Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Density Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission approves variance allowing three dwellings at Sunlit Hills property
Summary
The Santa Fe County Planning Commission voted to approve a density variance for case 24-5310, allowing three dwelling units on a 5.033-acre parcel at 23 Saddle Road in the Sunlit Hills area. The decision follows staff findings that the two-story duplex on the parcel was constructed without permits and does not meet ADU standards.
The Santa Fe County Planning Commission on Feb. 20 approved a density variance for case 24-5310, Christine Stryker, allowing three dwelling units on a 5.033-acre parcel at 23 Saddle Road in Sunlit Hills.
The variance permits the existing single-family residence plus a two-story duplex (counted as two dwellings) to remain as three dwelling units after the commission motioned and voted to approve the final order, subject to staff conditions. The applicant, Christine Stryker, told the commission she bought the property in 2022 “the way it was” and said the upstairs unit that currently has temporary short-term rental approval “is the only source of income that we have.”
The request drew extensive technical review and commissioner questions because the duplex was built without permits and because the Sustainable Land Development Code (SLDC) restricts accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to single-story structures with square‑footage limits tied to the primary residence. Development Review Specialist Senior Maggie Valdez told the commission that building and development staff concluded “the structure was constructed without permits” and that, under the ADU rules, the existing two‑story duplex does not comply. She said staff’s review found “the facts presented do not support the request for a variance” but recorded the hearing officer’s recommended order and the applicant’s intent.
Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant on alternatives if the variance were denied. Valdez said an option would be to remove plumbing and fixtures from one level so the space is not considered livable; temporary short‑term rental permits last about a year and may be renewed only while applicants work toward compliance. Several commissioners voiced concern that unpermitted, after‑the‑fact conversions pose safety and inspection challenges; Valdez said after‑the‑fact permitting can require opening walls, foundation work and sewer scoping to satisfy CID (Construction Inspections Division) requirements.
Public hearing: Applicant, staff and commissioners — not members of the public — gave testimony during the hearing. The applicant acknowledged she used a realtor when purchasing the property and said she did not consult county development review before attempting short‑term rental certification. Staff reported no neighbor complaints were received and that the required public notice had been posted.
Outcome and conditions: The commission approved the variance with the staff conditions entered into the record. Commissioners clarified that if the variance were denied the county would not renew the applicant’s short‑term rental permit and code enforcement could require removal of plumbing or pursue injunctive relief to obtain compliance.
Why it matters: The case highlights recurring enforcement issues around unpermitted conversions and short‑term rentals, and several commissioners urged county outreach to realtors to reduce future misunderstandings about county zoning and ADU rules.
What’s next: The commission’s decision can be appealed to the Santa Fe County Board of County Commissioners.
