Understanding the Town of Edgewood Zone Map

The discussion of agenda item 8 illustrates the confusion surrounding the town’s zone map as demonstrated during the December 18, 2025 Planning & Zoning Commission’s four hour meeting. Consider it yet another casualty of the transition from a Mayor Council to a Commission Manager form of government. The situation turns on possible missing/mislaid documents, but the real loss is the lack of context resulting from the Planning Office having relied too much on in-house training over the past four years.  

The situation highlights the need for the town to establish a policy of requiring Planning & Zoning employees to either have AICP credentials upon hiring, or to actively pursue certification. The town’s zoning actions affect property owners’ vested right to zoning and this is an area where “almost, not quite, well we forgot to do that” is not acceptable.  

An additional complication is that there seems to be confusion about which Zoning Ordinance rules the establishment or changing of zoning: The default is that it is the Zoning Ordinance in force at the time the zoning was established or changed is the governing ordinance. Therefore, any document search should be conducted using the documents and terminology in use at that time because later ordinances are often amended. Zone Changes granted under older ordinances are not required to be “redone” every time the general provisions of the Zoning Ordinance are changed. However, either the Town or property owners may seek to change zoning for a variety of reasons. Any subsequent changes would be done using procedures from the ZO in force at the time the application is processed.  

The authoritative documents for determining how and when a property was zoned would be as follows:

(1) Official (approved, signed and filed) minutes of the meeting(s) where the zone change and zone map amendment were approved;

(2) Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law* when such findings are included as part of the approval process;

(3) The formal, numbered ordinance recording the zoning and authorizing a change to the Zone Map which is issued as part of a two-step approval process by the Governing Body. This document once approved, signed, and filed becomes a part of the Zoning Ordinance in the manner defined by the Zoning Ordinance in force at the time a zone changed is approved. 

The town’s Zone Map is an official document, but it cannot be considered the final word on the zoning for any particular parcel of land: 

• It is not feasible to update the Zone Map each time a zone change is approved. 
• The map currently displayed on the ToE website dates from 2019, which means that more recent zone changes will not be reflected there. 
• Prior to the 2019 update, the official map in use was dated 2009; the map in use before that date should be in the permanent file of the planning office’s land use documents which, by state law, is supposed to be maintained as a permanent record.   
• In the past, the person in charge of Planning & Zoning matters used to physically alter the map on display in the Planning Office as zone changes took place. In the older versions of the town offices there was also a zone map displayed in the waiting area, but it was both were for informational purposes only.  
• Updated maps are issued only after a meticulous examination of the town’s legal records which is time consuming and expensive. Those official records are in the custody of the Town Clerk, but the Planning Office should also maintain copies for reference purposes. The Mid Region Council of Governments (MRCOG) has done the work in the past using town records to confirm changes.

* For some unknown reason, following the change in the town’s form of government, Town documents summarizing land use matters are now being called “Notice of Decision” which is a term normally reserved for judicial actions. With the exception of the Municipal Judge, town officials’ powers fall under the definition of quasi-judicial. The customary title for findings related to quasi-judicial actions is the cumbersome Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law which are often referred to as “findings” and sometimes abbreviated FoF/CoL.]

Two agendas and the packet for 12/23/2025 Updated

It appears that this event has been cancelled and tentatively rescheduled to Dec. 30, 2025. The first agenda is for the 5:00 pm swearing-in ceremony of newly elected/re-elected town officials. For those who have asked why this takes place before 1 January 2026: State law calls for newly elected officials to be sworn in within a certain number of days following the town’s receipt of the official certifications of election results.  

The second agenda and packet is for the regular 6:00 pm meeting. The items of interest following the consent agenda and departmental reports include:

Item G: which consists of a series of 8 public hearings required to complete several zone changes previously approved by the Town Commission, but for which the Planning Office failed to include the important follow-up of also amending the Town’s official Zone Map. The situation resulted in a situation for property owners akin to a clouded title for a vehicle or real estate. 

Kudos to the town employee who discovered the problem in October of this year and took prompt steps to correct the oversights. Unfortunately, the town incurred more legal fees required for researching the extent of the problem and giving advice on the proper way to correct the situation.  The omission highlights the need for the town to hire qualified employees in all departments. As has been the case for much of the last four years, the new Commission Manager government tried to blame the omission as having been begun during the “The Preeeevioussss Administrashun.” That dog won’t hunt: The blunders first manifested after the change in government.  

