Board splits decision on carports at 1024 Los Moros: side encroachment approved, front relocation denied

The El Paso Zoning Board of Adjustment on Sept. 8 voted separately on two special-exception requests for 1024 Los Moros after an initial combined motion failed; the board ultimately approved the side-yard encroachment and denied the front-yard carport relocation.

Planning staff, represented by Blanca Perez, presented site plans showing two existing carports: one that encroaches 8 feet into the required 8-foot side-yard setback (about 160 square feet) and a second canopy-type structure proposed to be relocated to the front yard where it would encroach 16 feet into the required front setback (a 20-by-20 footprint, 320 square feet). Staff told the board that notices were mailed to property owners within 300 feet on July 31, 2025, and that the planning division had received two emails opposing the request; one expressed safety concerns related to strong winds. Staff recommended approval of the side encroachment and approval of the front encroachment with the condition that the final carport resemble the main residence in scale and character.

Applicant Sarah Perez Gallardo told the board she had hired a contractor to build the canopies, had contacted nearby neighbors and collected 17 signatures indicating no objections from immediate neighbors, and said she agreed to follow city permit requirements. Board members questioned how the proposed front structure would match the house in materials and construction quality; some members said they wanted specific elevations or design elements such as columns to be added as conditions.

City Attorney Jesus Quintanilla advised the board that because only seven members were present that day, a unanimous vote would be required for certain actions. An initial motion to approve both exceptions together failed in a roll call. The board then voted separately: the motion to approve the side-yard encroachment passed on a subsequent vote with staff recommendations; a later vote to approve the front-yard relocation failed. Board members said the split votes reflected differing views about whether the front structure met the board’s standard for “character” with the main house and whether wind and safety concerns and the quality of construction were adequately addressed.

The board left in place the requirement that permits be pulled and that final construction meet any conditions the board set. The applicant was told she may have appellate options in court if she chooses to pursue them; the city attorney clarified that appeals for these decisions generally proceed in county or district court.