Planning commission denies variance request to allow two primary residences at 39 Burrow Bend

On July 16, 2026, the Santa Fe County Planning Commission denied a density variance request from Daniel Weed that would have permitted two primary residences on a 6.01-acre parcel at 39 Burrow Bend.

Staff recommended denial, telling the commission the converted accessory structure was unpermitted and the application did not satisfy variance criteria in the Sustainable Land Development Code (SLDC). "Staff recommends denial of the requested density variance of chapter 8, section 8.6, table 8‑9," Planning staff member Destiny Romero told the commission, noting a prior 2007 application for a similar relief that had been denied by the development review committee.

Weed, the applicant, testified he bought the property in November 2019 and described financial strain from maintaining the parcel. "I'm here at your mercy," he told commissioners, saying the property had been occupied with two livable units for more than 15 years and that he was open to remedies including reclassifying units or subdividing the lot. He urged the commission to consider whether the county had sufficiently enforced a prior denial and said outright removal of the second unit would create severe financial hardship.

Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant on technical compliance and precedent. Commissioner Steve Brugger asked whether code changes since the earlier denial would affect eligibility and criticized duplicative material in the staff packet; staff said the only substantive site change was removal of a yurt and that the project still failed ADU criteria such as size, one‑story limits and shared wastewater systems. Commissioner Dan Pava emphasized available compliance options, including removing kitchen or bathing fixtures in the converted structure or converting the space to nonresidential uses to meet accessory‑structure rules.

Vice Chair Carl Trujillo moved to approve the variance with staff conditions; Commissioner Dan Pava seconded. During the roll‑call vote several commissioners recorded "No" and the motion failed. The chair declared the variance denied. County legal staff and planning staff advised the applicant the decision is appealable to the Board of County Commissioners and reiterated non‑approval does not preclude pursuing code‑compliant alternatives.

The commission did not adopt the variance. Staff advised the applicant to consider the remedies discussed at the hearing, including bringing the structure into compliance as an accessory building and, if warranted, pursuing a density variance with clearer showing of variance criteria. The commission record includes references to SLDC sections relevant to density and ADU standards and to the county practice that denials may run with the land.