Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Bernalillo commissioners deny appeal, uphold approval for large accessory garage

Bernalillo County Board of Commissioners (Zoning) · March 11, 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 board denied an appeal of a conditional‑use approval for a 12,200‑sq‑ft accessory garage at 2526 Viola Drive SW after staff and the board found the site met conditional‑use criteria; the appellant was not present at the hearing.

Bernalillo County commissioners on March 11 denied an appeal challenging a conditional‑use approval that allows an accessory structure larger than 600 square feet on a property at 2526 Viola Drive SW.

The zoning administrator, Maggie Gold, told the board the zoning administrator (ZA) and the board of adjustment had both found the site large enough to accommodate a 12,200‑square‑foot garage, met setback requirements, and could be sited away from adjacent residences so as not to create traffic or safety hazards. Gold said the permit was granted for personal use, not commercial activity, and that both the applicant and a tenant had stated the structure would not be used for business.

The appeal was filed by John Dula (recorded in the application), but the appellant was not present in the chamber. After staff confirmed the appeal papers were in the record, the board heard from the applicant, Conrad Dula, who told the commission the dispute with the appellant was familial and said the proposed building would remain for personal use.

Commissioner Leas moved to deny the appeal and affirm the earlier decisions; the motion passed on a roll‑call vote. The meeting record shows a majority voting to deny the appeal with an abstention noted for one member who declared a conflict earlier in the hearing.

Why it matters: The decision affirms that the county’s conditional‑use review focused on site suitability and neighborhood impacts, and that the absence of the appellant did not prevent the board from ruling on the record. Property owners in R1 zones should note that accessory structures over 600 sq ft may proceed only after conditional‑use scrutiny and that appeals can be decided on the submitted record when appellants are not present.

What’s next: The board’s vote concluded this appeal; the decision can be reviewed through any further administrative or judicial avenues established under county law.