Campbell Ranch update

EMPAC and Bernalillo County have filed a motion to intervene as interested parties in Campbell Ranch’s suit against the Town of Edgewood. Campbell Ranch filed suit in State District Court after the Edgewood Town Commission vacated the Planning & Zoning Commission’s approval of a “minor subdivision.”

Edgewood in the News: Campbell Ranch Subdivision Denied

Kevin Hendricks’ article summarizing the July 24, 2025 appeal hearing provides good information about the hearing itself as well as some history and context of the subdivision application. 

Providing news coverage of issues relevant to the East Mountain region of New Mexico is difficult, and many of the issues facing individual residents and local governments are complex. If you are looking for a more efficient way of keeping up with a variety of current events, the nm.news subscription page is a good place to start.  

Page Update: Campbell Ranch

I have updated the Campbell Ranch page to incorporate dates with brief descriptions of the latest decisions by Edgewood’s Town and P&Z Commissions. You will find a link to the Order of Decision signed on July 31, 2025 posted at the Town of Edgewood’s website. I would encourage anyone who wishes to keep a copy for future reference to save the document promptly as content at the town’s website tend to appear and disappear without notice. 

This usually happens after elections make significant changes in the makeup of the governing body as newly elected town officials often try to leave their mark on the website in the mistaken belief that the changes will be easy. Given that four of the five Town Commission positions will be on the ballot in November, expect more changes following January 1, 2026. Save any town documents of interest before that date. I have posted a summary of the decision in an earlier post.  

Campbell Ranch Notice of Decision (dated July 31, 2025)

Edgewood has issued a Notice of Decision following The Town Commission’s hearing on the appeal of P&Z’s second approval of a Campbell Ranch request for a “bulk plat subdivision.”

The Town Commission granted the appeals filed by opponents of P&Z’s decision, and reversed and denied P&Z’s May 15, 2025 subdivision approval. Taken as a whole, the document is a clear indication for a review of the Planning and Zoning department’s policies and procedures which needs to be followed by corrective actions. The problems began with the town staff’s failure to correct obvious deficiencies in the application prior to submitting it to The P&Z Commission on November 21, 2024. 

The Town Commission issued several findings: 

• The  application was not consistent with the 1999-R Subdivision Ordinance’s requirements on platting, infrastructure, and water supply.
• The application was not consistent with the 2001 Development Agreement, or current Zoning Ordinances, and the Applicant has not established vested rights which would exempt it from current regulations. 
• The record as presented to the Town Commission was incomplete and deficient. 
• [With regard to P&Z’s approval,] there were procedural irregularities, and required findings were absent.  

The Town Commission also issued a series of requirements for any future applications which must: 

• Comply fully with relevant portions of 1999-R (or any successor ordinance in effect at the time of the application).
• Provide clear and convincing evidence of adequate water supply, infrastructure, and compliance with Master Plan and Zoning Ordinances.
• Be supported by a complete and reliable record. 
• Include all required documentation and public input. 

Results of last night’s appeal hearing:

The 4-0 vote to uphold the appeals and deny the subdivision application appears to have concluded this particular application. [Commissioner Milligan recused himself and did not participate.] However, the vote still needs to be ratified by approval of meeting minutes and findings of fact/conclusions of law before the appeal window officially opens. For some reason, the town continues to state that the appeal window opens upon taking the vote. However, an aggrieved party might very well argue that since the record is not complete until those documents are approved and signed, a court may find that the window within which an appeal may be filed should be extended accordingly.

While there were statements offered during the hearing to the effect that this matter would go to court “no matter what” that outcome is not certain. If the applicants’ legal advisors believe that the town’s decision is legally defensible, they may advise foregoing that option. In this or any instance, denial of an application need not be the end of the matter. The applicant is always free to return with a new or revised application which addresses the reasons for the previous denial.  

What I do expect to happen is that there will soon be a call for substantial revisions to the town’s Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. This could be a good thing (or not) depending on how the process works out. No ordinance is ever perfect; they can and should be reviewed as needed. However, the best use of ordinances is to consider them a road map designed to achieve certain goals. In the past, Edgewood has made reactive ordinance changes in response to a particular situation which ultimately served to turn the ordinance from a road map into a straitjacket. The prime example of this is the history of how so-called minor subdivisions are treated in the various iterations of the Subdivision Ordinance we have seen since 1999.  

Today’s special meeting on the Campbell Ranch subdivision appeal hearing.

I don’t see any updates or changes to the packet or schedule at this time. The meeting still appears to be scheduled for 3:00 pm, but I see that the YouTube placeholder thumbnail says 4:00 pm.  I’ve looked at the options for overflow viewing, and the town has made some attempt to accommodate the public. 

