Совет Рио-Ранчо разрешил строительство домов на участках шириной 50 футов вопреки протестам жителей

LOCAL GOVERNMENT Rio Rancho upholds narrow-lot home variances Council voted to let two single-family homes move forward on 50-foot-wide lots despite residents’ pushback RIO RANCHO — The Rio Rancho Governing Body on Aug. 13 upheld a Planning and Zoning ruling that allowed single-family homes to be built on two 50‑foot-wide lots. District One Councilor Deborah Dapson was the only one to dissent, while District Five Councilor and Deputy Mayor Karissa Culbreath was excused from the meeting. Current zoning rules for the area, located in Rio Rancho Estates, state lots should be 60 feet wide, but P&Z approved variances allowing two homes to be built on 50‑foot lots. Rebecca Smith, a Rio Rancho resident, filed an appeal on that decision on the basis of whether the owners of the two lots had shown a legitimate hardship under the city’s variance standards. “I am not asking the board to prevent anybody from buying or selling property … My question is what effect the city’s overlay ordinance had on these lots while they were under common ownership and whether the current applicant has actually established the hardship required for a variance,” said Smith. Under Rio Rancho's Code of Ordinances, a legitimate hardship requires a noteworthy physical condition of the property itself that prevents any reasonable use of the land. This includes, but is not limited to, an exceptionally irregular shape, narrow width, shallow depth or steep slope. Smith argued that the applicants did not meet the legal standard for a variance and that the situation was self‑created, not a true hardship. She also claimed that the two lots were held together under the same owner from 1973 to Dec. 4, 2025, and therefore should have been treated as one larger piece of land, not split. The lots were purchased on the same day, and both variance applications were filed on the same day and time, on May 1. For one lot, CLI Properties is the owner, with Solano Builders as agent. For the other lot, Solano Builders is itself the applicant, according to agenda documents. For Smith, that looked like a coordinated strategy to avoid consolidation but still get two separate buildable lots and stressed that it is effectively the same builder driving both variances. “This is not simply two unrelated applications involving two unrelated developers,” Smith said. A representative for the property owner, Diana Rivera, disputed Smith's claim. “It has nothing to do with them being related or the same, or having common ownership of the lots or the companies being two completely (different) companies. They have nothing to do with each other, and they were applied for at the same time because it was easier to do the process together,” Rivera said. Another Rio Rancho resident, Vera Utara, whose house is next to the lots, also spoke up against the development of the land, citing concerns over how the building will affect her property. She framed the hardship as the builder’s choice, not an unavoidable consequence. “It’s not a hardship for this guy because he bought both the lots to begin with … he could build on the two; he has a big, expensive, lovely custom house … so he could still make money, so he does have options,” Utara said.