Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Setback Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning board rejects variance to place shed in rear setback in Cabezon subdivision

Rio Rancho Planning & Zoning Board · January 27, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Rio Rancho Planning & Zoning Board denied a variance request that would have let an applicant place a 384 sq. ft. shed five feet from the rear property line, citing staff findings that the lot does not have exceptional conditions to justify relief from the 15-foot setback.

The Rio Rancho Planning & Zoning Board voted to deny a variance that would have allowed a homeowner to build a 384-square-foot shed five feet from the rear property line in the Cabezon subdivision.

Planner Michelle Castillo told the board that the request seeks relief from the R-4 single-family residential 15-foot rear setback so the proposed shed would encroach 10 feet into the required setback and would also encroach five feet into a 10-foot public utility easement. "Staff recommends the planning and zoning board find that the lot is not irregular, narrow, shallow or steep," Castillo said, adding that "the strict application of the minimum rear setback of 15 feet would not result in a hardship that would deprive the owner of reasonable use of their land. Therefore staff recommends denial."

After the staff presentation the board received confirmation that the shed had not yet been constructed and that the applicant was seeking permits. A motion to approve the variance was moved and seconded; during discussion Commissioner Koptre asked whether the structure was already built and whether permits had been obtained. The board then called the roll and the motion failed by recorded 'No' votes.

The board did not adopt any conditions to allow the encroachment, and staff noted that any approval would have required the applicant to obtain encroachment agreements from affected utility companies. The denial leaves the 15-foot rear setback in place for the property; the applicant may pursue alternatives, including redesigning the structure or locating it outside the setback and the public utility easement.

No additional appeals or follow-up actions were recorded in the meeting minutes; staff recommended denial and the board's vote implemented that recommendation.