Whether or not it is adequate is another matter. The town has had at least since July 2, 2025 when notice of the hearing was posted to adjust the schedule. Did no one in the Planning Office think to consult the town calendar to see if the overflow room was available either then or since? Why was notice that the room would be unavailable posted only this week? 

The town’s planning director, Brad Hill, frequently cites his past work experience at the NMAG’s office when instructing the public, the Town Manager and the Town and P&Z Commissions on matters pertaining to to Open Meeting Act compliance. It appears that the town is relying on his expertise for managing this hearing as well. 

Campbell Ranch Appeal Hearing Packet Updated

Update: A regular reader of the blog forwarded a link to a town social media account post which reads as follows:

Due to summer youth programming, overflow room is not available for 7/24 Quasi-Judicial Hearing. Hearing to be livestreamed, free Wi-Fi (ECL) is obtainable from Town Hall parking area, if needed. Livestream: https://www.youtube.com/@thetownofedgewoodnm/streams

The town has also limited comments on its post. First Amendment as filtered through the Town of Edgewood’s recently adopted social media policy?

The town has posted a packet for the upcoming July 25 appeal hearing before the Town Commission. Its contents are minimal and more distinguished by what is absent than present.

Factors to consider when attending or watching the hearing:

• There is no staff report in the packet as it exists at the time of this post; therefore, if one is not provided before the meeting it will be important to attend carefully to Mr. Hill’s presentation. Look for the proportion of rhetorical elements v. logical elements in his presentation. Will his presentation be balanced, or does its structure imply intention for guiding the Commission’s decision making process into a particular outcome? 
• Generally speaking, politicians (when considered as a group) often respond best to rhetorical appeals while courts tend to rely more logical elements. However, there are legislators who do respond to logical appeals. Judges may be swayed by rhetoric, especially in cases where the relevant facts offer no clear path to resolution. The challenge in the present situation will be to balance the short term goal of convincing the Town Commission with the longer term goal of introducing evidence which will convince a State District Court Judge.  
• The abysmal failure of the ghost “Save South Mountain” PR campaign served only to highlight the fact that there is little, if any, interest in Campbell Ranch on the part of Edgewood residents. The so-called hoax emails did serve to put the spotlight on town employees and the latest version of Edgewood’s economic development committee.   
• The focus of the recent joint meeting of the Town and P&Z Commissions highlighting how, when, and under what circumstances approved master plans may be modified hints at behind the scenes maneuvering.  
• The letter written on behalf of Campbell Corporation, which is included in the packet, recalls the tone of the Edgewood Town Council meeting of July 21, 2004. 

Subdivision Appeal Hearing July 24, 2025 at 3:00 pm

A letter dated July 2, 2025 has been posted at the Town of Edgewood website. It lays out the procedure for the Campbell Ranch subdivision appeal hearing which is advertised as a quasi-judicial public hearing. At the time of this post, the meeting is scheduled for Thursday July 24, 2025 at 3:00 pm in the meeting chambers at Edgewood Town Hall.  

For more information on public hearings, see the Public Hearing FAQ page listed in the header under the blog title. 

Edgewood P&Z conjures something from nothing?

Last night’s P&Z remand hearing managed to achieve two things during a meeting lasting more than six hours: (1) A bulk plat land division mechanism was conjured from a long outdated ordinance in which no such process exists. (2) The Commission's lack of understanding of land use issues was displayed in excruciating detail. 

This prodigy sprang fully formed like Athena from Brad Hill’s side during the hearing. The staff report appears to be nothing more than series of opinions dressed up as immutable legal facts, it was unveiled at the last minute, and it was swallowed whole by the Commissioners. The vote was unanimous; no conditions attached. In choosing the least defensible of the options available to it, the Commission has all but guaranteed that resolution will take years. 

Campbell Ranch Minor* Subdivision Hearing Scheduled for May 15, 2025

The Town Commission remanded the November 2024 “minor” subdivision approval to the P&Z Commission with a list of items which it wants addressed. Based on the meeting packet posted at the ToE website, it looks as though the public notifications have been done more systematically this time. 

*There really is no such thing as a minor subdivision. Subdivision approval (along with the required schedule for construction of improvements) is the point at which zoning concepts become reality. The road to substandard development usually begins with lax subdivision regulations. In Edgewood, calls for allowing/expanding minor subdivisions start off with tear-jerker anecdotes about grandma and grandpa gifting land to family members. The reality? More often it’s a developer trying to cut costs. 

