Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Fence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Adjustment approves partial variance for masonry fence at 640 Jim Beam Drive
Summary
The Socorro City Board of Adjustment approved a variance that lets a property owner keep part of a six‑foot masonry side fence at 640 Jim Beam Drive, requiring removal of 10 feet where staff had identified a sight‑triangle violation.
The Socorro City Board of Adjustment voted to approve a modified variance for a fence at 640 Jim Beam Drive, allowing the property owner to retain a six‑foot solid masonry fence except for a 10‑foot segment the board required to be removed.
Board members considered a variance to municipal code section 46‑6‑22 (fences, walls and hedges) after a final inspection found the installed fence exceeded the 2 feet 6 inches height limitation within the clear sight triangle. Planning staff recommended approval of a variance that would allow a six‑foot masonry fence on the side of the property, and the applicant, property owner Juan Flores, said the cost of removing the upper portion presented a hardship.
The board discussed whether the permit and construction paperwork had been provided to the applicant and whether the permit language clearly required a clear top portion on sidewalls. Planning staff and board members noted confusion in the permit notes: a detail drawing referenced a 10‑foot dimension in one place and 20 feet in another, and members weighed the precedent of approving a variance for a recently completed project versus older cases heard years after construction.
Several board members said the street and lot configuration reduced the traffic‑safety risk compared with corner‑lot cases. One board member said photographs showed a set‑back between the roadway and the cinder‑block wall that allowed drivers exiting the driveway to see oncoming traffic.
After discussion the board approved a motion to require a 10‑foot modification rather than the 20‑foot removal staff had been trying to reconcile on the permit notes. The motion to approve the variance with a 10‑foot requirement was made by David Lopez and seconded by Alberto Lagunas; the motion carried with all members voting aye and no abstentions or nays recorded.
The board’s approval applied only to the specific variance request before it; members repeatedly emphasized that future, similar requests would be evaluated case by case.
Votes at a glance: Motion to approve variance with 10‑foot modification — Mover: David Lopez; Second: Alberto Lagunas; Outcome: approved (unanimous).
