Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Site Access And Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Santa Fe County hearing on secondary access for ADU in Eldorado leaves decision pending
Summary
James and Jeanette Wood sought a variance to allow separate secondary access and parking in front of an accessory dwelling unit on a property in Eldorado; staff recommended denial because ADUs must share primary drive under SLDC; applicant says secondary drive existed historically and has installed an 18-inch culvert per public-works guidance.
James and Jeanette Wood requested a variance to allow a separate access and parking in front of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 4 Harada Court in the Eldorado subdivision; Hearing Officer Marilyn Hebert said she will prepare a recommended order within 15 working days (case 245250).
Building and Development Review Specialist Marie Martinez told the hearing the applicants seek a variance of Chapter 10, Section 10.4.0.2.0.3 (building and site design standards) to permit a secondary access that would serve the ADU. Staff recommended denial, noting that under current SLDC ADU provisions an accessory dwelling must share the primary residence driveway and that the county does not allow multiple driveways in new subdivisions (7.11.0.12.0.2) though Eldorado predates the SLDC.
Why it matters: Granting this variance would permit the ADU to use an existing secondary driveway or parking area that staff says should not have been permitted initially; denial would require the ADU to share the primary driveway as required by ADU rules.
Applicant James Wood said the property contains two detached garages, one of which was built and later partly converted into an ADU in 2024. Wood said the secondary driveway was historically permitted for recreational-vehicle storage because of terrain constraints and that the county conducted a site inspection and indicated "there are no terrain constraints"; he argued the county therefore inherited a liability because the driveway should not have been permitted originally. Wood said he has installed the 18-inch culvert, posts and reflectors requested by public works and presented a neighbor support letter citing limited mobility concerns for possible future occupants. He said the variance is primarily sought so an occupant (his son) or future elderly relatives would have convenient parking and not need to walk around the house or through the courtyard.
Staff confirmed there were no public comments on the record for this application. Mr. Lovato (county staff) stated the subdivision and lots were created prior to the SLDC and the 1996 ordinance, which is relevant to why lot sizes in Eldorado do not match the current residential-estate minimums.
Hearing Officer Hebert said she will prepare a recommended order within 15 working days. No final administrative decision was made at the hearing.
