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.]

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. 

Master Plan Spotlight: Edgewood circles back to 1999 with Campbell Ranch decision

This latest decision from Edgewood Planning & Zoning is interesting. Unless the governing body overturns or sends it back for reconsideration, the precedent could work itself out in ways that some of the planning commissioners do not appear to have fully considered. The town’s first subdivision ordinance from 1999 has been amended several times and mostly for good reasons. Opening the door to revert to old standards may affect future applications in other parts of Edgewood zoned Master Plan. It is long past time for the original development agreement to be reconsidered.  

Because Edgewood’s most ardent proponents of serial subdividing are aware that such practices are generally regarded as negative, the concept was rebranded and marketed as a “minor” subdivision. The maneuver is akin to the habit of describing the original annexation of Campbell Ranch as having been accomplished by a “bridge” instead of a “shoestring” because New Mexico law does not permit shoestring annexations. 

The people most affected by this decision would do well to keep an eye on the town’s actions, but there may be less going on here that it seems. Unless and until Campbell is able to secure sufficient paper water rights, and then puts in place the delivery system needed to convert those paper rights into “wet water” Campbell’s applications amount to little more than moving and reorganizing puzzle pieces. The Campbell Ranch MP has accomplished very little in the time since the plan was first approved other than play “kick the can” with successive iterations of town governments.  

Edgewood’s first town government was enamored with Master Plans to the extent that they approved three large ones early on: Hillcrest, Campbell Ranch, and Section 16. Section 16 is the only one of the three which has achieved any significant results. That is because it is state land developed by the NM State Land Office. The town does have some input but the SLO is the ultimate authority on development. Section 16 has its own meme magic component in the form of a name change from Section 16 to Edgewood Commons which was launched with great fanfare but promptly forgotten.  

The Hillcrest MP once appeared to be fairly active, but after an initial burst of activity in 2008 when a group of investors sought to buy the land, things went quiet. The sale fell through at some point, and the land along with 50% of the water rights reverted to Highland Stock Farms. Publicly available information is sketchy, but it appears that sometime between 2008 and 2013 the other 50% of the water rights were transferred to EPCOR. 

Two somewhat strange outcomes of Edgewood’s love affair with master plan zoning are the numerous plots scattered around town which are zoned Master Plan but for which no plans exist. In addition, it is possible under Edgewood’s current ordinance to master plan parcels as small as 10 acres. Neither of the above are practical in the real world, but they do exist on paper.  

There is nothing new in Edgewood:

There is only the past happening over and over again. I'm skeptical of having Brad Hill oversee the latest round of changes to the town's zoning ordinance, and this old post dating from his tenure as mayor will give you some idea of why.  

What's the latest buzz? We must do something immediately to ease setback requirements!!! In fact, it was Mayor Brad Hill who did just that when he inserted a rudimentary outline of Performance Based Setbacks into the town's 2015 zoning ordinance. However, being a generalist, it fell to Hill's more detail-focused successor to finish the job and to correct the 2015 blunder. RTFM, anyone?  [See Section 25.E. of the Town of Edgewood Zoning Ordinance 2019-03. This latest-to-date version corrects the omission of key language from the R-3 zone category in the 2015 Ordinance, and also fills out the 2015 version of performance based criteria for setbacks.]

The interesting thing is that the Campbell Ranch team is well aware that the option is available, and they presented the concept (without specifying the exact ordinance language) in last year's request to amend the Campbell Ranch Master Plan.  Bottom line is that the people tasked with doing the ordinance revision must be willing to do a lot of detailed reading. They also need to always keep in mind the possibility that unintended consequences may render their changes unusable.

[Edited to fix broken links.]

Stone Mountain Estates: Clearing out an old "zombie" approval

The Planning & Zoning agenda for September 8, 2022 features an application for a zone change for a proposed development called Stone Mountain Estates. The land was annexed on June 20, 2007,  but in the matter of zoning for the parcel, the council was unable to reach agreement. There had been an earlier attempt to annex and zone the property, but the hearing ended without a decision after two members of the governing body disclosed ex parte contacts with the applicant. The second public hearing before the Town Council was tense with angry words behind the table as well as in the audience. More than one loud dispute spilled out into the parking lot of the Community Center. The hearing was concluded with a vote to annex the land with no zone designation, and the applicant was advised to consider the options available and return at a later date. Since that time, the Residential Estates (R-E) zone category has been added to the town's ordinance, and that is the request in the current application.

