Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Conservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Los Ranchos trustees adopt template covenants to implement conservation provisions of Ordinance 299
Summary
After extensive legal review and questions about water rights and enforceability, the Board of Trustees adopted a resolution creating a standard template for perpetual covenants that will be recorded with subdivision plats to enforce conservation-area management plans required under Ordinance 299.
Trustees unanimously adopted a resolution (2024-10-d02) authorizing a template of perpetual covenants to implement the conservation-area provisions of Ordinance 299.
The covenants, presented by the village attorney (Attorney Chapel), are intended to record public notice of approved conservation-area management plans and to create enforceable mechanisms for maintenance and compliance. Chapel told the board the covenants would allow the village to give notice, require correction within set timeframes, step in to perform maintenance, seek reimbursement and, if unpaid, file liens against properties in the subdivision. "If the village is not reimbursed within 60 days, the village can file a lien," Chapel said, explaining the enforcement path the template provides and noting the resolution form allows typographical and minor drafting adjustments before final recordation.
Why it matters: Ordinance 299 creates a path for cluster-housing projects that include dedicated conservation open space; the covenants are the implementation tool to ensure those open spaces remain preserved and maintained after developer build-out. The template was developed after Planning and Zoning suggested a standardized approach to avoid ad-hoc or inconsistent covenants in future developments.
Board discussion focused on several legal and practical points. Trustee Benitas raised concerns that the draft's language referring to "proof of water rights" might unintentionally preclude some R2/R3 properties from participating, because many residents rely on utility-supplied water rather than pre-1907 surface-water rights. Chapel acknowledged the distinction and said the intent was to ensure "water availability" for conservation areas; he agreed the drafting could be clarified so the management-plan standard—not an inflexible rights test—determines whether a project meets water needs.
Trustees also asked how enforcement would function operationally. Chapel said the covenants provide both nonjudicial remedies (village notice, step-in maintenance and subsequent lien authority) and a judicial remedy (the village may seek injunctive relief) so that the village has options short of immediate litigation. The resolution also specifies that removing conservation restrictions would require unanimous consent of the trustees.
Board action and next steps: The board voted to adopt the resolution and asked staff and counsel to correct typographical issues and clarify the water-availability language before the final recorded form is attached to projects. Planning staff indicated the covenants would be recorded only after Planning and Zoning and Board approvals and after a final plat is filed, so the covenants will reflect the substantive approvals in each case.
What remains unresolved: Trustees asked for clearer draft language about water-availability proof and about coordination with developer-prepared homeowners' association documents. Chapel said the covenants are intended to be separate from typical HOA private covenants and to focus enforcement on conservation-area obligations.
The resolution passed unanimously; any substantive amendments to the template must be adopted by the trustees before recording.
