Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Code Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends code revisions: remove floating setback footnote, reduce M‑1 front setback and strike 25% expansion language
Summary
The commission voted unanimously to recommend that council remove a floating average front‑setback footnote in Chapter 54, change the M‑1 front setback from 20 to 15 feet to align with R‑1, and strike confusing language limiting expansion of legally nonconforming structures to 25%, asking staff and counsel to draft revised ordinance language.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Code Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At its July 7 meeting the Village of Ruidoso Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to forward three recommended amendments to Chapter 54 of the village land‑use code for council consideration.
1) Remove footnote 3 (floating average front setback) — Commissioners said the footnote’s “average setback” rule had produced inconsistent outcomes and could unintentionally create large setbacks on streets where many older structures sit close to the road. A motion carried to recommend counsel remove the footnote from the code.
2) Change the M‑1 front setback from 20 to 15 feet — After discussion commissioners agreed M‑1 (low‑density mobile home district) should not be more restrictive than R‑1 and voted to recommend the front setback be reduced from 20 to 15 feet; staff will draft amendment language for council review.
3) Strike the 25% maximum expansion language for legally nonconforming structures (section 54‑127 I) — Commissioners and staff found the 25% language ambiguous (unclear whether the percentage applies to the whole structure or only the nonconforming portion) and worried it could allow expansion into nonconforming areas. The commission voted to recommend striking the provision and asked staff and the village attorney to propose clearer language.
Community development staff will draft ordinance language and work with the village attorney to bring the recommendations to council, including notes about whether a public notice period is required. Commissioners requested staff provide background on why the M‑1 front setback had been 20 feet to inform council deliberations.
The recommendations are advisory; any code changes will require council action and, if necessary, a public hearing and notice period.

