There is nothing new in Edgewood:

There is only the past happening over and over again. I'm skeptical of having Brad Hill oversee the latest round of changes to the town's zoning ordinance, and this old post dating from his tenure as mayor will give you some idea of why.  

What's the latest buzz? We must do something immediately to ease setback requirements!!! In fact, it was Mayor Brad Hill who did just that when he inserted a rudimentary outline of Performance Based Setbacks into the town's 2015 zoning ordinance. However, being a generalist, it fell to Hill's more detail-focused successor to finish the job and to correct the 2015 blunder. RTFM, anyone?  [See Section 25.E. of the Town of Edgewood Zoning Ordinance 2019-03. This latest-to-date version corrects the omission of key language from the R-3 zone category in the 2015 Ordinance, and also fills out the 2015 version of performance based criteria for setbacks.]

The interesting thing is that the Campbell Ranch team is well aware that the option is available, and they presented the concept (without specifying the exact ordinance language) in last year's request to amend the Campbell Ranch Master Plan.  Bottom line is that the people tasked with doing the ordinance revision must be willing to do a lot of detailed reading. They also need to always keep in mind the possibility that unintended consequences may render their changes unusable.

[Edited to fix broken links.]

Read the Ordinance: Putting the cart before the horse?

On September 3, 2013 the Edgewood planning commission scheduled its second review of an application requesting annexation and zoning for a parcel of land described as follows on the agenda:

Request For Annexation, Requesting C-1 Commercial Zoning, for Property Located 1.5 Miles East of State Road 344 on the North Side of Old 66 4 acres. Section 35 T10N R07E

Read the Ordinance: The Hill Family Trust minor subdivision

This application was brought forward for a public hearing scheduled for February 4, 2014 bearing Mayor Brad Hill's signature as trustee, Bradley Hill. However, because of a legal obstacle about which few details have been provided, the planning commission voted to table the application at the request of the applicant's agent. (Draft commission minutes for February 4, 2014 as found on p. 20 of the council packet for February 19, 2014)

It does not appear to have occurred to either the commission or the town staff that the new minor subdivision process approved eight months earlier made no allowance for tabling a matter; rather the ordinance specified that a final determination be made within sixty (60) days of receipt of the application.  (Subdivision Ordinance 2005-14 amended June 5, 2013; Section 6.C.2.)  In August 2014, that ordinance was repealed and replaced by Subdivision Ordinance 2014-03. If this or a similar application should be brought to the commission again, the newer ordinance would apply, but both versions of the ordinance direct the commission to make a final determination within 60 days.  

Upon reviewing the documents in the application which were obtained via an Inspection of Public Records Act request, I noticed several omissions in the staff report which led me to conclude that advertisement of the public hearing was premature, and to attempt to bring this information to the attention of the planning commission:

1.  The plat submitted with the application failed to specify the width of the road which was proposed for access to two of the proposed three lots. [It appears that it was questions about ownership of the road easement which resulted in the tabling of the application.]

2.  The staff report failed to note that this road lacked a culvert at the bottom of a draw, and that the turnaround located beyond the draw which would potentially be needed for emergency response vehicles lies on private land.

3.  The staff report failed to address the applicant's request for a waiver on soils analysis even though the town has on record information about septic tanks having failed on properties directly to the east and to the north of the proposed subdivision. [Planning Commission minutes for April 16, 2007.]

Despite my having followed the town policy as stated on the February 4, 2014 agenda regarding the submission of written comments, Town Administrator and Planning Director, Kay Davis McGill, instructed the planning commission to ignore these questions as well as documentation submitted regarding this application. 

Read the Ordinance: July's R-2 zone district fumble

        When Councilor John Abrams expressed his opposition to the proposed elimination of the R-2 (Residential 2-acre) zone category in the new zoning ordinance during the July 2, 2014 council meeting, the situation devolved into the squabbling which has become a regular feature of town council meetings.  Instead of providing a substantive response to Abrams' questions, the mayor chastised him for not having spoken up earlier.  In fact, Abrams did raise objections at the April 12, 2014 town meeting.

RTO: Read the ordinance!

The Town of Edgewood's misguided attempt to use its zoning ordinance to thwart placement of a preschool at the former Edgewood Elementary School campus caught my attention when I learned about the situation through a post on the Moriarty-Edgewood Students First Facebook page.  What happened?