Planning panel approves variance allowing shed 5 feet from rear lot line in Los Alamos

The Los Alamos County Planning and Zoning Commission on May 28 approved VAR20240005, a variance allowing an existing accessory shed to remain 5 feet from the rear property line at 243946 Sixth Street in Los Alamos. The commission voted unanimously to authorize the chair to sign a final order approving the variance after hearing staff and the applicant describe the site, utility implications and public notice.

Desiree Luhan, senior planner in the county Community Development Department, told the commission the application was submitted by Sonia Martinez on behalf of the condo owners at the property and that staff had reviewed the request under the county development code. "The shed was built in May 2024 without permits," Luhan said, and staff concluded the request met the decision criteria in section 16-74(G) of the development code and recommended approval, subject to required permits.

The variance request is for a 10-foot reduction of the required rear-yard setback in the multifamily residential low-density (MFRL) zone: the code requires a 15-foot setback for accessory structures in that zone, and the commission approved placing the shed 5 feet from the rear lot line. Luhan said the property is a 0.24-acre irregular lot with a four-plex and limited common areas; the shed sits in the limited common area assigned to one unit.

Commissioners and staff discussed a wastewater line that runs through the parcel beneath the shed. Luhan said an initial review by the county Department of Public Utilities led to concern, but after a site inspection DPU staff recommended proceeding, noting the impact appeared minor and that an encroachment permit would be required at permitting to document any conditions. The applicant acknowledged the county may need access for utility work and said they understand the county could require removal of parts of the structure if necessary.

Applicant Sonia Martinez said her father purchased the shed in 2023 and believed the structure would be permitted in its current location; the family applied for the permit after construction. "When my father did come to apply for the permit, he was told there would be a 5-foot setback required," Martinez said, and she described working with planning staff to resolve the matter.

Commissioner Benjamin Hill, who spoke in support, questioned whether a 15-foot rear setback was appropriate in this type of multifamily setting and said the location is largely screened by landscaping. "I think the 15-foot rear setback is inappropriate for this condition," Hill said, adding that he believed the DPU inspection made the utility issue manageable.

Commissioner White moved to approve VAR20240005 and authorize the chair to sign the final order. A commissioner seconded the motion. Roll call votes were recorded as follows: Commissioner Adler — yes; Commissioner Hill — yes; Commissioner White — yes; Commissioner Easton — yes; Commissioner Brown — yes. The motion passed unanimously.

Staff and the applicant confirmed the staff report and exhibits were entered into the hearing record and public-notice requirements were met. Luhan said staff received two phone inquiries after notice was mailed; callers sought clarification but did not present objections related to the shed location.

The commission’s approval allows permitting to proceed, including the encroachment permit process with DPU to document any conditions tied to the wastewater line. The county’s reading of appeal rights followed the vote: any aggrieved owner, interested party who received mailed notice, or county official with a recognized legal interest may file an appeal within 15 calendar days of the final written decision.

Clarifying detail: staff and the applicant consistently described the shed as about 92 square feet in their presentation and report; the motion text in the hearing record included a different number (192 square feet). That numerical inconsistency appears in the transcript and record; staff and the applicant both referenced a 92-square-foot structure during the presentation. The commission’s order and subsequent permitting records should be consulted for the final recorded square footage and permit conditions.

What remains: the applicant must complete standard permitting, including an encroachment permit and any DPU-required conditions before the shed’s permitting is finalized. If utilities require removal or modification of the structure in the future, the applicants acknowledged the county’s right to access and remediate infrastructure.