Sandoval County reverses Planning & Zoning decision, revives Placitas appeal

On March 11, 2026, the Sandoval County Board of County Commissioners voted 3–2 to reverse a Planning & Zoning Commission finding and restore an appeal filed by Thomas Coulter challenging a special-use zone change for a seven-unit cluster housing project in Placitas.

The reversal came after more than an hour of argument over whether Coulter had standing to appeal and whether prior process and notice to nearby property owners had complied with county rules. Dan Beeman, director of Planning and Zoning, told the board that "the appellant, Mr. Coulter, is not a qualifying party" because his property is "approximately 497 feet" from the proposed site and therefore did not meet the county's 100-foot proximity criterion for standing. Beeman recommended that the board uphold the Planning & Zoning decision to deny standing.

Coulter countered that the county improperly rejected a joint appeal he filed with a neighbor and that Planning & Zoning failed to provide adequate written notice to adjacent property owners. "Our joint appeal filed on November 12 regarding ZNCH 25-005 was an appeal to you, the County Commission. Mister Beeman lacked authority to deny that appeal," Coulter said, arguing the record and precedent (including the Diamond Tail proceedings) showed joint appeals had been accepted in the past.

County attorneys and staff explained the ordinance sets several paths to appeal — property owners of record, property owners within 100 feet (excluding public right-of-way), representatives of governmental bodies and others who can show a special, adverse legal interest — and that prior consolidated hearings had involved individually filed appeals later grouped for convenience. Commissioners questioned whether the measurement should exclude the right-of-way and whether procedural inconsistencies existed between prior cases and this one.

After deliberation, an initial motion to affirm the P&Z action failed. A second motion to reverse the commission's prior ruling carried on a 3–2 vote. The board cited "conflicting understandings" about the distance/standing rules and directed — in discussion — that Planning & Zoning review and clarify its procedures and notice practices.

The action restores Coulter's appeal to the board's consideration under the county's appellate process. The special meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.

What happened next: The board reversed the P&Z decision and the matter will return to the record for the county to reconcile standing and notice questions before further action is taken.