Appeal hearing March 6, 2025

Here is a link to yesterday’s public hearing following which the three governing body Commissioners who were present voted to remand Campbell Ranch’s application for a “minor” subdivision to P&Z for reconsideration.  

Several comments suggested by the testimony and cross-examination:

Like the appellants, I have been puzzled by the Town’s attempts at merging a quasi-judicial public hearing with an appeal which, in this circumstance, should have been advertised solely as an “appeal of record” hearing as stipulated in the town’s own ordinance. 

It appears that someone on town staff is trying to use the “quasi-judicial” umbrella incorrectly. Regardless of intent, the result has been that public input in this matter has been hindered.  

Quasi-judicial hearings are not mysterious, nor to they require “deciders” to live in a sack prior to hearings. The New Mexico Attorney General’s office provides free training and reasonable suggestions on how to comply with IPRA/OMA statutes. 

The town’s failure to properly distinguish between a quasi-judicial hearing and an appeal of record hearing did a disservice to the Town, its P&Z Commission, the Appellants, and not least to the original Applicant. 

Because the procedure followed yesterday after the closing of testimony was to (1) state a motion, (2) conduct deliberations, and then (3) go to a vote I would suggest that, in future, the presiding officer ask the Clerk to restate the original motion immediately prior to the roll call vote. This ensures that those voting are voting with a clear recollection of the original motion; it is especially important when a hearing is controversial, or when the original motion has been amended. 

If it is true that there were delays in P&Z officers signing paperwork after the November 2024 hearing, then it needs to be made clear that in the past, P&Z commissioners were expected to be available to make a quorum, and that in order to serve as an officer, their also being available to promptly sign paperwork following public hearings was expected. 

This was routine practice when P&Z Commissioners served on a volunteer basis, and also later when they were given a stipend to cover printing, and mileage costs. Those former expectations should be requirements now that the town is paying salaries.  

In fairness to Brad Hill, he was speaking without having time to consult notes; however, he offered testimony on several items which I believe to have been incorrect:

1. He appears to have conflated those who are entitled to give testimony with those who are entitled by town ordinance to receive written notice of applications which are going to appear before the P&Z Commission. 
2. If the P&Z Commission is limiting testimony to only those entitled to receive written notice of upcoming hearings, then that is a new policy put into place after December 31, 2021
3. I can state from personal knowledge that prior to 2022 the town’s P&Z Commission relied upon training which was very clear in advising that any person claiming to be an “aggrieved party” be allowed to offer testimony, and that the Commissioners could then filter the testimony as needed.  It was customary to allow those entitled to receive written notice to testify first, but I do not remember any attempt to limit testimony to only those persons. 
4. My recollection of Mr. David Henderson’s of advice to the town’s former Mayors and Councilors as well as to its P&Z Commissions is in conflict with Mr. Hill’s recollection. My primary recollection is of Henderson in a particularly controversial Zone Change hearing citing examples of case law and stating that the safest practice for the town was to allow all those wishing to offer testimony to do so. This was suggested in order to protect the town’s interests in case of an appeal. 
5. If Hill’s recollection that a former town counsel ever gave the advice he described at the hearing, I would suggest that it may have come from someone other than David Henderson. The town has gone through several legal firms since 1999.
6. The limitations placed on this relatively liberal policy have, in the past, been that repetitive testimony need not be listened to at length, but people who wish to do so should be allowed to enter a brief statement for or against an application and the grounds for their statement. 
7. During the years when the town’s legal counsel came from Robles, Rael, and Anaya they offered the same advice. 

These matters are (or should be) included in Land Use 101. People cycle in and out of town government regularly; the land use issues are more durable and the town needs to do better at handling transitions between elections. I find it troubling that after more than 25 years, errors such as those observed and described in yesterday’s hearing are still allowed to occur. It appears, that the 2022 form of government reset has also wiped the town’s 25 year history of land use matters; if this is the case, then retrieval of missing land use documents and re-training in OMA/IPRA compliance needs to be made a top priority. The preservation of documents relevant to land use hearings is required by state law.   

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.

Variance appeal; supplemental pages

The town has posted several additional pages for the variance appeal packet in the Agenda Center. 

Council preliminary agenda

A preliminary Council Agenda for November 18, 2015 is available for viewing/downloading at the town website.

Appeal of the Commission's approval of variances for # 6 and #8 Marietta Court

A copy of the appeals packet (which may not be complete) is now available for reading/downloading at the town website.  The appeal is scheduled to be heard during the November 18, 2015 town council meeting.  Although the town's Zoning Ordinance specifies that variance appeals are to be heard by the Town Council in a "de novo" public hearing, it appears that the town is trying to follow some sort of an abbreviated procedure.