Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Decision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies variance request for Juniper Road carport
Summary
The Village of Ruidoso Planning and Zoning Commission denied a variance request for an attached carport at 177 Juniper Road, concluding the applicant did not demonstrate the extraordinary hardship required for a variance and citing concerns about setting a precedent for M‑1 setbacks.
The Village of Ruidoso Planning and Zoning Commission on July 7 denied a variance request that would have allowed an attached carport to encroach into front, side and corner setbacks at a property on Juniper Road.
Applicant Jim Daley told the commission the proposed carport would attach to his house and extend toward a fence line on Larch Drive, measure about 24 feet along the house and leave roughly 18 feet from the house to the fence line. Daley said the structure would match the home’s metal roofing, would not block traffic views and was sought to protect vehicles from tree debris and sun damage. He brought photos of neighboring properties and a neighbor, David Tetrault, spoke in support.
Community development staff recommended denial. “I do recommend that the case is denied … an extraordinary hardship has not been shown,” staff said during the hearing. Commissioners pressed the applicant on alternatives and the potential precedent that approving the variance could create for the M‑1 district, where many lots are already nonconforming. The chair cited the variance standard, saying that the commission must find that a property’s layout creates an extraordinary hardship beyond ordinary difficulty.
A motion to approve the variance failed on a roll‑call vote: Commissioner Byers voted to approve; Commissioners Hall, McElena, Rigsby (chair), Kelly and Eby voted against. The commission recorded the denial and directed staff to include the stated reasons in the minutes.
The denial leaves the applicant with the option of pursuing a building solution that conforms to existing setbacks or seeking a variance again if they can document a qualifying hardship. The commission also noted that administrative permitting rules for carport beam widths and sight‑triangle standards remain applicable to future applications.
The commission had earlier tabled a different variance (PV‑2026‑05) after that applicant did not appear. The planning commission’s recommendations on code language discussed later in the meeting will go to the council for final action.