Item H: New Business which includes the proposed purchase of new cassettes for the wastewater plant, a change order for the West Venus paving project, and recognition of service for departing Town Commissioner Filandro Anaya. There will also be a discussion and possible action regarding the town’s ongoing problems with meeting IPRA requirements.

Item I: Various legal matters to be discussed during closed session featuring two personnel matters and three of the current suite of lawsuits in which the town is currently involved (Santa Fe County, Campbell Farming Corporation, and Berg et al).  

For those who are concerned about the town’s continuing high legal bills, there are several ways the town can correct the problem by (1) avoiding cronyism and hiring qualified employees, (2) hiring a Town Manager capable of effectively overseeing the activities of each department, (3) electing at least three Town Commissioners who won’t involve the courts in their political differences of opinion, and (4) hiring a legal firm specializing in advising local governments. 

The firm of Robles, Rael, and Anaya served the town well for many years during the tenures of Mayors Calkins, Stearley, Hill, and Bassett. Unfortunately, the first iteration of the Edgewood Town Commission did not appreciate their custom of dispensing prudent legal advice, and so that bridge may have been burned.  

Upcoming Activities: Tuesday January 6, 2026 at 5:00 pm will be an opportunity for the public to meet with Town Commissioners in the meeting chambers at Town Hall.  

Legal status of the Campbell Ranch Master Plan?

A rumor which has circulated in Edgewood for many years without being publicly challenged until recently says that, an unnamed state district court judge on an unspecified date, ruled that the Development Agreement between Campbell Farming and the Town of Edgewood must be followed without modification. I am not the only person who has investigated this assertion, but failed to find any evidence that such a thing ever happened. The question, then, needs to be re-framed: What did happen?  

• In late 2001 and early 2002 following the annexation and subsequent approval of the development agreement, then town council member Robert Stearley, candidate Paul Hoffman, and Linda Sparling considered filing a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the annexation and, by extension, the development agreement. However, the contemplated lawsuit was probably never filed, or may have been withdrawn before being placed on a court schedule. There have been no court records found to date indicating that such a case was ever heard.  
• Following the March 2002 municipal election, Stearley was re-elected, and Hoffman joined him on the town council. 
• Had the proposed lawsuit gone forward, neither Stearley nor Hoffman would have been able to vote on any Campbell Ranch matters such as creation of the Public Improvement District (PID) or subdivision applications. This situation would most likely have resulted in former town council member Donzil Worthington, who had opposed the annexation, voting one way, and Chuck Ring another, thereby allowing then Mayor Howard Calkins to break a tie vote. It was assumed that since both Calkins and Ring were openly supportive of the town assuming responsibility for Campbell Ranch, that their combined two votes would have resulted in approval of any Campbell Ranch matters that might have come before the town. 
• Furthermore, Santa Fe County did file suit challenging the annexation. It was believed at that time that the county had a strong case, making Stearley’s plan redundant. 
• However, Santa Fe County’s challenge to the annexation was eventually denied in state district court on the grounds that the County lacked standing. An appeal was later dismissed for the same reason in July of 2004. Santa Fe County decided against any further appeals.
• The ramifications of the county’s failure to prevail have been misrepresented since that time either through a misunderstanding of the law, or a desire to shape the narrative by making it seem that the denials were affirmations of the annexation and the development agreement.
• When a lawsuit is denied because of a “lack of standing” that is the end of the matter. The Campbell Ranch annexation in 2001 and subsequent approval of the development agreement in 2002 were allowed to remain in place, but without comment as to the merits of either the annexation or the development agreement. 
• If a state district court judge or appeals court had ever issued any additional stipulations beyond dismissals for lack of standing, then there would be some record of the action. However, no record of such an action has been found to date.
• It is possible that the people spreading the misinformation have confused the challenge to the Campbell Ranch Master Plan with the challenge to the approval of the Hillcrest Master Plan which was settled after an out- of-court agreement was reached. The agreement on Hillcrest was later confirmed by a detailed “stipulated settlement order” issued by the judge in that case which took place in late 2003 through early 2004.

What, then is the legal status of the Campbell Ranch Annexation and Development Agreement? 