The applicant indicated in the original application that he intended to construct the roads in the subdivision, and would then request that the town take over maintenance. The design submitted at that time showed an entrance some distance up a graveled road on West Venus; however, those are issues which are typically determined at such time as the applicant commits to subdivision. The P&Z hearing on September 8 will be for the purpose of recommending a zone category to the governing body. 

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. 

Variance appeal; supplemental pages

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

Council preliminary agenda

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

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

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

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

P&Z agenda and packet for August 18, 2015

The information, including the staff report regarding the requests for variances at # 6 and # 8 Marietta Court, is now available in the agenda center.  Some of the larger format documents will need to be requested for transmission via e-mail.  I have already submitted an IPRA request for three of the pages and will post links when I receive the information. Copies of the packet information are also available on Drive. 

The project which is the subject of the public hearing is described by the applicants as being for a proposed four story Comfort Inn & Suites consisting of 72 rooms to be built adjacent to the south side of I-40 and fronting on Marietta Court to the east of Tractor Supply.  The variances requested are for increased building height, reduced building setbacks, and increased numbers of and heights for signage.

Zone Map amendment:

Documents for the March 4, 2015 Zone Map amendment hearing are now available for viewing/downloading at the town website:

• Town map flagged with proposed changes.
• Spreadsheet detailing the history and status of lands identified in the audit (click on the "Zone Map Spreadsheet" link to view or download the Excel file.
• Individual maps showing detailed location of lands identified in the audit.

Copies of the documents pertaining to the Zone Map proposed amendments have also been placed on Drive. 

Council agenda and packet March 4, 2015

The Agenda and Council packet information for Wednesday's meeting are available through the town website.  A copy of the agenda/packet is also available on Drive.
Contents of the packet uploaded as a 22 page PDF:

page 1:   Agenda (This may or may not be the final agenda)
page 3:   Council Minutes for February 18, 2015 (draft)
page 10: Special Council Meeting Minutes for February 23, 2015 (draft)
page 12: Municipal Court Report for February 2015
page 15: Annotated draft Zone Map showing proposed changes
page 16: Resolution No. 2015-03 Municipal Arterial Program funding for Entrada Del Norte (Between NMSR 333 and Walker Road)
page 17: Materials pertaining to a pending modification of an existing facility which is the subject of a Special Use designation:  AT&T Edgewood, NM 1791 Old Hwy Us Hwy 66 #3
Additional documents for the Zone Map amendment hearing which can be viewed/downloaded at the town website:  

• Town map flagged with proposed changes.
• Spreadsheet detailing the history and status of lands identified in the audit (click on the "Zone Map Spreadsheet" link to view or download the Excel file.
• Individual maps showing detailed location of lands identified in the audit.

Copies of the documents pertaining to the Zone Map proposed amendments have also been placed on Drive.

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.

Performance Based Zoning makes its debut in Edgewood:

During the Council meeting of September 5, 2012, Edgewood Mayor Brad Hill announced that he intended to begin a sweeping overhaul of the town's land use ordinances.  However, the changes approved by the council in August 2014 were far less extensive than expected.  The town's consultants and land use attorneys, Robert White and Jack Hiatt, later said they found very little to change with regard to the substance of the land use ordinances. Most of the changes which were ultimately approved are relatively innocuous and mostly confined to updating and standardizing terminology. The Planning Commission Ordinance was changed to allow for the appointment of non-resident Commissioners.

Read the Ordinance: Putting the cart before the horse?

On September 3, 2013 the Edgewood planning commission scheduled its second review of an application requesting annexation and zoning for a parcel of land described as follows on the agenda:

Request For Annexation, Requesting C-1 Commercial Zoning, for Property Located 1.5 Miles East of State Road 344 on the North Side of Old 66 4 acres. Section 35 T10N R07E

Read the Ordinance: July's R-2 zone district fumble

        When Councilor John Abrams expressed his opposition to the proposed elimination of the R-2 (Residential 2-acre) zone category in the new zoning ordinance during the July 2, 2014 council meeting, the situation devolved into the squabbling which has become a regular feature of town council meetings.  Instead of providing a substantive response to Abrams' questions, the mayor chastised him for not having spoken up earlier.  In fact, Abrams did raise objections at the April 12, 2014 town meeting.

Reminder about tomorrow night's meeting:

Wednesday, August 27, 2014, at 6:30 p.m.
Edgewood Fire Station
#1 Municipal Way, Edgewood NM

"Notice of Special Meetings of the Board of County Commissioners Concerning the Sustainable Land Development Code Amendments and Zoning Map: The Board of County Commissioners of Santa Fe County will be holding special meetings concerning possible amendments to the Sustainable Land Development Code (SLDC) and SLDC Zoning Map..."