Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge loosening of Galisteo overlay rules and reopening of Rio Medio trail at Santa Fe County meeting
Summary
Two members of the public told commissioners that the Galisteo community overlay has effectively banned most local businesses and that volunteers have funds to repair but not reopen the Rio Medio trail. Speakers asked the county to review the overlay and to help find parking and remediation solutions for the trail.
During public comment at the Oct. 14 Santa Fe County Board of County Commissioners meeting several residents raised land-use and public-access concerns: one Galisteo resident urged revision of a 2015 Galisteo Overlay that he said outlawed or made conditional use permits prohibitively difficult for many small businesses; another group requested county help to reopen the Rio Medio trail, closed since 2022, and offered volunteer funding for flood remediation.
Galisteo business concerns Sean Sohn, who identified himself as a Galisteo native and U.S. Army veteran, said the overlay “outlawed an estimated 90% of businesses” and created “conditional use” hurdles that have driven out local entrepreneurs and youth. He asked the county to revisit the overlay’s vision language and to rework restrictions so property owners can use private property to sustain households and local services. Mr. Sohn said the overlay’s stated vision — preserving history and stewardship while enabling affordability — conflicts with the overlay’s effect of preventing businesses such as landscaping, electrical, plumbing and veterinary services.
Rio Medio trail reopening request Francesca Orofino, speaking for Friends of the Rio Medio Trail, said volunteers have funds for flood remediation but are blocked by parking and access issues. She asked county staff to help identify feasible parking arrangements and other solutions so the publicly owned trail, closed since 2022, can be reopened for community use. County staff told the board the group has financial resources for remediation and asked what would be needed for a viable reopening plan.
County response and next steps County officials listened and acknowledged the comments. Staff later noted the county has the authority under the Land Development Code (sections 4-48 and 4-49) to revisit quasi-judicial decisions when new material evidence arises (a commenter, Dave Gregorio, cited those code sections). The board did not take formal action on these public comments at the meeting; staff suggested the parties pursue administrative or planning follow-up and offered to provide guidance on applicable processes.
Ending Speakers emphasized economic and recreational harm to small, longstanding communities and asked county staff and commissioners to consider revisions and practical solutions. The board’s later meeting items included other land-use, infrastructure and planning actions; staff recommended follow-up for each public-comment concern.
