For city planning commission review/vote April 7, 2022 approved this, for details see go to summary page.
Case 2021-4647. See above for submitted plats, and below for submitted deeds. Zia Station LLC is not applying for a final development plan, Zia Flats LLC is. There is no assertion or proof that Zia Flats LLC owns the subject real estate property upon which this building is proposed. In fact, Zia Flats LLC submitted deeds claiming Zia Station LLC owns the north of Zia Road part of the subject property (see below).
Therefore, based on lack of proof that Zia Flats owns subject property, its application is fatally flawed. Sprague, 1984-NMSC-052.   According to SFCC §14-3.1(B)(1)(2), unless otherwise specified in Sec. 14, only owners of subject property and their representatives have authority to submit forms/applications in the planning department, including the lot line adjustment, plats, plan or plat amendment, preliminary or final development plan. City planning department implements this code via its checklist, proof of ownership of land, such as deeds, for building permits. Because approval of the final development plan serves as the basis for construction permits, SFCC 14-3.8(C)(6)(a) §14-3.1(B)(1),(2) requires deeds proving ownership. SFCC 14-3.8(A)(2) states as purpose and intent, a development plan "typically encompasses development of one or more parcels under common ownership or unified control that will be planned and developed as a whole." This does not constitute a variance from requirement for ownership of subject property. In fact, this codifies a NM case law ruling approving non-contingent property to be considered as one development plan.
In addition, SFCC §14-3.8(C)(3)(1) requires that the final development plan comply with the preliminary development. As well, it requires the construction permit should include specific finding that the action complies with the preliminary development plan. Therefore, because the applicants in the preliminary and final development plans are separate and distinct, the final development plan cannot (if approved, will not), comply with the preliminary. Therefore, it can be neither considered nor approved. The accuracy of the building permit is based on the accuracy in the final development plan. See Citizens for Beach Rights v. City of San Diego, 10 Cal.App.5th 1301 (2017). Here, citizens' challenge to a building permit awarded based on a site plan modification was rejected because they failed to challenge the site plan itself. They waited until the city issued the building permit some time later, at which point the time to appeal the site plan had passed.
Case 2021-3662, Zia Station LLC partial vacation and dedication plat together with its lot line adjustment plat were approved by the city planning commission 4/7/22. See above for submitted plats. City code and procedures require actions/submittals be submitted by subject property owner or owner's agent, SFCC §14-3.1(B)(1)(2), see above. Also, NMSA 1978 Sec. 67-2-7 (1905) requires owner of abutting land to submit a road vacation request. It is true, developers Zia Station LLC are abutting landowners to Galisteo Road, although they have not proved it with accurate deeds, as noted above. These case plats as submitted suggest the city dispose of present day Galisteo Road. However, the state transportation commission owns Galisteo Road, via the state constitution, since it was a territorial road. In addition, Planning commission authority, NMSA 1978, Section 3-19-1(B)(1) (1965), and SFCC 1987, Section 16 14-2.3(B): the Governing Body has delegated to the Planning Commission the power, authority, jurisdiction, and duty to enforce and carry out the provisions of New Mexico law; and the City Code 14-2.3(B), relating to planning, platting, and zoning, do not give it authority to consider plats without proof of ownership, legitimize false claims of Galisteo Road existing as lot lines on developer's property, or dispose of Galisteo Road. Abutting landowners, if legitimate deeds and legal descriptions are submitted, do not need to falsify plat maps with phony lot lines. Said abutting landowners can submit accurate plats showing their property boundaries abutting Galisteo Road survey points (which have been established by the 1970 district court order awarding right of way to the county). Further, the partial vacation and dedication plat process requires an EXISTING plat be submitted for alteration/change (vacation) via the PROPOSED plat. However, no such EXISTING plat was submitted. Developers partial vacation and dedication plat is an original drawings drafted by their surveyor, and does not cite to / reference any existing plats which it applies to change. In addition, the lot line adjustment process/application pertains only to internal changes within the applicants private property. Said surveyor drawings falsely represent Galisteo Road exists solely as lot lines on developer's private property. However, the city governing body does have authority to dispose of Galisteo Road. Nevertheless, it cannot do so by approving the lot line adjustment plat and/or the partial vacation plat, for the same reasons.
No proof of ownership by Zia Station LLC of land surrounding Galisteo Road is submitted in this case 2021-3662 or case 2021-4647 above, SFCC §14-3.1(B)(1)(2). Said deeds consist of the following. Special warranty deed from Rodeo Park LLC to Zia Station LLC, county records doc. 1511858, 1/10/2008, citing plat book 664 p. 030, doc. 1499466, 9/14/2007. While referring to property north of Zia Road, the RodeoPark LLC deed lacks a legal description. It contains no reference to nor legal description of property south of Zia Road. Special warranty deed from First National Investment Properties, Inc. to Zia Station LLC, 10/22/2013 county doc. 1721256; citing plat book 742 p. 042, doc. 1661483, contains a legal description of only land north of Zia Road. These plat maps, cited in the deeds submitted by developers, are not included in developer's application. In addition, Zia Station LLC title is defective because a deed from Martha T. Chafet (Chafet) to Martha T. Chafet revocable trust, does not exist in county records. Then, no deed exists from Chafet to Harris and Louis, who claim to own the property in their quit claim deed to Santa Fe Land LLC, 12/26/2007, 1510371, grantor Jean E. Harris and Joan C. Louis both as private owners; grantee J & J Santa Fe Land LLC. Because there was no probate case regarding Chafet's death, nor death certificate for Chafet in county records, Louis and Harris have not proved they are Chafet's heirs. Therefore, they cannot satisfy the ownership of subject property requirements. Citizens can challenge city's action via NMRA 1-074 as improper procedure, Sprague, 1984-NMSC-052.
See arguments, facts and authorities on page
Back to Top