Appellants ask Taos County commissioners to condition family transfer exemption over safety concerns

Appellants told the Taos County Board of County Commissioners on Jan. 14 that a family transfer exemption (FTE) approved administratively should be allowed to proceed only with conditions addressing foreseeable safety impacts.

"We are asking the commission to grant conditional approval of a family transfer exemption application and to consider access-related conditions to mitigate safety impacts with future development," said Justine Carrier, who identified herself as an appellant and neighborhood representative. Carrier told the board concerns include wells going dry, increased traffic, lack of emergency vehicle access, erosion and arroyo crossings and asked the board to require compliance with appendices A through E of the county's subdivision ordinance.

Carrier and several neighbors relied on the county's draft comprehensive plan and a supplemental notebook of exhibits to argue that the FTE process draws lines in the dirt without tying the lot creation to performance standards that a formal subdivision would require. "The misuse of FTEs is having a real impact on the housing market," Carrier said, saying that homes built after FTE splits have been selling at prices far above Taos County's affordability thresholds.

Opposing counsel and the applicant's engineer disputed that the board could or should add conditions at this stage. "These lots are already approved," the agent/engineer said, testifying that staff reviewed the survey plat and approved the claim of exemption. Edward Kelly, attorney for applicant Uriel Adame, said the board's role on remand is limited: "what you're here for is to determine whether the lower body erred in denying their appeal," he told commissioners, warning that imposing conditions tied to approval could amount to changing county zoning rules.

Planning staff explained the legal and procedural constraints: the remand followed a district court decision that restored appellants' administrative appeal rights, but staff and counsel advised the board that under Land Use Regulation paragraph 11.6 the commission generally decides to affirm, reverse, or remand based on the existing record rather than taking new evidence. County staff also confirmed they are revising regulations and have flagged FTEs for review but said enforcement of many safety standards occurs at building-permit stage rather than at the FTE approval stage.

Appellants asked the commission to protect the public health and safety by requiring conditional approval to ensure water availability assessments, engineered arroyo crossings, road and emergency access, and wastewater management before future development occurs. "Conditional approval protects Taos County, it honors the FTE statute, and it resolves a major conflict between parties in a way that grants the applicant's approval and protects neighborhood concerns around safety and performance standards," Carrier said.

The board discussed procedure, allowed limited cross-examination and moved into executive session for deliberation before returning to open session. The commission ultimately voted to affirm the Planning Commission's earlier decision (see "Votes at a glance"), meaning the planning director's administrative approval and the planning commission's affirmation remain in place. The board recorded no immediate requirement to add the conditional measures requested by the appellants; staff told the board the county is working on future regulatory changes for family transfer exemptions.

The matter involved a proposed lot split that planning staff said creates 12 lots on an approximately 25-acre parcel; staff also reported roughly 40'50 family transfer exemptions are processed annually. Appellants said private road maintenance costs already borne by neighbors totaled about $50,000 in recorded receipts and that independent access alternatives exist on nearby roads as shown in the record.