Planning commission approves Portillo family‑lot split variance despite staff objections

The Santa Fe County Planning Commission on June 18 approved a variance that lets Marcos and Carlos Portillio divide a roughly 2.5‑acre parcel into two 1.25‑acre lots so each brother can build a home. Vice Chair Trujillo moved a “do pass” recommendation after a public hearing that included testimony from the applicants and nearby family members.

Staff and the sustainable land development hearing officer had both recommended denial. Destiny Romero, building and development review specialist, told the commission that staff concluded the applicants had not met the SLDC variance criteria and that “no conditions, regardless of how carefully crafted, can change that non‑compliance.” The hearing officer likewise memorialized a recommended denial on May 14, 2026.

Marcos and Carlos Portillio addressed the commission in person, saying the land was gifted by their grandparents and that splitting the parcel would allow each brother to establish a separate household while keeping the property in the family. Marcos Portillio told commissioners, “We have no intentions of selling these two lots,” and said the goal is to build homes to remain close to family.

Commissioners pressed staff and the applicants on the property’s history, prior family transfers and water access. Romero said the applicants have an approved well permit from the Office of the State Engineer but had not drilled the well pending the variance outcome. Staff also identified a recommended condition that, if the variance is granted, “no further subdivision of the property beyond the proposed two lots will be allowed.”

After questions from multiple commissioners about prior divisions of the larger acreage and how similar family transfers were handled under earlier code provisions, the commission voted in favor of the Portillio variance. The record includes the motion and roll‑call taken on June 18; the commission entered conditions recommended by staff, including the limitation on future subdivision and the requirement to implement the approved well permit process.

Why it matters: The decision departs from staff and the hearing officer’s recommendation and illustrates the commission’s willingness to weigh family history and hardship testimony in close calls on density exceptions. The conditions attached — particularly the requirement limiting further subdivision and the shared well arrangements — will govern how the split is implemented and recorded.

What’s next: The commission’s action authorizes a final order; any conditions must be satisfied before recordation and building permits. Neighbors and other interested parties may pursue additional remedies, including appeals, if they believe procedural or substantive requirements were not met.