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.”

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things during a meeting lasting more than six hours: (1) A bulk plat land division mechanism was conjured from a long outdated ordinance in which no such process exists.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. 

Rhetorical Blunder: When prevarication goes wrong.

Spoiler Alert: Quite a few recipients of the SaVe SoutH MounTaiN postcard mistakenly assumed it was the product of EMPAC. In order to get the full flavor of the effort, you had to visit a website featuring pulp-fiction scare p**n, and asking for readers’ contact information without disclosing who it is who is asking. I do not recommend downloading any material from the site given the lack of identifying information.  

One of the foundational assumptions of classical rhetoric has long been that unless it is founded on truth, rhetoric is at best useless— and at worst harmful. The prevarication is the flaw that makes the postcard and its associated website such obvious examples of bad rhetoric. 

The premise that South Mountain is in danger, or that it is “ours” is ridiculous. South Mountain is owned by Campbell Farming. It is technically within Edgewood boundaries, but the process which led us to that point was anything but straightforward. In fact, it lies adjacent to lands bordering North 14 and few, if any actual Edgewood residents have access to or use of South Mountain. How many residents know or care who governs the privately owned land of South Mountain? Edgewood residents already have an abundance of walking trails and open space on Sections 16, 32, and 34. There are more future trails identified in the town’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 

The actual worth of the provision in the agreement between the Town of Edgewood regarding future development plans can be evaluated by looking at South Mountain on a topographical map: it is not now and never has been suitable for extensive development. The “highest and best use” of South Mountain always was, and likely always will be as open space. That would have been the case even if Edgewood Town government never came into being, Today, the one pending “minor” subdivision application does not involve South Mountain. 

The “outsiders” referred to at the SaVe SoutH MounTaiN website are our neighbors and many of them shop in Edgewood, which makes it possible for Edgewood residents to enjoy lower property taxes than would be the case if our Gross Receipts Taxes didn’t largely fund the town. One of the most frustrating things about the version of Edgewood which came into being with incorporation is its historical political instability coupled with a propensity for shooting itself in the foot at critical junctures. 

In the usual way of such things in these times, the persons responsible will eventually be doxxed on one social media platform or another. It is only a matter of time. Meanwhile, the Town of Edgewood Planning & Zoning Department  is responding to the prospect of higher than usual attendance by once again trying to restrict access to the meeting room.  

Confirmed: Edgewood is stuck in a time loop: 2,4,6,8. (Possible scam alert)

If you know; you know. If you do not; you don’t need to. 

Note before connecting: The website called savesouthmountain.org asks for contact information without revealing any solid information about who is asking. 

The mailers have gone out for what appears to be a new organization but one that is certainly carrying a familiar message. I still have the paper mailers paid for by Campbell Ranch proponents as well as opponents from the 2002 municipal elections. 

The Pro-Campbell Ranch message didn’t fare well in the 2002 election which stranded pro-Campbell candidates Brad Hill, Frank Lasky, and Gary Chemistruck in the losing column, and even though it did not immediately end his political career, effectively ended Howard Calkins’ ability to govern. However, a lot of time has passed, and with four of Edgewood’s five Town Commission seats on the ballot for November the campaigning may be interesting. 

Why launch now and not closer to municipal elections? Edgewood’s Planning & Zoning Department mishandled the original subdivision hearing in November, 2024 as well as the March 2025 appeal. Given the significant turnover on the P&Z Commission since the first of this year, there will be a lot of pressure on the town for the May 15 public hearing. Watch for the following possible outcomes on or just before the hearing date: Another postponement/cancellation ostensibly on procedural grounds, a last-minute withdrawal by the applicant, or a failure of the P&Z Commission to assemble a quorum.  

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. 

Agenda and packet for the September 7, 2016 town council meeting:

The information about tonight's meeting is available at the town website's Agenda Center which contains links to the most recent agendas, minutes, and meeting audio files (when available). The Agenda Center contains information about several different groups listed in alphabetical order with the most recent meetings appearing at the top of each list.

Tonight's council agenda features an appeal of a minor subdivision which was approved with conditions by the Planning & Zoning Commission on July 5, 2016. The appellant seeks to have the subdivision granted sans conditions.

This subdivision application is the latest in a long line of examples showing why the Town of Edgewood's perennial desire to approve subdivisions without mandating installation of basic infrastructure always degenerates into confusion, ill feelings, and eventually increased demands on the road budget.  That was true of the 1999 Subdivision Ordinance, and it remains true of the 2013 and 2014 attempts at "streamlining" the process. At the July hearing, the neighbors were present to testify to the inadequacy of the road serving the subdivision and to inquire about the possibility of having the town assume the cost of upgrading and then taking over road maintenance.

[From 2005-2013 the town used an abbreviated process for uncomplicated subdivisions based on the provisions of New Mexico State Statutes which govern a municipality's handling of subdivisions. That summary procedure combined the preliminary and final plat hearings into a single hearing with the end product for the applicant being a "final plat." The current subdivision ordinance also features a single hearing but yields only "a plat."]

Old and new subdivision and zoning ordinances:

Adopted version of ToE Ordinance 2014-02 (Zoning Ordinance) effective August 11, 2014
Amended version effective February 4, 2015

Adopted version of ToE Ordinance 2014-03 (Subdivision Ordinance) effective August 11, 2014
Amended version effective February 4, 2015

I have placed copies of the amended versions in the Current Versions of Town Ordinances folder on Drive.  The ordinances approved on August 11, 2014 have been moved to the Superseded or Modified folder. 

