Showing posts with label annexations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label annexations. Show all posts

Saturday, August 27, 2022

Edgewood Incorporation Map: some history and context [corrected & updated]

 

Why do various neighborhood groups in the North 14 area remain so vehemently anti-Edgewood after more than 20 years? Perhaps this photo which shows the original incorporation map will help explain. It could serve as an example of what gerrymandering looks like in practice. The areas which participated in that incorporation vote are outlined in bold black ink. Compare that to the Edgewood boundary map which achieved most of its present outline with the annexation of Campbell Ranch a bit less than three years later in December of 2001. The majority of annexations which took place after 2001, with the exception of Section 32, have been infill which did not substantially alter the boundary map's general outline. The idea that such a small number of people so many miles away should be allowed to dictate land use along North 14 was, and still is abhorrent to many residents in those neighborhoods. 

The vote to annex Campbell Ranch in December of 2001 was preceded by a series of annexations which legal counsel would later instruct the town's officials to refer to as a "bridge" annexation. When asked for the reason, the reply given was because state law does not permit "shoestring" annexations. This admonition was greeted by snickers and catcalls from the audience. The town officials in attendance reserved their amusement for the parking lot. 

The Campbell Ranch annexation was soon followed by a hotly contested town election in March of 2002 which resulted in the defeat of a pro-Campbell slate consisting of two incumbent Town Council members Frank Lasky, Gary Chemistruck, and political newcomer Brad Hill. The alternate slate of candidates opposed to the annexation was composed of council member Robert (Bob) Stearley, P&Z Commissioner Donzil Worthington, and Paul Hoffman.  They won easily in an election which saw a turnout of just over 38% of eligible voters. Stearley and Hoffman joined another Edgewood resident, Linda Sparling, in a lawsuit which sought to nullify the annexation, but their challenge was ultimately denied in State District Court in 2004.  [Correction: the challenge which was denied in state district court was a different, and by that time, the only remaining challenge which had been filed by Santa Fe County. The fate of the Stearley/Hoffman/Sparling challenge is unclear: it may have been dismissed at an earlier date or withdrawn to clear the way for Santa Fe County’s more substantial challenge and also to clear obstacles to Stearley’s and Hoffman’s participation in Campbell Ranch’s business with the town government.]

The 1999 vote to incorporate was taken within precisely curated geographic boundaries which excluded neighborhoods where residents were reluctant to add another layer of government. Later, residents outside the original boundary map watched in dismay as the town annexed more and more territory without considering how to pay for services or accommodate new residents who were ambivalent about the prospect. In both instances, state law is partially to blame: both for allowing such blatant gerrymandering and for favoring number of acres owned rather than number of residents when considering annexation requests. After more than twenty years, most Edgewood residents still view the town government with polite skepticism when they notice it at all.  

The town's first effort at consolidating a confusing checkerboard into a coherent whole was rejected by the Boundary Commission which described Edgewood as reckless and territory-hungry.  The second attempt at an infill annexation was successful. The fact that it was John Bassett whose name appeared on documents finalizing a process begun by his predecessor, Brad Hill, is likely a better explanation for the results of the two most recent town elections than the collective ego of the new town government is willing to admit. 

The principal actors in the incorporation were a group of real estate agents and small-scale developers who were frustrated by Santa Fe County's “performance based” land use criteria which they found difficult to navigate. Like many other largely rural/small town governments, Santa Fe County has since moved to a more traditional land use code.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Muncipal Boundary Commission hearing April 22, 2016

The audio of the meeting is available at the Town of Edgewood website's Agenda Center. The hearing was conducted by the Municipal Boundary Commission, and town officials gave testimony during the hearing. The Commission's decision to approve Edgewood's request for an infill annexation has been appealed. 

Monday, April 11, 2016

Infill Annexation 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. 

Monday, November 9, 2015

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. 


Friday, September 26, 2014

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

Thursday, August 21, 2014

Council meeting of September 3, 2014

"If you're not seated at the table you're liable to find yourself on the menu!"

Please note that there will be two principal agenda items for this meeting, and that it will begin at 6:00 pm instead of the usual 6:30 pm. This is being done in order to facilitate the start-up of building a town hall on Section 16.  The two items which will be dealt with are:
  • Exploration of funding alternatives for a town hall and; 
  • A second attempt an regularizing town boundaries through an infill annexation.  Town residents living in the areas targeted for annexation should be aware that this is not considered a voluntary annexation; rather it is a exercise of the town's police powers for ensuring the health, safety and welfare of citizens. 
What area residents might want to consider with regard to the first item of funding a town hall is that the town council has the power to impose a small amount of property tax which could be used to help pay for the proposed facility without seeking voter approval.  Also, any funding alternative will certainly include borrowing against future GRT revenues for the project.  That, in turn, would mean less money spent elsewhere if the town's GRT income continues to stagnate.

While the mayor has indicated in the past that he objects to citing health safety and welfare by the town when placing conditions on such things as road design standards, it appears that he and the council have no qualms about exercising that power to annex land without the consent of property owners. Any property owners who are annexed in this manner will be assessed property taxes pursuant to the recently approved General Obligation Bonds for building an animal shelter and for the paving of Rainbow, Horton, and Walker roads.  In addition, when the land is annexed, the property owners who are affected need to be aware that their land will have a zone category assigned at some point.  The town has a variety of different residential and commercial zone categories and the differences among them can be significant. 

