Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Case 255220 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies after‑the‑fact setback variance for Cordova carport amid neighbor safety and boundary dispute
Summary
The commission denied Lee and Jacqueline Cordova’s after‑the‑fact variance (case 255220) for a carport built near a property line, following staff and hearing-officer recommendations to deny; neighbors cited flooding, fire risk and a boundary-by-acquiescence claim, while the applicants offered mitigation but the commission voted to deny.
The Santa Fe County Planning Commission voted to deny case 255220, an after‑the‑fact variance request by Lee and Jacqueline Cordova seeking approval for a carport located within 1 foot of a property line in the Powayake Valley Community District overlay.
Staff presented the case, noting the property contains one residence and multiple unpermitted accessory structures; a licensed survey showed parts of the carport and overhang lie within inches of the surveyed property line. Staff and the sustainable land development hearing officer recommended denial because the applicants did not meet the SLDC variance criteria.
Applicants Jacqueline and Lee Cordova testified they believed a permit was not required because the house had been permitted, that the carport does not cross the neighbor’s lot and that they were willing to mitigate (gutters, rain‑capture, cut back overhang or a fireproof barrier). Neighbors Lorraine and Gary Johnson testified in opposition, submitted photos and measurements alleging roof runoff causes flooding on their mobile‑home property and that the carport creates a fire‑safety risk; they also raised a legal claim that a longstanding fence line fixes the boundary by acquiescence.
County counsel and staff explained the agency’s reliance on the licensed survey and noted that boundary‑by‑acquiescence and similar titles claims typically require court action to supplant a recorded professional survey. After discussion the commission moved to deny the variance in accordance with staff findings and the hearing officer’s recommended order; the motion passed on a roll‑call vote. Staff told the applicants the denial order will be prepared, the applicants may appeal to the Board of County Commissioners within the applicable period, and if appeals fail the applicants must modify or remove the structure or otherwise achieve compliance through permitted routes.