Amended ordinances uploaded to Drive

The latest (maybe) version of ToE Subdivision Ordinance 2014-03 as amended in February 2015.  [More on the tentative description to follow. ] To view at the town website, follow this link.

The latest version of ToE Zoning Ordinance 2014-02 as amended in February 2015. To view/download at the town website, follow this link.

Public Hearing Notice:

The Edgewood Planning & Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing for a Minor Subdivision request on January 20, 2015.  The notice can be viewed/downloaded at the town website, and a copy is available on Drive. 

Read the Ordinance: The Hill Family Trust minor subdivision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis of the New Minor Subdivision

The recent addition of a minor subdivision to the town's ordinance was intended to streamline the process, but it was approved without taking sufficient time to examine the final document for completeness, utility or consistency.  The planning commission has been given responsibility for applying the ordinance, and it was allowed to comment on the first draft which was discussed at the May 15, 2013 council meeting. It is unfortunate that the Commission was not also given the opportunity to consider the version which was composed and adopted during a single meeting on June 5, 2013.

P&Z Wrap-up for 10/15/2013

A full year after the application was submitted to the town planning department, the Commission approved a two-lot subdivision at 245 Entranosa Road on October 15, 2013.  The subdivision was originally called out for a public hearing at the P&Z meeting of October 22, 2012 and was approved with conditions on January 23, 2013 after a procedural delay on November 13, 2012, the failure of the applicants' agent to attend the December 10, 2012 public hearing, and cancellation due to weather of the meeting scheduled for January 14, 2013.                                                                                                          

Old post updated:

In response to a question I received about a post, originally published in May, I've added some material and updated links.  The original purpose was twofold.  The first was to describe the process and rationale behind the subdivision pre-application review by the planning commission.  The second was to demonstrate the fact that even though there was no minor subdivision explicitly called out in the subdivision ordinance as amended on December 7, 2011 the language did allow for a streamlined process.  

With the adoption of an explicit minor subdivision process on June 5, 2013, the latter purpose is no longer relevant.  However, the Council overlooked some weaknesses in the new minor subdivision clause which will need to be addressed at some point.

Is instituting a minor subdivision a step back?

That was one of the contextual observations put out for discussion during the May 15, 2013 public hearing, and it was made by Councilor John Abrams.  Unfortunately, his remarks did not lead to any further discussion of this aspect of the question.  It is true that the town's 1999 Subdivision Ordinance does contain a minor subdivision procedure, and it is appropriate to use the present tense when describing this ordinance because it is still used. By virtue of the annexation agreement between the Town of Edgewood and Campbell Farming Corporation, it is the governing ordinance for subdivision requests within the boundaries of what is generally known as Campbell Ranch.

Dealing with minor subdivisions within the context of the current ordinance:

NOTE:  The "current ordinance" referred to in this post refers to Town of Edgewood Ordinance 2005-14 as amended August 2008. The ordinance was modified on June 5, 2013 to add a section which explicitly calls out a minor subdivision procedure. (Added on 10/21/2013)

Is it possible to streamline the process for subdividing land under the current ordinance?  I believe the answer is a qualified yes.  However, even in such cases, the ordinance calls for the presentation of a plat containing information pertinent to the subdivision which is in substantial compliance with those portions of the ordinance which apply to the application.

Subdivisions and P&Z in 2009:

Town of Edgewood Subdivision Matters heard by P&Z in 2009 
(Sources: Commission Minutes and Commission Agenda Summaries.)

(1)  Requests for subdivisions: 7 (4 approved; one application was initially denied but was re-submitted and later approved. Two were tabled indefinitely at the request of the applicants.)

(2)  Requests for preliminary plat extensions: 2 (Both were denied; the denials were appealed but upheld by the Council.)

(3)  Sketch Plat Reviews conducted: 5   

Before the continuation of the public hearing to amend the subdivision ordinance, it might be helpful to set aside anecdotes and look at the official record of how Edgewood's subdivision ordinance is applied in real situations.  It is important to keep in mind that planning commissions operate between two boundaries which are sometimes unpopular; they cannot impose conditions not called out in the ordinance, but where the ordinance does lay out requirements which apply to a particular application the commission has a duty to follow the ordinance.

I chose to post information for 2009 mostly out of laziness; I had previously finished a summary for that year, and in the years subsequent to 2009 for which I have also compiled data, the economic downturn resulted in relatively few applications being brought to the town.  The links provided should take you to individual files in the Commission Minutes folder on Google Drive.  At some point in the future, I may back up and do summaries for earlier years; in the meantime, a partial Commission Minutes archive is available to those who'd like to review a history of what P&Z has done from 1999-May 2012.  I hope to have the minutes from June 2012-May 2013 available soon. 

From the archives of Commission minutes; a discussion of minor subdivisions and administrative approvals:

One item of discussion during public testimony portion of the May 15 public hearing concerned a pre-application sketch plat review (agenda item 6)  conducted on February 7, 2011.  Among the things discussed during that review was the role which might be played by the addition of a minor subdivision process to the ordinance in a way that subdivision requests might combine the preliminary and final plats into a single hearing.  The Commission agreed that it could be a good thing so long as the two steps would remain separate in those instances when the ordinance calls for the installation of infrastructure.

Item 7 in this same agenda contains an interesting discussion about the possibility of changing the ordinance to allow administrative approval of lot line vacations.  This agenda shows that the concept of creating a minor subdivision process is nothing new, and neither is the concept of increasing the use of administrative approvals.  Of course, as is often the case, the difficulty lies in getting the details right.