Planning commission denies Chimayo ridge‑top variance, citing terrain rules and erosion concerns

The Santa Fe County Planning Commission voted Feb. 19 to deny a variance request that would have allowed a single‑family residence to be built on a graded ridge top in Chimayo (Case 25‑5200).

David Ruiz, senior plan reviewer, told the commission the applicant requested variances to terrain management standards (SLDC chapter 7.17) to place a residence on a ridge top on a 12‑acre lot at 54 El Potrero Road. The hearing officer and staff recommended denial, saying "approval of the requested variance would not be consistent with the spirit of the SLDC" and emphasizing the general prohibition against ridge‑top construction where other buildable areas exist.

Staff and building supervisors described a history in which a power pole and grading on the ridgeline prompted a notice of violation. John Lovato, building and development supervisor, said staff visited the site, identified lower ‘‘more suitable’’ build locations (including a previously bladed area used for the county water‑tank project) and remained concerned about long‑term erosion and visual impacts to State Road 76 and Juan Medina Road.

Applicant representative Benny Martinez, a licensed civil engineer, said the grading was initially done at the direction of the local electric cooperative to enable access for a power pole and that the applicant later obtained a permit to stabilize the cut. Martinez argued that lower build sites are prone to persistent drainage problems and mud on the county road; he said the property owners had installed erosion control and engaged neighbors in public meetings.

Commissioners asked technical questions about slope, drainage and setbacks and considered whether the lower sites identified by staff would meet setbacks and emergency‑vehicle access. Staff noted the SLDC allows ridge‑top approval only where no other buildable areas exist and recommended denial because the record shows alternative lower sites on the lot.

Commissioner Bruegger moved to deny the variance; the commission seconded and voted to deny the request. The hearing officer's and staff's recommendations were adopted. The denial leaves the applicant with standard appeal options and does not remove ongoing county enforcement authority for any continued noncompliant disturbance; staff noted the applicant had obtained an after‑the‑fact stabilization permit but that revegetation and erosion control remain concerns.

What happens next: the applicant may appeal the commission's denial or pursue design changes to site a residence on one of the lower sites identified by staff and meet SLDC terrain and setback requirements.