A Look Back at the Campbell Ranch Annexation: Part 2

[A news report from 2002 saying that Campbell Ranch offered to de-annex.] 

The only definite source I can find for the claim that Campbell Farming had ever offered to go away in exchange for money following the vote to annex the land in December of 2001 comes from a story in The Independent dated  May 8, 2002. It is possible that town correspondence still exists somewhere in the Planning Office’s permanent files or perhaps the personal files of former members of the governing body which might provide more information. [See also the separate pages for the Campbell Ranch Master Plan and the Hillcrest Master Plan with timelines of significant events.] 

March 2002:  A coalition of town council candidates made up of incumbent Robert (Bob) Stearley, former P&Z Commissioner Donzil Worthington, and Paul Hoffman campaigned as a group proclaiming “No Campbell Ranch” during the municipal election season. They soundly defeated the pro-annexation coalition made up of incumbents Gary Chemistruck and Frank Lasky who were joined by Bradley (Brad) Hill.  The town council had voted 3-0 to annex Campbell Ranch in December of 2001 during a special Saturday meeting held at a time when Stearley was unable to attend. At that time, Stearley had not yet retired, and his work entailed significant travel time.  

May 2002: Council member Bob Stearley, newly re-elected and serving as Mayor Pro Tem, is quoted in The Independent story as saying that the $1.1 Million as reported in the headline might eventually be twice or three times that amount. Regardless of which, if any amount were to be considered, the town could not have afforded to buy its way out of the situation. In an unexpected pivot from having campaigned against the annexation only three months earlier, Stearley appears to contradict opinion of the then town legal counsel, David Henderson, who believed that there might be a way to undo the annexation. 

Henderson’s theory about how that might happen depended upon the fate of the lawsuit filed against the annexation by Santa Fe County.  It appears that at the time this story was written, the Town of Edgewood had already filed a motion to dismiss the County’s lawsuit; the filing may have taken place before the 2002 municipal election which altered the balance of power of the Governing Body.  The story also notes that Campbell Farming Corporation had filed an intervention in the case which further complicated the legal situation. 

Stearley’s change in tactics was based on his estimation (which eventually turned out to be correct) that Santa Fe County’s appeal would not succeed, thus leaving the annexation intact. Therefore, he saw no reason to delay changing tactics. His preference, given the realities of state laws and the legal situation, was to find a way for the young town to manage the unpopular master plan. His principal focus at that time was on challenging the validity of Section 4 of the development agreement between the Town of Edgewood and Campbell Farming Corporation. He also proposed changing town ordinances to place a moratorium on building golf courses and codifying a one acre minimum for residential lot sizes. 

Given the information available to him at the time, Stearley’s change of course appeared reasonable. However, it was not politically expedient. His actions angered three important groups, and the consequences of their disillusionment are still relevant: 

(1)  Those who had supported his re-election to the Town Council specifically because of his opposition to the the town’s expansionist annexation policy in general (and it’s annexation of Campbell Ranch in particular) were inclined to be sympathetic, but they felt that he gave up too much, too soon.  

(2)  The group which had begun printing petitions calling for an election to disincorporate the newly formed town government before the Stearley, Worthington, and Hoffman coalition members announced their candidacy were less inclined to give Stearley the benefit of the doubt. Their take was that he was too closely allied to the local real estate faction, and they believed that Stearley had not campaigned in good faith.  

(3) Of greater long-term political consequence, he alienated several members of the Hill Family, who at that time were in the beginning stages of creating what eventually became the Hillcrest Master Plan. Their ambitious plan, which has been modified several times since it was approved, allowed for a wide mix of residential lot sizes as well as commercial development areas with at least one golf course. Stearley’s plans for changing town ordinances were viewed as a threat to their efforts.

2004-2007: Despite the validity of his arguments, Stearley’s pivot created the impression within his coalition and among the wider public that he was not dependable. [ETA: Santa Fe County’s challenge to the annexation was dismissed first by a district court and later by the state’s court of appeals for lack of standing in July of 2004; the dismissal was not appealed to the state’s highest court.] Stearley’s controversial decision in 2006 to appoint Brad Hill to fill a vacancy on the Town Council did not have the calming results he expected. 

The overall result of Stearley’s decision to drop his opposition to the annexation was to give Howard Calkins the means to make a credible challenge in the 2004 mayoral election despite his having been a vocal advocate for the still unpopular annexation. While Stearley was originally declared the winner and sworn into office, Calkins challenged the results. A state district court eventually declared the close race a tie. Stearley decided against appealing the decision, and after he lost the highly publicized card draw held in late 2007, Calkins returned briefly as mayor.  

