Corrales Village council asks staff to study alternatives to proposed lot-coverage cut after hours of public comment

The Corrales Village Council directed staff on Tuesday to study alternatives to a proposed ordinance that would lower residential lot coverage from 35% to 25%, after a packed public-comment session that produced passionate arguments on both sides.

Supporters said the change would protect the village’s rural character and neighborhood open space; opponents called it an overbroad regulatory taking that could reduce property values and spur legal challenges. After hearing from 23 people in the public-comment period, the council voted to ask the village attorney and staff to return with proposals that could include a floor-area-ratio (FAR), clustering, or other mechanisms rather than (or in addition to) a flat percentage cut.

Why it matters

The draft ordinance grew out of the village’s comprehensive plan, which recommended exploring ways to preserve open space in neighborhoods. Proponents — including long-time residents and the comprehensive-plan committee chair — said a 25% maximum would keep more land open for agriculture, viewsheds and wildlife while aligning with recent village priorities such as farmland preservation. Opponents, including local builders and landowners, said the reduction is a blunt instrument that can penalize property owners who purchased land expecting existing entitlements and that it provides weak technical justification (no broad flooding or drainage crisis was cited at the meeting).

What people said

"I respectfully request that you consider reducing the maximum lot coverage from 35% to 25%." said Carmen Martinez Tipman, a Corrales resident, urging the council to protect small building footprints and open landscapes in line with the comprehensive plan.

Developer and landowner Aaron Cook argued the rule change lacked a technical basis such as drainage or flood control and warned it "will spur legal action" if it reduces vested development potential. Gary Bennett, a longtime builder, called the proposal "a regulatory taking" and urged alternatives such as design standards.

Planning and zoning and committee context

Chris Allen, chair of the comprehensive-plan review committee, said residents repeatedly voiced a desire for a greater sense of open space in their neighborhoods during more than 50 public committee meetings and a survey of about 2,000 respondents. He described two broad approaches considered by the committee: reducing the percentage of impermeable surface (the 35% → 25% change) and clustering buildings on a portion of the lot to preserve viewsheds. Committee members and staff acknowledged that question 19 in the early survey showed limited support for this exact numeric change (about 20% supported the specific reduction) but said the later, broader public-input process shaped the committee’s recommendation.

Staff clarifications and technical points

Village administrator Lori clarified technical points raised during public comment: gravel and crusher fines are considered permeable by engineering standards and thus are not counted as "impervious" surfaces; the village tries to catch retrofit paving issues through permit review and code enforcement. Lori also gave examples of recently permitted large homes that show how a lower percentage does not necessarily prohibit big houses, and warned that percentage-only changes can push construction vertically (two-story homes) rather than preserving open space.

Council action

After debate, councilors amended a motion to broaden the study to "reduced lot coverage or other mechanisms such as floor-area-ratio (FAR)" and approved directing the village attorney to research options and return with refined proposals and a recommended process for community review. The amendment passed on a roll call (Olman: yes; Knight: no; Alenbrook: yes; Bquette: no; Murray: yes). The final direction to staff also passed by majority vote.

Next steps

Council asked staff to consult planning and zoning, analyze comparable tools used by nearby jurisdictions (including FAR tables used in Los Ranchos and elsewhere), and return with draft options and a proposed timeline for further public discussion, likely via a work study session and subsequent hearings. No ordinance change was adopted at Tuesday’s meeting.

Correction and local naming

In this article, the village name is standardized to Corrales Village to match official usage; the transcript contained inconsistent spellings.