Sandoval County commissioners affirm P&Z approval to allow cluster housing in Placitas; appeal denied 3-2

Sandoval County commissioners on Oct. 14 upheld a Planning & Zoning Commission decision to amend a special‑use (SU) designation on a 1.85‑acre parcel in Placitas to allow small‑scale cluster housing, denying an appeal by a nearby neighbor.

Jennica Jacoby, a land‑use attorney with the Rhodey law firm representing appellant Catherine Clark, told the board the P&Z approval was “arbitrary and capricious and in violation of county ordinance” because the commission did not analyze required criteria in the Sandoval County zoning ordinance and the Placitas Area Plan. Jacoby argued the SU parcel historically allowed professional‑office uses and that cluster housing rules limit density to whatever residential entitlement previously existed — which, she said, was none for this site — making the applicant’s proposed density of 3.78 dwelling units per acre unlawful without a proper plan amendment.

“There's no evidence that this property ever allowed 4 dwelling units per acre,” Jacoby said, and she asked the board to reverse the P&Z decision and deny the zone‑map amendment.

The applicant’s representative, Suzanne Spiegle of Spiegle Kinsley Construction, said the amendment is a lawful, case‑specific change that aligns with county policy and the Placitas Area Plan’s infill goals. Spiegle said the proposal relies on an existing SU framework and a conceptual plan, and that technical development work would follow entitlement approval. “This request follows the county's established legal process,” Spiegle said, adding that the site’s shared well had been verified “with a capacity to support up to 12 homes.”

Sandoval County planning director Beaman (Director Beaman) summarized the record for the board, noting the P&Z recommendation to approve came on Oct. 14 by a 5–1 vote and listing conditions attached to that approval: consolidation of the tracts into a single lot prior to permit review; submission of a grading and drainage plan at development/permit stage; New Mexico Environment Department approval for any septic system; exterior lighting that conforms to county code; and documentation of a well approved by the Office of the State Engineer.

Commissioners debated several legal and technical points during deliberations, focusing on whether P&Z made sufficient written findings to support its recommendation, whether the cluster‑housing criteria in section 10 of the county zoning ordinance were adequately applied, and whether the Placitas Area Plan’s infill guidance applies narrowly to the I‑25 frontage or more broadly. Appellant counsel repeatedly said new evidence about infrastructure or the comprehensive plan that was not in the P&Z record could not be considered during this on‑the‑record appeal; staff and other commissioners noted that detailed development reviews (traffic, grading, drainage) are typically handled at the permit stage after entitlement.

After deliberation Commissioner Meek moved to accept the P&Z recommendation to approve the applicant’s requested amendment; Director Beaman seconded. The chair called a voice vote, which was recorded as three ayes and two noes, and the board affirmed the P&Z decision, denying the appeal. The board’s action leaves in place the special‑use amendment permitting cluster housing on the subject parcel subject to the conditions listed by planning staff.

The board did not set additional immediate conditions beyond those existing from the Planning & Zoning approval; any required site development plan, grading and drainage reviews, septic approvals and permits would be completed through routine development and permit reviews. The meeting record shows the board considered jurisdictional history, density calculations and the Placitas Area Plan during deliberations but did not remand the matter for further factual findings.

The meeting adjourned following brief commissioner remarks about process, water, wildlife corridors and community character in Placitas.