• Neither has ever been successfully challenged, making Campbell Ranch part of Edgewood, and administration of any future development will be the responsibility of the town. 
• As such, Campbell Ranch has achieved vested right to the master plan zoning category for the property. The assigned zoning cannot be modified without the consent of the owners unless the town were to show cause that a compelling reason exists to revisit the matter. In order to revisit the zoning as Master Plan, the town would have to convene a public hearing under that portion of the Zoning Ordinance governing zone changes. 
• What having Master Plan Zoning does not establish, is vested right to actual development; that comes later in the process and is established through compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance.

Is it possible to change Master Plans once they have been approved?

• The Town of Edgewood’s Zoning Ordinance contains provisions for amending master plans by the Planning & Zoning Commission during a public hearing. An interesting addition to the current Zoning Ordinance’s table assigning responsibilities with regard to land use ordinances would appear to give the Town’s P&Z director power to approve Master Plan amendments administratively. However, the ordinance itself does not describe such an action.  
• Approved Master Plans are modified from time to time, as has been the case for both the Hillcrest and Section 16 Master Plans. 

Town Commission Agenda & Packet for August 26, 2025

The packet can be viewed/downloaded at the town website. With several items listed for the closed session, it may be a long meeting.

Map of the proposed infill annexation [UPDATED]

This map will be part of the town's submission to the Governor's Boundary Commission.  It will be accompanied by a list of specific parcels with legal descriptions; that document has not yet been republished.  If you are checking to see if you are part of the infill, please contact the town office. At this time, it appears that the annexation moratorium which is scheduled to be adopted later this month will prevent the annexation from being finalized until after the March 2016 municipal elections.

[Edited on 11/17/2015 to provide a link to an updated version of the map.]
[Edited on 04/11/2016 with information about the hearing.]

The Municipal Boundary Commission will hold a hearing on Friday, April 22, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in the Edgewood Community Center to consider the Town's request to bring more land inside its boundaries.  A copy of the map showing proposed infill is available at the Town's website. 

Study session announced by the Santa Fe Board of County Commissioners

On Friday, October 9, 2015 the Santa Fe Board of County Commissioners notified county residents that it has scheduled a special study session at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday October 13, 2015.  The announcement of the meeting specifies that no action will be taken.  The following items are on the agenda for presentation/discussion:     

1. Presentation on proposed new Development Review Fee Ordinance
2. Presentation on proposed amendments to the Sustainable Growth Management Plan (SGMP)
3. Presentation on proposed amendments to the Sustainable Growth Management Plan (SLDC)
4. Presentation on draft of 2015 Zoning Map 

The agenda and packet materials are available for viewing/downloading at the county website: www.santafecountynm.gov

Zone Map amendment:

Documents for the March 4, 2015 Zone Map amendment hearing are now available for viewing/downloading at the town website:

• Town map flagged with proposed changes.
• Spreadsheet detailing the history and status of lands identified in the audit (click on the "Zone Map Spreadsheet" link to view or download the Excel file.
• Individual maps showing detailed location of lands identified in the audit.

Copies of the documents pertaining to the Zone Map proposed amendments have also been placed on Drive. 

Council agenda and packet March 4, 2015

The Agenda and Council packet information for Wednesday's meeting are available through the town website.  A copy of the agenda/packet is also available on Drive.
Contents of the packet uploaded as a 22 page PDF:

page 1:   Agenda (This may or may not be the final agenda)
page 3:   Council Minutes for February 18, 2015 (draft)
page 10: Special Council Meeting Minutes for February 23, 2015 (draft)
page 12: Municipal Court Report for February 2015
page 15: Annotated draft Zone Map showing proposed changes
page 16: Resolution No. 2015-03 Municipal Arterial Program funding for Entrada Del Norte (Between NMSR 333 and Walker Road)
page 17: Materials pertaining to a pending modification of an existing facility which is the subject of a Special Use designation:  AT&T Edgewood, NM 1791 Old Hwy Us Hwy 66 #3
Additional documents for the Zone Map amendment hearing which can be viewed/downloaded at the town website:  

• Town map flagged with proposed changes.
• Spreadsheet detailing the history and status of lands identified in the audit (click on the "Zone Map Spreadsheet" link to view or download the Excel file.
• Individual maps showing detailed location of lands identified in the audit.

Copies of the documents pertaining to the Zone Map proposed amendments have also been placed on Drive.