Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Santa Fe County asks hearing officer to uphold nuisance violations at 30 Camino Obajo
Loading...
Summary
At an informal county hearing, a Santa Fe County official presented photos and notices showing long-standing trash, collapsed structures and illegal power connections at 30 Camino Obajo and asked the hearing officer to uphold nuisance violations; occupant Jesslyn Sandoval said she is trying to clean up while a prospective purchaser, Cherry Thomas, said abatement has begun and she will close in about 90 days.
Santa Fe County asked a hearing officer on April 3, 2026, to uphold findings that the property at 30 Camino Obajo has remained in prolonged violation of the county’s nuisance ordinance after a county presenter described photographs and inspections showing trash, derelict vehicles, structural collapse and an RV illegally connected to power.
The county presenter said quick-claim deeds (exhibits C and D) list Edward Martinez as the owner and that there was no current deed showing Jesslyn Sandoval as owner. He introduced Exhibit E (dated 10/09/2025) and said photographs from that and subsequent inspections showed inoperable cars on jack stands, refrigerators and pallets, broken windows, an accessory building that had partially caved in, and interior adobe walls and support beams that were failing. “The conditions on the property continue to endanger the public health and safety,” the presenter said, and asked the officer to authorize abatement and recovery of costs under the county’s nuisance-abatement and lien provisions.
The hearing officer, explaining procedure, told parties the county bears the burden to prove a violation by a preponderance of the evidence, that each side may make a 20-minute opening statement, and that he would issue a decision within five days. He cited Ordinance 2023-04 and Resolutions 2024-118 and 2024-156 as governing the hearing process.
Jesslyn Sandoval, sworn as a respondent, acknowledged receiving county letters but said one had been opened by a brother before she saw it. She said she lives in the main house and has tried to remove other occupants through magistrate court but that enforcement by the sheriff did not occur as she expected. “I honestly am. I’m a very emotional person, but I have forces working against me,” Sandoval said, adding she is attempting to clean the property but that progress has been slow.
A prospective purchaser, Cherry Thomas, told the hearing she plans to close within about 90 days and that abatement work had already begun. Thomas said cleanup began “on the fifteenth,” that the front gate and parts of the property have been cleared, and that she intends to obtain permits and complete removal and repairs within about six months.
The hearing officer said photographs shown at the hearing were not entered into the record during testimony but could be submitted separately for the record. The officer closed the informal hearing and reminded parties he would issue a written decision within five days.
The record submitted at the hearing includes a sequence of notices and inspections cited by the county (initial notice in October 2025, certified mail acknowledged 10/31/25, additional inspections on 01/22/2026 and 01/23/2026, photographic updates in March 2026, and a public notice posted 04/03/2026). The county requested authority to remove hazardous structures and recover costs from the property owner if the violation is upheld. No formal vote was taken at the hearing; the officer’s forthcoming written decision will determine any enforcement action.
