Neighbor Opposition and Fire, Flood Concerns Mark Variance Hearing for Carport at 11 Camino Catalina

The hearing officer took testimony on case 255220, in which Lee and Jacqueline Cordova seek a variance from setback requirements in the Pojoaque Valley Community District overlay to allow an accessory carport or similar structure near the north property line at 11 Camino Catalina to remain.

Destiny Romero, Building and Development Review Specialist Senior for Santa Fe County Building and Development Services, told the hearing officer that the property contains one permitted attached garage and six other accessory structures that staff found to be unpermitted. Staff reviewed the variance against SLDC variance criteria and concluded the facts did not satisfy the required showing of peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties; staff recommended denial of the variance and entered suggested conditions into the record in case the hearing officer nonetheless found grounds for approval.

The applicants were sworn and testified. Jacqueline and Lee Cordova said the house was placed in late 2009 and that several carports and other movable structures were added after purchase; they said prior owners told them permits were unnecessary. They told the hearing officer they would rather mitigate than remove the carport and offered to install rain gutters, rain barrels and other measures and to seek after‑the‑fact permits as required. The applicants agreed to the four conditions listed in the staff report if the variance were approved.

Neighbors opposed the variance. Lorraine Johnson (59 Feather Road) said the Cordova carport is 68 feet long, that the roof overhang extends across the property line by roughly "2 to 4 inches," and that runoff from the roof causes flooding and pooled water on her property. She also said the encroachment lowers her property value and raises safety concerns. Gary Johnson, appearing remotely and identified as the property owner of 59 Feather Road, said his well house has experienced a prior fire within the last decade and that his insurer warned that a subsequent fire could create liability; he described concern that runoff and proximity of the carport threaten the stability and value of his double‑wide home.

The hearing officer explored whether the carport actually overhangs the neighbor’s land and noted a dispute about a survey stake the applicants said is missing. Applicants and neighbors pointed to photographs in Exhibit I; the exact measurement and whether roof overhang crosses the property line remained contested in the hearing record. Staff and the applicants acknowledged the complex procedural posture: even if a variance were granted, after‑the‑fact development permits would still be required for structures over 120 square feet.

Romero told the hearing officer staff’s recommended conditions included: compliance with applicable SLDC and overlay requirements (except as modified by any variance), automatic expiration of the variance within one year unless a plat is filed to implement it, a requirement to obtain after‑the‑fact development permits for accessory structures over 120 square feet, and installation of a rain gutter system on the accessory structure placed at the property line. The applicants said they would accept those conditions and undertake mitigation measures.

Neighbors pressed the public‑interest prong of the variance test, describing the situation as a self‑created hardship and asking the hearing officer to deny the application. Hartstein took testimony, noted the dispute about where the property line and roof edge lie, and closed testimony. He said he will issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law with a recommendation within 15 business days.