Taos County affirms planning commission, denies neighbors’ appeal of 12‑lot family transfer exemption
Loading...
Summary
After a court remand restored appellants’ right to appeal, the Taos County Commission affirmed the planning commission’s approval of a 12‑lot family transfer exemption, rejecting requests from neighbors that the board attach subdivision‑style safety conditions to the ministerial approval.
The Taos County Board of County Commissioners on Jan. 14 affirmed a lower‑body decision upholding the planning director’s approval of a family transfer exemption (FTE) that creates 12 lots on a parcel near Ejosa Heights, denying an appeal by neighboring property owners who sought conditional approval to ensure road, water and drainage safety.
Appellants including Justine Carrier and Zane Bridgers had argued the commission could and should attach conditions to the FTE to protect public health and safety while allowing the transfer. "This is about the vision for Taos County's future," appellant Justine Carrier told commissioners, urging "conditional approval for an FTE lot split to meet public health and safety standards" including water availability, fire mitigation, roads and drainage.
The appellants said the county’s draft comprehensive plan and public materials acknowledge that summary‑plat and subdivision procedures have been perceived as onerous, creating incentives for developers to use FTEs instead. "When misused, [the FTE] allows developers to quickly build large developments, bypassing public process," Zane Bridgers said, urging the body to apply a "substance over form" analysis to identify subdivision‑level impacts.
Applicant testimony and counsel emphasized that the FTE was prepared and approved under existing rules. Mister Abeyta, an engineer who identified himself as an agent for the applicant, said staff reviewed the draft survey and approved the claim of exemption and that engineering work (access road design and arroyo crossing) would be performed if development occurs. Edward Kelly, attorney for applicant Uriel Adame, urged the commission to limit its review to whether the planning commission erred and cautioned that imposing conditions at this stage would amount to making legislative changes.
Planning staff and county counsel told commissioners the remand from district court restored appellants' right to an administrative appeal but did not create a de novo hearing; under the county’s Land Use Regulations and subdivision ordinance (section 11.6), the options for this body are to affirm, reverse, or remand the planning commission with instructions. Staff also noted that while many infrastructure and safety standards (for water, sewage and detailed road design) are enforced at the building‑permit stage, the fire code does impose a minimum access easement requirement (20 feet) that applies regardless of FTE status.
After deliberation in executive session, Vice Chair moved to affirm the planning commission’s Oct. 1, 2025 decision. The motion carried (roll call recorded one "No" and multiple "Yes" votes), denying the appellants' request for conditional approval attached to the FTE. The commission’s action leaves any substantive changes to county enforcement or to the FTE process to future regulatory revisions, which staff said are underway.
What’s next: The appellants retain legal avenues outside this administrative process; staff indicated revisions to the county's land‑use regulations are in progress to address concerns about FTEs and summary‑plat procedures.
