No comment from officials who changed their votes on development.
***image1***
The Santa Fe County Commission may have given Suerte del Sur development a green light, but that doesn't mean it can't still impose conditions on the plan, Commissioner Jack Sullivan says.
Sullivan's comments to SFR followed last week's filing of an appeal of that approval by the Santa Fe Domestic Well Owners Association.
The Association is questioning the Commission's decision to reverse its initial rejection of the plan.
"For two years we were involved with the county and now there's been a reversal with no public input or explanation," Association President David Gold says. "It's our understanding that this is not legally appropriate and there's no precedent for the Commission's actions."
The Well Owners Association has long argued the 264-home development slated for 660 acres south of Las Campanas will use too much water, among other concerns.
Indeed, after rejecting Gerald Peters' plan earlier this year, the Commission in July reversed itself after it became clear the heavyweight art dealer, developer and friend of Gov. Bill Richardson might take the county to court.
Peters appealed the Commission's decision in District Court on the grounds that his project was in accordance with county land code and, subsequently, the Commission held a rehearing of the proposal. Commissioner Harry Montoya, who abstained on the original vote, voted for the project and Commissioners Michael Anaya and Paul Campos changed their votes for approval.
"We were disappointed with the county's change, because they basically passed the development's master plan unchallenged after rejecting it," Gold says.
Lora Lucero, editor of the Planning and Environmental Law Journal, published monthly by the American Planning Association, says while it's not unusual for municipal bodies to consider litigation when mulling proposals, the County Commission should have explained on the record why it reversed itself.
"Their thinking might have been legitimate, but if they don't give a reason on the record, that's more disturbing than the actual change," Lucero says.
Minutes from the July 12 meeting show that just prior to voting on the development's master plan for the second time, Anaya said he would approve the plan because he now thought it fit county code; Montoya said the possibility of litigation was his impetus. Campos did not discuss his reasoning prior to the vote.
Neither Montoya nor Campos could be reached for comment. Anaya declined to discuss the situation because of the Well Owners' appeal.
According to Lucero, whether the county is insured against land use litigation also might have played a part in the decision.
County Attorney Stephen Ross told SFR that Santa Fe County has an "extremely limited" $20,000 insurance policy against land use litigation through the New Mexico Association of Counties. Because of the pending litigation, Ross would not comment on whether the County Commission has ever changed decisions because of a potential lawsuit.
But Sullivan, who voted against the development both times, defended his colleagues' change of heart.
"You can look at this like a strategic retreat to win the larger campaign," Sullivan says. "The Commission is named in suits continually. I don't think any of the commissioners are afraid of being sued. I am not intimidated by Gerald Peters, and I don't think the other commissioners are either."
Sullivan also emphasized that further conditions could be imposed on Suerte del Sur. In particular, water use and affordable housing appear to be the most divisive issues on the table.
Unlike the city, Santa Fe County has no affordable housing ordinance which would mandate Peters to price a percentage of his units at subsidized prices, but that could change soon, Sullivan says.
Peters Attorney Rosanna Vázquez says it is still unclear whether the development's water-an estimated .39 acre feet per dwelling-will come from its own well or the county's supply.
Vázquez also says Peters is willing to work with the county towards an agreeable affordable housing component to the project.
For Gold, however, the Commission's change of heart is hard to stomach and an issue he hopes will be examined closely during the appeal process:
"My concern is that after all these years of discussion, the results could be overturned so completely without any more public explanation or discussion. The Commission just completely reversed itself."
