Planning commission approves density variance to legalize five dwellings at 24 Ceramic Court with state and county permitting conditions

The Santa Fe County Planning Commission on Feb. 19 approved a density variance for property at 24 Ceramic Court (Case 25‑5260), allowing the owners to split the 3.271‑acre parcel into two lots and to recognize five existing dwellings that were built largely without county permits.

Marie Martinez, building and development review specialist with the Growth Management Division, told the commission staff and the Sustainable Land Development Code hearing officer had recommended denial of the variance, noting that the base zoning (Res C) allows one dwelling per acre. "The recommendation of staff and the recommendation of the hearing officer based on the evidence presented is for denial of the request to allow a variance of density of chapter 8, table 8‑11," Martinez said during her presentation.

Applicant John M. Timkovich said the family had owned the property for years and acknowledged some structures lacked county permits. "We have no problem with accepting responsibility, and that's what we're trying to do," Timkovich said, describing recent efforts to obtain required NMED approvals and to pursue county permitting to bring the property into compliance.

Commissioners questioned technical issues including liquid waste capacity and whether NMED had approved the existing septic systems for the number of bedrooms on site. Staff said the parcel is served by a single well and four liquid‑waste systems that NMED had reviewed; any subdivision would require the applicants to obtain necessary NMED liquid‑waste permits or amended permits reflecting new ownership and parcel sizes.

After discussion the commission voted to approve the variance with conditions drawn from staff recommendations. The approval requires that the applicant: obtain all required NMED liquid‑waste permits and address NMED concerns; pursue county after‑the‑fact building permits through CID (Construction/Inspections Division), which may require engineering or architectural verification; and comply with the other conditions identified in the staff report. Staff advised that CID and NMED approvals are separate processes and that CID often requires structural review for after‑the‑fact permits.

The commission recorded the motion and a roll‑call vote and approved the variance. The record shows the approval included explicit conditions tying the split to state and county permitting and to the applicants’ completion of required permits and any remediation indicated by inspections.

What happens next: if applicants cannot meet the conditions, they may pursue administrative or appeal options defined by county process. The applicants stated they will work with county staff and the state to obtain required permits and to make any required structural or utility changes.