Understanding the Town of Edgewood Zone Map

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edgewood P&Z meeting: Thursday September 18, 2025

Hat tip to the regular reader of the blog who suggested I take time out from other things to review the latest PZC publication.  

You can download or view the agenda/packet at the town website. The packet for this meeting is more substantive than those published in the past few years. In another change reflective of best practices advice, the town appears to have resumed publishing staff reports in advance of meetings.  

For those whose land use interests include the subdivision process and Edgewood’s early love affair with Master Plan Zoning, this agenda ticks several boxes. It appears that the applicant’s packet is not complete, so I would suggest focusing attention on possible discussion by the PZC regarding a conditional approval of the subdivision application. 

Unlike the Campbell Ranch MP, the Hillcrest MP is governed by the current Subdivision Ordinance despite an attempt in 2011 to persuade the town to allow Hillcrest to also use the 1999-9 Subdivision Ordinance. [Although discussions for approval of the Hillcrest MP had begun during the time when 1999-R was in force, a new zoning ordinance was adopted prior to final approval. The 2011 request to use the 1999-R Subdivision Ordinance was rejected on legal grounds: (1) a newer Subdivision Ordinance had been adopted since the MP was approved, (2) neither the approved Master Plan, nor the Stipulated Settlement Order mention use of 1999-R, and (3) the Zoning Ordinance in force at the time Hillcrest was approved called for subdivision applications being processed according to the subdivision ordinance in force at the time an application was submitted.]

The next regular PZC meeting is scheduled for October 16, 2025. 

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. 

Planning & Zoning Commission meeting August 21, 2025

Update: The meeting can be viewed on YouTube, and lasted just under an hour. The subdivision was unanimously approved with the condition that the Water Will-Serve letter from EPCOR be updated to specify that both lots can be served. The PZC will hold at least one meeting in September which is scheduled for the 18th.

The PZC is scheduled to meet tomorrow evening before taking time off from regular meetings until October 16, 2025 as reflected in the meeting agenda’s calendar update. The agenda and meeting packet can be downloaded from the ToE website. 

The brief agenda features (1) approval of previous meeting minutes, (2) a combined preliminary/final subdivision hearing with a listed project address of # 65 Edgewood 7, and (3) a continuation of in-house training. 

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 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.  

Edgewood in the News: Questions from EBWPC

More questions about water and the proposed Campbell Ranch subdivision in this story at Edgewood News. Edgewood does not currently have representation on the Estancia Basin Water Planning Committee. Why not? Perhaps a good question to ask Commissioners Brennan, Anaya and Milligan as they have been in office long enough to have answers.

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.   

Study session announced by the Santa Fe Board of County Commissioners

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

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

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

Campbell Ranch update

After observing an unusual amount of traffic entering the Portal from "Campbell Ranch" and related search terms for the past several weeks, I decided to look further into what might be the cause. This is what I found:

Santa Fe Ranch and Farms (a portion of Campbell Ranch) launched a promotional website earlier this year with an accompanying press release, but it has only been in the past few weeks that the project has been noticed by the general public. There is only a rudimentary area map on the official site, but several things indicated to me that the land being offered for sale lies entirely in unincorporated Santa Fe County.

I was able to confirm my impression using a map which shows the general location and several landmarks located at a commercial real estate website called Commercial Connected. By comparing landmarks on their map with those on a draft zone map of Edgewood's official boundaries, I concluded that the land being offered for sale does appear to be located entirely within Santa Fe County, but outside of Edgewood's present boundaries. It appears likely that the two southernmost parcels (Tract 5 and Tract 6) are adjacent to the northernmost boundary of the town's lands in Santa Fe County. 

In addition, the area map at Santa Fe Ranch and Farms shows plans to add a second phase consisting of 8 similar parcels east of North 14 and south of NM 344. Two of those parcels, tentatively numbered Tract 11 and Tract 12, are shown directly to the west of Tracts 5 & 6 and immediately north of Edgewood's boundary line. 

A shared water system, with its attendant complications, would not be needed for this project as a domestic well permit for each parcel should suffice. However, the question of obtaining sufficient water rights to serve a shared system proposed for the Master Plan development which is located inside Edgewood boundaries has proved elusive, and has held up development in that portion of Campbell Ranch for more than a decade.

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 Announced

The Cashatt subdivision which was withdrawn after 11 months of confusion will be returning to P&Z.  There is no indication in the public notice if the matter will be heard as a major or minor subdivision:

The Town of Edgewood Planning & Zoning Commission will Consider the following During a PUBLIC HEARING on Tuesday October 15, 2013 starting at 6:00 p.m. in the Edgewood Community Center, 27 E. Frontage Road:

Request for a preliminary/final plat for Tract 6 Lands of Padilla 245 Entranosa Road, creating 2 lots from 34.7 acres, zoned R-1. Located at 245 Entranosa Road.

During the PUBLIC HEARING, citizens will be given the opportunity to comment on the above items.  The commission will also accept written comments if received before the hearing, written comments may be sent to the Town of Edgewood, P.O. Box 3610, Edgewood, NM 87015.  If you have any questions, you may call 505-286-4518. 

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. 

Council packet information for July 3 is now available:

The documents uploaded to the Council Packets folder include:

• Council Minutes from the 06/19 meeting; 
• The text of the recently approved subdivision ordinance revisions;
• The 2014-2018 ICIP also known as the town's legislative wish-list; 
• ToE Resolution 2013-12 on severe drought conditions;
• A copy of a letter printed last week in the Forum of The Independent.  

I did not include a copy of what appears to be a copyrighted advertisement for Microsoft's Office 365 security features which is intended for the use of customers; it may be viewed at the town website.