Summary: There have been many questions asked in the years since 2002 about the fate of Stearley’s plan to change the Campbell Ranch development agreement. It would appear that while Stearley hoped to modify the development agreement where his primary focus was on modifying Section 4, it never happened. He also proposed significant changes to town ordinances and land use policies designed to rein in some of the most problematic features of the proposed development.  

Stearley was successful in making some good changes in several of the town’s ordinances and land use policies during his time in town government; some of them remain in place to this day. However, I can find no mention in the public record that there was ever any real attempt to modify the original development agreement. There is some indication in meeting minutes from January 2005 for both P&Z and the Town Council that several conceptual changes were made to the Campbell Ranch Master Plan. 

Because the changes were deemed “minor,” the Zoning Ordinance in place at that time did not require a public hearing which means that discovering exactly what changes were made would depend on consulting the development review documents which should still be available in the permanent files of the town’s Planning Office. However, it is not required that the town preserve every scrap of paper generated for land use matters; meeting minutes provide some hints at what changes were presumably made. 

Partly because of the turmoil surrounding the controversy over who should be mayor, heated debates over the Hillcrest Master Plan application, and the dismissal of Santa Fe County’s challenge of the annexation, Campbell Ranch brought no significant development proposals forward until late 2007.

Future actions? The Town already has sufficient legal authority over zoning matters to clean up the mess. Whether or not the current governing body possesses the level of expertise and political will to do so remains to be seen.

Because the original development agreement does make provision for future changes, perhaps the time has come for the parties to re-examine both the Campbell Ranch Master Plan and the general provisions of the town’s Master Plan section of its Zoning Ordinance.  None of the three major Master Plans, all of which were approved in Edgewood’s early years, have performed as advertised. 

Perhaps Master Plans, like preliminary subdivision plats, should carry an automatic expiration date with provisions made for possible extension if conditions warrant doing so. Of course, the interval should be significantly longer for master plans. Edgewood’s Cargo Cult faction has had great success in seeding the town map with lands bearing Master Plan Zoning for which no plans have ever been presented. The town needs to take another look at the zoning on those parcels as well.  

Coming soon: A look back at the Campbell Ranch Annexation Part 2

[Part 1 (below) sets the stage: The May 8, 2002 edition of The Independent serves as a time capsule for looking at the municipal government’s early years.]

A few things have changed, mostly the dramatis personae, but the fundamentals have not. Meanwhile, I suggest a visit to EMPAC’s homepage featuring a slide show where one image shows Edgewood’s Great March North along with the Bride and Groom at the top of the wedding cake: Campbell Ranch.  

While looking for something else, I found an old paper copy of The Independent (May 8, 2002 Volume 4, No. 19). The front page (above the fold) features the headline Campbell price to leave Edgewood: $1.1 million followed by a detailed story on the offer written by Theresa M. Oderman. Bracketing the Campbell headline is a larger one Drought, export imperil water under which Kevin Bean outlines Export on the left with Drought on the right. One of the best things about reading The Independent in those days was venturing into lower Edgewood, picking up a paper copy, and analyzing how the staff employed all of the classical rhetorical canons week after week. (The advent of the e-mail pdf version was still several years in the future.)  

Updated information for the Hillcrest Master Plan page

At this time, I do not have a reliable link to relevant documents which have been issued in the ongoing legal case between the following parties:

HILLCREST, LLC, a New Mexico limited liability company,  

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant,

V.

HIGHLAND STOCK FARM, LLC, a limited liability company,

Defendant/Counterplaintiff/Third-Party Plaintiff,

V. TIM ODEN, 

Third-Party Defendant.

The case description offers only hints at the complexity of the case, but it is possible to view a detailed timeline of what has transpired so far at  https://nmcourts.gov/ using the “case lookup” option and the following case number: D-101-CV-201900682

Background information: The complicated ownership issues first came to my notice when serving on Edgewood P&Z from September 2008-February 2012. Tim Oden appeared frequently before the PZC asking for modifications to the Hillcrest Master Plan. In 2011, he attempted but failed to convince the PZC to make a recommendation to the Mayor and Council that, like Campbell Ranch, Hillcrest should also be allowed to use the 1999-R Subdivision Ordinance. One of my former PZC colleagues described our attempts at evaluating the series of Hillcrest applications as being like untangling a string of Christmas lights. The timeline of the ongoing litigation confirms that description.  