The town's first attempt at an infill annexation was rejected by former Governor Bill Richardson's Boundary Commission, and that decision was upheld by a panel of New Mexico's Supreme Court.  I expect the proposed infill will be changed somewhat from the first attempt in order to address issues cited in the court's decision, and that it will also include more land. 

The last time the possibility of annexing South Mountain Elementary was raised before the council, the indication at that time was that there are no plans to do so.  However, if the land were to be annexed, Edgewood would then have an elementary school located inside town limits.  And, doing so makes sense in another way because the school is very close to the geographic center of the town.   

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

More about the upcoming council meeting (Cross post from Moriarty-Edgewood Students First)

The final agenda for this week's town council meeting is now available through the town's website. I will also add a copy to the folders on Drive which I maintain for the Information Portal, and will add links to the council packets when they are published. There are no explicit agenda items dealing with schools for this meeting; however, it is possible that one or more members of the governing body may discuss school related issues during agenda items #3 and #4 (matters from the mayor and matters from councilors).  Public Comment is agenda item #8.

There is also a discussion scheduled for agenda item #9 regarding a second attempt at an infill annexation and identification of areas to be included.  This time around, there appears to be more agreement between Edgewood and Santa Fe County about responsibility for roads in the area.  If you live in or near the areas which were included in the first attempt, you might want to follow this. Given the fact that there have been modest but steady increases in the town's income from the gross receipts tax, it is possible that the council may decide the town can add more land this time.

On future agendas:  Another matter which will be of interest primarily to those who live on the east side of Edgewood and the west side of Moriarty is a proposed change to Edgewood's zoning ordinance. In the latest draft version, Section 21 calls out a general location in which "adult themed" businesses would be allowed as permissive uses in areas zoned C-2 east of V-Hill and Williams Ranch Road.  If adopted, this permissive use would apply to lands in that area currently zoned C-2 as well as those which might be rezoned C-2 at some future date. 

I want to emphasize that this is merely a proposal at this time, and the council may decide to identify other locations.  It has been established by the courts that to prohibit such businesses altogether or impose a universal requirement that they obtain a conditional use permit is unconstitutional.  However, municipalities may put certain restrictions on locations and proximity to other land uses.  Section 29 C of the proposed zoning ordinance lists applicable supplementary use standards. There is still work to be done, but I expect the call for a public hearing on adoption of the rewritten ordinances will go out either this month or next.

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Campbell Ranch Page Update:

I've added a link to this exhibit on the Campbell Ranch Master Plan page which I believe was distributed at a town meeting sometime in 2001. The map shows the town boundaries current at that time in yellow with proposed annexations of Campbell Ranch and other lands in turquoise. This document was scanned from a paper version given to me by a former neighbor.  I discovered it filed among other town meeting handouts, but did not find any indication of the date on which this particular document obtained.  However, my guess is that based on papers filed before and after the document it was probably obtained in September or October of 2001.

Note that the areas shown in turquoise are proposed annexations.  The final list of properties annexed on December 3, 2001 may have varied in some respects from this proposal.  The only time indication on the document is Sept. 2001, and there is no indication of who prepared it.  The legend is somewhat misleading as it shows proposed annexations other than Campbell in lilac and Campbell Ranch lands in green while the map itself shows all the proposed annexations in turquoise. 

Friday, July 5, 2013

Annexations and road maintenance:

For those who have contacted me about how to find information on when land was annexed and under what terms, a good place to begin your search might be with two lists of resolutions heard by the Commission on March 25 and May 13, 2000. 

Unfortunately, there are no property descriptions included in the minutes, but the resolution number should help you narrow the field when you ask to inspect or copy documents.  The annexation/zoning resolutions listed in Commission minutes for 2000 include:
  • Resolutions 2000-1 through 2000-14 heard on March 25, 2000
  • Resolutions 2000-16 through 2000-24 which were heard on May 15, 2000.  
Council minutes may contain additional information, but the adopted, signed resolution will be your best source for authoritative information.  There were a number of annexations in subsequent years, so if you don't find what you want in 2000 I would suggest you focus on 2001-2004 and 2007-2008. 

It is important to understand that the town does not automatically assume responsibility for maintenance of roads upon annexation.  Information on when a road was accepted or declined for maintenance entails a search of minutes for separate agenda items regarding applications for town maintenance.  The P&Z Commission typically hears such requests and makes recommendations based on information provided by the applicant as well as staff recommendations about the impact on town resources.  The council makes the final determination on whether or not the town will take over maintenance of roads. 

Saturday, June 29, 2013

Commission packet information for the July 2, 2013 meeting is available:

The Town of Edgewood document archive which had to be re-established following the changeover from the old website to the new now appears to be working properly.  You may view and/or download the information from the P&Z Agenda page at the town website. There is no guarantee of how long this information will remain available, so save the information promptly if you wish to keep it for future reference.