Planning board grants 1.9-foot rear-setback variance for Superstition Drive patio cover amid HOA safety complaints

The Rio Rancho Planning and Zoning Board approved a variance allowing a patio cover at 620 Superstition Drive SE to encroach 1.9 feet into the rear setback.

Staff planner Tim Dvorak told the board the patio cover sits 3.1 feet from the rear property line and therefore requires a 1.9-foot encroachment approval because the special-use setbacks for the neighborhood require 15 feet from the rear. Dvorak said the lot is approximately 0.1148 acres and that the applicant had submitted building permit application number 25-1963; staff recommended denial of the variance, concluding the application did not meet the standards for a variance.

Property owner Timothy (Tim) Hecker told the board the cover was built to provide reasonable use of an existing patio, to reduce heating and cooling bills and that both immediately adjacent neighbors had provided letters of support. He said the structure was constructed by a licensed contractor and that the family applied for a building permit after city codes staff raised the issue. “We were told by other neighbors that the HOA looked at structures in the front of the house and not in the back,” Hecker said.

Multiple members of the High Resort Village homeowners association and nearby residents spoke against the variance at the public hearing. Steven Sharp, an HOA member, described observed cracking and bowing in the block wall that separates the backyards from the former golf-course fairway and urged caution. “I recommend and request the city to condemn the back part of this house until the structure is removed by a professional contractor,” Sharp said. Other speakers, including Robert Worrall and Ken Gievett, said the shared block walls in the row of homes are showing movement and voiced concern that additional runoff from the patio cover could further destabilize the walls.

Board members pressed the applicant and staff about permits and inspections. The applicant acknowledged the structure was initially built without a permit and said he later submitted plans; staff replied that a building permit would still be required and that the building division would review plans and could require on-site changes or corrections before issuing final approval. Staff also clarified that the city does not enforce homeowners association covenants (CC&Rs), which remain a private enforcement matter for the HOA.

Despite staff’s recommendation for denial, the board approved the variance. Roll call recorded four votes in favor and one against (Chairman Rodosovich: Yes; Commissioner Tortorici: Yes; Commissioner Gabaldon: Yes; Commissioner Hankins: Yes; Commissioner Kocher: No). Board members did not make findings that the lot’s physical conditions met variance standards; the approval means the applicant may proceed to resolve outstanding building-permit comments with the building department.

The record includes letters of support from the two immediate neighbors cited by the applicant and multiple oral statements by HOA members and residents expressing structural and safety concerns; the board’s action does not alter the HOA’s authority to pursue private remedies related to covenants or enforcement.