Addendum for those not familiar with the history: Highland Stock Farm LLC was originally held by several members of the Hill family, but it did not include Brad Hill or his immediate family. In the years since the company was formed, there have been several changes resulting from inheritances and buy-outs within the original group. Hillcrest LLC denotes a corporation having several investors, including Tim Oden, who served as the public face of Hillcrest.  

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. 

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. 

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. 

Joint Meeting of Town and P&Z Commissions July 10, 2025

The agenda features two items; one is a presentation on Master Plan Zoning. The other is an update on the proposed re-routing of a high-pressure pipeline. This may be the project Brad Hill hopes to use for colocating wastewater lines capable of serving the Hillcrest and Section 16 Master Plans. 

The original wastewater service area was designed to primarily serve the I-40 Route 66 corridor with only a short run north on NMSR 344. While the treatment plant is capable of expanding capacity, the cost to significantly expand the service area further north via conventional means became prohibitive after the decision was made to move the treatment plant to Section 30 east of Parker Farm.  

Background information from the Water and Wastewater Page.  

April 12, 2004: Council votes to confirm the service area as primarily serving the Rt. 66/I-40 corridor with a short run north on NM 344. Service extending to Section 16 was excluded from consideration due to costs. However, because the plan at that time envisioned building the plant near the intersection of NM 344 and I-40, the extension of service to Section 16 and Hillcrest Master Plans was contemplated once the Rt. 66/I-40 corridor had service available.

October 6,2004:  Mayor Stearley reports to the Governing Body that the PER identifies two locations for the plant. The first option would be on Cactus near Park Street. The second location would be at the east end of Park Street on the 10 acres of land owned by Santa Fe County. He had contacted the County to inquire about the status of that parcel. After residents in the Cactus Road/Park Road area present a petition asking that the wastewater plant be located elsewhere, the Council schedules another hearing on the matter.

December 1, 2004: Councilor Chuck Ring offers a motion to change the location to Section 30. His motion is approved. This action effectively ends the possibility of serving Section 16 or Hillcrest Master Plan with the proposed wastewater plant due to the costs involved of running lines from that location.

Good coverage of the e-mail hoax at nm.news

The only thing I questioned in the story is that the author noted that the Town Commission still has to approve the P&Z Commission’s most recent action on the Campbell Ranch subdivision application. Edgewood’s P&Z has authority to approve or deny subdivisions. However, since it is almost certain that P&Z’s action has or soon will be appealed, I expect the Town Commission will decide to schedule a second appeal hearing.  

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. 

Edgewood in the News: More on Campbell Ranch

A recent headline at Edgewood News reads Water Planning Committee expresses concerns about Campbell Ranch. As an illustration of the subject’s complexity, I tried to include a selection of the blog’s many existing labels; even a partial list exceeded the allowable character limit. Some of the contributors to the news story speculate that the Edgewood town government is motivated by greed in the form of adding new property taxes. 

The question is legitimate insofar as that was one of the “benefits” touted by Howard Calkins, Chuck Ring, Gary Chemistruck, Frank Lasky and their supporters when the original annexation and development agreement were under consideration. However, the general wisdom holds that residential development, especially at the densities proposed in the Campbell Ranch Master Plan, will cost the town more in providing services than the development will provide in property taxes. 

The Public Improvements District (PID) agreement with Campbell Corporation which was crafted and signed after the annexation and development agreement calls for installation of infrastructure to be paid for by the developer(s). The town will eventually become responsible for maintenance.  Edgewood already has provisions for imposing a Special Assessment District (SAD) by vote of affected property owners in specific geographic areas. The SAD mechanism or some variation of the concept may eventually need to be mandated as part of any future development within the Campbell Ranch Master Plan. 

However, given the town’s numerous lapses in development review for one “minor subdivision” which did not even address the question of infrastructure installation, skeptics would be wise to question whether or not Edgewood is willing or able to deal with complex issues. The town government appears to have other priorities at the present time. Edgewood voters continue a well-established cycle of occasionally waking up, voting some leaders out and a new group in before again going dormant. 

Formally incorporated bedroom communities are notoriously difficult to govern, and Edgewood has some added complications including its expansive territorial aspirations and its early love affair with master plan zoning. To those who have asked how our local version of the proverbial Gordian knot might be loosened, there are several ways it might be done. Although, I would add that my preferred method for doing so would be a less dramatic but more practical solution such as that described by Plutarch rather than the depictions often found in popular literature.  

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.   

