Planning commission approves setback variance for small bathroom addition at 151 El Gancho Street

The Los Alamos County Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to approve a variance allowing homeowners Reid and Connie Figley to add a 9-by-9-foot (81-square-foot) bathroom to their house at 151 El Gancho Street in the Barranca Mesa 1 subdivision.

The commission’s approval permits the new building corner to be located 7 feet 10 inches from the interior north side property line, a reduction from the 10-foot minimum required in the SFR-2 zone. County staff and the applicants described two ways of measuring the request: staff’s report recorded a 2-foot-2-inch structural variance with a total 5-foot-2-inch encroachment counting roof eaves; the applicants described the foundation and walls as encroaching roughly 2 feet 10 inches while eaves reach about 5 feet 2 inches. The commission based its decision on the variance criteria in Chapter 16 of the Los Alamos County Development Code.

“The project will add a 9-foot-by-9-foot bathroom to the house,” applicant Reid Figley said during the hearing, and described the addition as a modest change intended to enable the couple to age in place. Figley and his wife described the house as a mid‑century modern home built in 1961 with original architectural features that influenced the decision to place the addition in the existing notched corner of the building.

Staff said the lot is roughly 0.8 acres and slopes down from the street, and that the closest neighboring house (149 El Gancho) sits about 22 feet 11 inches from the Figley property now; approval would reduce that separation to about 19 feet 10 inches. The staff report stated the application met the required variance findings and recommended approval.

Commissioners asked applicants about utilities, tree clearances, wildfire risk and insurance. Commissioner Marlon and other commissioners raised questions about upgrading the electrical service, the location of the overhead service drop, and whether trees might need removal for clearance; the applicants said they intend to upgrade service conductors and coordinate required electrical work with the county and that no utilities or recorded easements block the proposed corner. Commissioners also urged the applicants to consider wildfire mitigation and noted recent county code changes on wildland‑urban interface requirements.

The applicants told the commission they had spoken to the adjacent property owner, Tom Tierney, who they said had no objection. County staff confirmed required public notice and that the Development Review Committee had no remaining objections to moving the item forward to the commission. The commission approved the motion and authorized the chair to sign a final order based on findings prepared by staff. The decision can be appealed by parties of record within 15 calendar days under the development code.