Doña Ana County P&Z tables Anderson casita permit while staff checks decades-old records

The Doña Ana County Planning and Zoning Commission on the morning it heard public comment voted to table consideration of special-use permit SU25-023 for an accessory dwelling at 1895 Casa Fuentes Lane until Dec. 11 so staff can research historic permit records and clarify whether the casita was permitted originally.

Staff planner presentation explained the county found a 450-square-foot casita on the property that was converted without a separate certificate of occupancy and that the unit appeared in short-term rental listings discovered during lodgers-tax enforcement. The planner said staff recommended conditional approval contingent on obtaining a building permit and certificate of occupancy and assessed a triple fee to cover unpermitted construction work.

Nearby residents opposed the permit, saying they bought into a low-density neighborhood governed by protective covenants, conditions and restrictions that they say prohibit separate rentable quarters. Neighbor Jennifer Geiger, who identified herself as the closest resident, said the casita is about 100 feet from her home and that she bought into the area for its single-family character. “We bought our home specifically because it is in a low-density area, and they’re single-family dwellings,” Geiger said.

Other speakers raised public-safety and infrastructure concerns tied to private, unmaintained roads serving the area. A resident described Casablanca Lane as a private dirt road with no county maintenance, wells and septic-service properties, and argued letting the county retroactively legalize a unit used as a short-term rental for years would set a precedent and could increase traffic and security risks.

Applicant Marion Anderson said the casita was originally built to house family members and that the property was designed with the casita shown in the original architectural drawings; she said family use was the intent for most years and that the owners had not understood there was an unresolved permitting issue. “We thought we were all set,” Marion Anderson said, asking the commission to allow staff to research archival records.

Sean Vic, the county building official, told the commission he would search archives to determine whether the casita was permitted at the time the house was approved; if it was permitted together with the house the structure could be considered legally conforming and could negate the need for a separate building permit and associated triple fee. He also described the triple fee calculation as tied to the building-permit valuation (example figure discussed in meeting: an estimated $75,000 valuation and a building permit fee of about $400, then a triple fee assessed on that permit fee).

Commissioner Zurniak moved to table SU25-023 to Dec. 11 at 9 a.m. so staff can research the historical permit file; Commissioner Rangert seconded. The motion passed and the case was continued. The commission asked staff to provide any archival permit documentation at the next hearing.

Next step: SU25-023 is continued to Dec. 11 at 9 a.m.; staff will report back on archival records and whether the casita was permitted with the house or built/converted later.