Corrales council gives owner until March 31 to finish cleanup at 744 Old Church Road

The Corrales Village governing body on Jan. 27 voted to give co‑owner Jose Silva until March 31, 2026, to complete cleanup of 744 Old Church Road under Resolution 25‑26, the village’s nuisance abatement order.

The council’s decision followed a quasi‑judicial hearing at which Code Enforcement Officer Dennis Deal outlined enforcement history and recent walkthrough findings and at which the owner’s representative, Kimberly Delaney, testified that much of the property already has been cleaned and that Mr. Silva has spent about $58,000 on remediation.

Why it matters: Neighbors testified that remaining vehicles, a dilapidated trailer and stacked wood and tires pose a fire and public‑health risk; the council’s extension includes specific conditions intended to reduce those hazards and to give the village legal authority to act if the order is not met.

At the hearing, Mayor Fred Hashimoto read the scope of the proceeding and reminded parties that, because the matter is quasi‑judicial, testimony must be relevant to whether the village should enforce, rescind or amend Resolution 25‑26. "The scope of this proceeding will be limited to whether or not the council should uphold the resolution, rescind the resolution, or grant Mr. Silva additional time to complete the cleanup of the property," Hashimoto said.

Dennis Deal, the village’s code enforcement officer, summarized a Jan. 22 walkthrough with Planning and Zoning Administrator Lorie Stout and Officer David Chavez. Deal listed remaining items including two accessory structures that exceed Corrales’s 120‑square‑foot unpermitted‑structure threshold, a small number of inoperable motor vehicles and two recreational vehicles. He said organized piles of construction material remained but that much debris and an earlier large pile of tires had been removed. "The site looked like it was in the process of being cleaned and in areas it was already clean," Deal told the council, while noting the two oversized sheds and remaining vehicles still needed resolution.

Kimberly Delaney, who said she appeared as attorney‑in‑fact for Mr. Silva, read from a written statement and denied several claims made at an earlier meeting, including that there had been widespread squatting and that rodent problems originated on the Silva property. "The statements made during the October 28th meeting were based entirely on hearsay and should not have been published," Delaney said. She provided receipts and said she had records for rented equipment, dumpsters and workers; she also told the council she had been unable to locate a septic‑permit record despite repeated inquiries to relevant offices.

Neighbors who spoke during the public‑comment portion acknowledged substantial progress but urged a clear, enforceable deadline. "It’s not perfect. It’s not done," said neighbor Chris Wiggins, who asked that remaining vehicles, the trailer and a large lumber pile be removed before spring fire season. Pamela Whitney told the council she worried that remaining tires and vehicles could fuel an intense fire that would produce toxic smoke and potentially force partial evacuations. "We care about the safety," Whitney said.

Council discussion centered on how long to give the owners and what conditions to impose. Several councilors suggested 30 to 60 days would be enough given recent progress; Deal recommended a firm extension but said 90 days is typical for major nuisance abatement work. After closed‑session deliberations for legal advice, the council voted to extend the compliance deadline to March 31 and directed the village attorney to prepare a written decision for formal adoption at the Feb. 10 meeting. The decision will include conditions that, as discussed at the hearing, must be met for the village to rescind the clean‑and‑lean order: removal or permitting of the two oversized sheds, removal or lawful storage/screening of remaining inoperable vehicles (with a narrow exception discussed for a valued classic car), relocation of railroad ties/large wood piles away from neighboring fences, prohibition on habitation of RVs or accessory structures, and correction of any other outstanding code violations listed by the code enforcement officer or in Resolution 25‑26.

Mayor Hashimoto and council members also noted the property owner’s right to appeal: the owner must notify the governing body within five days of the governing body’s formal decision if he intends to appeal, and then may petition the district court within 20 days of that decision.

The council directed Municipal Attorney Ken to draft findings and the ordered conditions and to return the written order to the council for formal action on Feb. 10. If the owner fails to meet the conditions by March 31, the council said the village may exercise enforcement remedies set out in the original resolution, including hiring contractors to complete cleanup and placing a lien for costs, as allowed by the resolution and applicable statute.

The council adjourned after the roll‑call vote approving the motion.