Link added for EMPAC

I’ve added EMPAC (East Mountains Protection Action Coalition)to the links list located the sidebar at the left side of the page. The page was created by our neighbors in the far northwest part of Edgewood who are directly impacted by Edgewood’s decisions on the Campbell Ranch Master Plan.  However, this group is not single issue and it is monitoring information on other land use questions which are of interest to the East Mountains. 

ETA:I will not be opening the blog to comments again any time soon. Moderating comments adds yet another layer to maintenance. For now, new material and updating links is challenge enough.  Feel free to contact me via email. 

Material added to the Campbell Ranch page

More information has been added to the Campbell Ranch Master Plan page. It consists of links to recent news releases posted at the website of North 14 Deep Well Protest. The group continues to work with the New Mexico Environmental Law Center as Aquifer Science LLC appeals the State Engineer's November 2014 denial of its application to drill water wells on Campbell Ranch lands. The wells are sought in order to provide water to a master plan approved when a portion of the ranch's land was annexed into the Town of Edgewood in 2001.

• August 2015: The North 14 Deep Well Protest group posts an update on the appeals process and announces a change in its legal team with the departure of Bruce Frederick and the arrival of Jonathan Block. The group continues to work with the New Mexico Environmental Law Center. 
• November 2015: the North 14 Deep Well Protest group posts notice on its website giving the date of the Aquifer Sciences appeal as March 20-29, 2017.  
• January 2016: the North 14 Deep Well Protest group posts a notice describing the anticipated appeals process as well as the criteria used by the State Engineer for evaluating water applications. 
• February 26, 2016: the North 14 Deep Well Protest group posts a news release detailing Judge Bacon's decision "... that the appeal will encompass all 4 of the criteria that the State Engineer applies to water application...."

Hillcrest Master Plan page has been updated

The following information has been added to the timeline:

• March 9, 2016: The Town Council tabled the public hearing (see beginning on p. 23 of the council packet) pending suggestions to obtain more information about zone district standards for the Mixed-Use Zone Category, more information about how the changes might affect other areas in the master plan, and more information about traffic impacts as well as determining for the record who is responsible for the primary access road to Unit 2. [A link to the draft minutes for the March 9 meeting will be added when that document is published.] 

New information on the page for the Hillcrest Master Plan

The Hillcrest Master Plan page has been updated with the following information:

February 2, 2016: Edgewood's P&Z recommends an amendment to the master plan to allow for the construction of approximately 140 dwelling units consisting of a mix of apartments and townhouses in Unit 2 using the standards found in the M-U zone category. The commissioners did not include in their recommendation any mention of safety issues or traffic impacts on the intersection of Venus Road and NM 344.

P&Z agenda for January 19, 2016

The agenda for the meeting can be viewed/downloaded at the town website. Note the upcoming public hearing on February 2, 2016 for amending the Hillcrest Master Plan.  Details of the proposed amendment can be found in this week's edition of The Independent. 

Hillcrest and Section 16 updates

I've added recent events to the Hillcrest Master Plan page as well as to the page devoted to the Section 16 Master Plan.  Changes to the Hillcrest page include more detailed information about the subdivision and land transfer within Hillcrest to the Town of Edgewood in June and September of 2009 as well as the Town's return of the land in September of 2014. 

Changes to the Campbell Ranch MP Timeline:

I have added a description and link to Commission Minutes for December 6, 2004 and January 13, 2005. Those minutes outline a discussion of proposed changes to Village 2.  The entry for January 19 has been changed to reflect the fact that the discussion by the Council was, in fact, in response to an application.  The Council Minutes are not clear on this point, but the nature of the Council's discussion is more understandable when it is read as a continuation of the January 13 P&Z meeting. 

Timeline changes on the Campbell Ranch Master Plan page:

• December 6, 2004:  Campbell Ranch presents a number of proposed changes to its Master Plan.  The changes are outlined in the Commission Minutes for that date. 
• January 13, 2005: The Commission discussed a modified proposal for reconfiguring certain aspects of Village 2 and sent their opinion forward to the Council that the proposed changes should be considered minor. The changes proposed were to move the entrance, move and delay the proposed golf course, and changes regarding the nature of the roads (permeable vs. non-permeable).
• January 19, 2005: Approval of a Memo of Understanding with Campbell Ranch regarding pre-application fees for the PID negotiations.  The council also discussed whether to view certain proposed changes to Village 2 of the Campbell Ranch MP as major or minor.  Under the Zoning Ordinance in effect as of January 2005, major changes proposed to an existing master plan required a public hearing in order to amend it.

Events from 2014 added to Hillcrest and Section 16 timelines:

I have updated the Hillcrest Master Plan and Section 16 Master Plan pages to incorporate events from late 2014.