Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Socorro City Board of Adjustment approves setback variances for 11033 Sunnybrook Lane to allow replat
Summary
The Socorro City Board of Adjustment voted to approve reduced front, rear and side yard setbacks at 11033 Sunnybrook Lane, allowing the property owner to replat a single lot into two lots. Approval was limited to the submitted site plan and conditioned on compliance with zoning for any new construction.
The Socorro City Board of Adjustment voted Aug. 28 to approve a variance allowing reduced front, rear and side yard setbacks at 11033 Sunnybrook Lane so the owner may replat the single lot into two parcels.
City staff described the request as a variance from municipal code section 46-238 (area requirements) — specifically subsections 2(a), 2(b) and 2(d) — to permit a front-yard setback of 5 feet instead of 25, a rear-yard setback of 0 feet instead of 25, and a side-yard setback of 0 feet instead of 5 feet. The planner told the board that the property, currently zoned R-1 (single-family residential), is approximately 40,215 square feet and that the requested relief is necessary for the proposed replat.
"Staff is recommending approval of the variance request ... to allow the proposed replat with the condition that new developments ... be compliant with any and all zoning regulations, including setback requirements," the planner said during the presentation. The planner told the board that because the property is currently a single lot, the variance must be approved before the applicant can proceed with the replat.
Applicant Josefina Contreras spoke in Spanish and described site conditions and past improvements. She told the board she received permission "from here to construct the cement" and said the concrete has been in place since the 1980s; she said she would remove it if the city later installs a sidewalk. Contreras also said the owners paid a surveyor "$5,000 just to measure the land" and that the back portion of the property has separate utility service and a mobile home installed approximately in 2000.
Board members asked whether both proposed lots require identical variances; the planner answered that the property is currently nonconforming and that splitting it into two lots requires establishing setbacks for the newly created lot, which is why the variance is a prerequisite to replatting. To limit future changes, the planner recommended the board approve the variance "as depicted in the site plan that was submitted," a condition the motion adopted.
Board member Marion Cruz moved to approve the variances limited to the submitted site plan and with the staff recommendations; the motion was seconded and carried with no nays or abstentions recorded. The board did not amend the variances; the approval is therefore tied to the site plan presented at the hearing.
Other routine business at the meeting included approval of the June 26, 2025 minutes and a brief procedural item; the board adjourned at 6:39 p.m.
The planner and applicant said the replat cannot proceed without the variance; the board’s vote now allows the applicant to file the replat application consistent with the approved site plan.
