the action does and what happens next: the commission’s approval sends the rezoning recommendation to the City Council for final action. Commissioners and staff said the discussion highlighted ambiguities in the existing zoning code’s ponding and minimum-lot-area language; staff and consultants were asked to review and clarify those provisions during the code rewrite.

Public comments and developer response: Residents who spoke from the neighborhood — including Lourdes Almanza of 155 Tassie Way — said the block is small and quiet and preferred fewer units; Ms. Almanza told commissioners she and neighbors would prefer a single unit but would accept two. The applicant said he would consider redesigning as an attached duplex if needed and that his civil engineer had sized an on-site ponding area for the lot. A legal advisor present confirmed a neighboring property owner would have a private cause of action if construction caused damage to an adjacent house.

Clarifying technical details from the record: the property owners are Eric and Yvonne Gomez Trujillo; the lot is 9,060 square feet; the subdivision was recorded March 1973; R-2 area rules were discussed as stating 6,000 square feet minimum for areas with ponding and 10,000 square feet for areas without public ponding; parking requirement cited was 1.5 spaces per unit (five spaces for three units). The transcript records staff saying the presented site plan complies with area requirements for R-2 but commissioners limited the approval to two units.

The commission closed the public hearing at 6:28 p.m.; with the commission’s recommendation, the rezoning will next be considered by Socorro City Council on a later agenda.