Santa Fe County Planning Commission denies variance to split 0.77-acre Agua Fria parcel into three lots

The Santa Fe County Planning Commission on Wednesday denied a variance request (Case 25-5160) from Gilbert and Rosalba Baca to subdivide a roughly 0.77-acre parcel in the Agua Fria Community District overlay into three residential lots.

The request sought relief from Chapter 9, Section 9.12, Table 9-12-3 of the Sustainable Land Development Code (SLDC) to create three lots where base zoning and overlay standards would otherwise limit density. Building and Development Review Specialist Senior Destiny Romero told the commission staff and the hearing officer did not find the application met the SLDC variance criteria and recommended denial. The hearing officer, after a September 11, 2025 hearing, likewise recommended denial.

The commission’s action followed extended questioning of staff, the applicants’ agent and the applicants about property history, existing site conditions and alternative options. Romero said the parcel currently contains one single-family dwelling and an accessory carport; staff inspections in September and October 2025 identified violations including an RV connected to utilities (which staff said was disconnected and later removed) and an unpermitted connex container and fill piles. An after-the-fact permit had been submitted and was under review as of October 9–10, 2025, Romero said.

The Agua Fria overlay allows higher density (one dwelling per 0.33 acre) only where public water and sewer serve the property; Romero told the commission the subject parcel is served by City of Santa Fe sewer and the Agua Fria Community Water Association but staff concluded the evidence did not demonstrate the variance criteria of SLDC Section 4.9 (variance criteria) were satisfied. Romero said staff does not view monetary hardship or high local land values as qualifying grounds under the code; the variance standard focuses on extraordinary or exceptional conditions of the property itself.

Agent Benito Martinez and applicant Gilbert Baca said the split is intended to provide parcels for family members. Martinez argued that county actions—road widening for Caja Del Oro and the Santa Fe River Trail—reduced the parcel size and that economic obsolescence and changes to the lot prior to the applicant’s ownership support relief. William Mee, president of the Villalba/Agua Fria Village Association, and Catherine Baca spoke in support during public comment, saying county acquisitions had diminished the original lot area.

Commissioners pressed for documentation showing eminent domain or compensation tied to past road and trail projects; staff said no documentation of a taking was provided. Commissioners also asked whether the applicants had considered creating two lots—the density to which staff said the parcel is already entitled under the code—rather than pursuing three lots; the applicants indicated they had not presented an alternative plat to create only two lots.

A motion to approve the variance with staff conditions was made but failed for lack of a second. A subsequent motion to deny Case 25-5160 passed on roll call. The planning commission recorded the motion to deny as approved; the hearing officer and county staff recommendations for denial remain in the record.

The commission’s record shows the property is located at 2232 and 2235 Ranchitos de Baca in Commission District 2 and that the parcel takes access from the private Ranchitos de Baca road which connects to Caja Del Oro Grant Road. Staff noted a small portion of the parcel abuts a flood zone and that any future platting and permitting would be routed to county fire prevention and other review for addressing, driveway access, flood setbacks and possible bank stabilization measures.

The commission made clear during debate that variance criteria in the SLDC are focused on site-specific physical conditions (topography, ownership-created issues, legal lot-of-record problems) rather than broader countywide economic conditions such as high land prices. Commissioners emphasized that approving variances based primarily on financial hardship could increase development pressure and affect infrastructure such as water supply.

With the denial recorded, the applicants may pursue administrative options allowed by the SLDC—staff noted the family transfer administrative process allows the two lots the property currently supports—or seek further remedies permitted by county processes.

Case documents, the hearing officer recommended order and staff memos are in the county file for Case 25-5160.