Commission conditionally approves 18‑lot Plasuela Village at Picacho Hills after residents cite drainage and safety concerns

Doña Ana County’s Planning and Zoning Commission conditionally approved SD26‑019, the Plasuela (Plasuela Village at Picacho Hills) subdivision, authorizing phase 1 with conditions that the developer meet county lot‑size/code requirements before final plat approval.

Staff presentation: Senior planner Albert Casillas told the commission the 3.809‑acre site in Picacho Hills is zoned D‑3 (high‑density residential) and the preliminary plat proposes 18 lots ranging from about 0.092 to 0.28 acres. Casillas said all utilities would be underground except for solid waste collection; water and wastewater service would be provided by a mutual domestic water association. He said agency review raised only minor comments — principally fire hydrant locations and grading/drainage adjustments — and staff recommended conditional approval pending those corrections.

Applicant presentation and technical responses: Edward Martinez, the project engineer representing the developer, explained drainage improvements including replacement of a failed gabion structure with culverts, regrading, and proposed stormwater ponds sized to meet flood control requirements. He said the project will provide off‑street parking pockets to reduce on‑street parking and described the product as patio homes with two‑car garages. Martinez said the developer will verify lot configurations to ensure compliance with the UDC minimum lot size (4,500 sq ft) or make necessary modifications.

Public comment: More than a dozen residents testified in opposition. Speakers raised recurring themes: the site sits in a low bowl with existing runoff and sediment on the adjacent road, only one ingress/egress exists and emergency access could be constrained, nearby residents worry about errant golf balls because the parcel abuts holes on multiple sides, and a proposed visible parking area and denser patio‑home pattern are incompatible with long‑term neighborhood character. Several residents also questioned why the parcel has remained undeveloped for years and whether the developer’s planned phase 2 (not before the commission) would cause further impacts.

Commission deliberation and motion: Commissioners sought technical clarifications about minimum lot sizes and whether sewer availability influences allowable lot area. Commissioners emphasized that the approval under consideration covered phase 1 only; phase 2 would be subject to separate review. Commissioner (speaker 4) moved to approve SD26‑019 with a condition that the developer meet with staff and ensure lot sizes and other elements comply with code; that motion was seconded and passed on roll call.

Next steps: The approval is conditional. The developer must coordinate with staff to resolve any lot‑size, grading, drainage, and fire‑protection comments and submit a final plat reflecting required changes before recording. Phase 2, where additional access and golf‑course reconfiguration were discussed by the applicant, was explicitly not before the commission in this approval.