Sunland Park planning commission fails to recommend annexation of roughly 1,784 acres after heated public hearing

The Sunland Park Planning and Zoning Commission on June 24 did not recommend approval of a petition to annex roughly 1,783.99 acres, leaving the proposal’s next steps uncertain after a lengthy public hearing that highlighted map confusion, county objections and infrastructure concerns.

City planner Aries Rivas told the commission the application (ANX 200038) was submitted May 8, 2026 and that petitioning owners hold about 1,410.28 acres — roughly 79% of the acreage covered by the petition. Rivas said staff held a Development Review Team meeting on June 4, mailed public notices on or before June 4 (about 410 notices in the 300-foot buffer), and recommended approval to the commission.

The meeting turned contentious as both the applicant’s attorney and numerous residents flagged legal and technical problems. Frank Herdman, counsel for Po Del Norte LLC and Santa Teresa Land LLC, told the commission staff had not supplied a clear petition map and said the packet’s color layers were confusing. Herdman said a letter from the Dona Ana County Board of Commissioners strongly recommends denial and warned that the proposal would create multiple county ‘enclaves’ — unincorporated islands left inside the city — which his review found conflicted with Sunland Park’s recently adopted comprehensive plan.

"This annexation plan flies squarely in the face of your comprehensive plan," Herdman said, arguing the plan "creates these massive enclaves of Dona Ana County remaining surrounded by the proposed annexation area." He also said there was no documentation before the commission showing coordination on water and wastewater utilities or consideration of county service contracts, matters he said New Mexico statute 3-7-17.1 requires the city to consider.

Applicant representative Bill Hagen told the panel petitioners want to become part of Sunland Park to facilitate future development, and said "almost 80% of the land owners have said we want to be part of the city." Asked about a prior repeal, City Manager Mario Infante said the city council repealed a previous annexation after consultation with city legal staff and the petitioner's counsel because of technical issues; Infante said the current filing omits one landowner who had been in the prior application.

More than a dozen residents spoke during public comment and raised similar themes: inadequate notice and community outreach, infrastructure shortfalls (water, sewer, traffic), and developer track records. Several residents warned of possible litigation if open-space or golf-course amenities were converted. Matthew Lopez, who cited New Mexico case law, urged commissioners to weigh homeowners’ potential enforceable rights when golf-course land is repurposed.

"This was done in bad faith," resident Gabriel Balderas said of the process, calling the outreach rushed. Phyllis Crowder, reading historical material, expressed distrust of the current ownership and said the area had already seen promised amenities disappear. Other speakers described sewer backups, traffic bottlenecks on County Club Road, and a lack of schools and parks to absorb thousands of projected new residents.

Residents also raised legal doctrines. Margie Warren summarized New Mexico law on reciprocal negative easements — implied restrictions that can limit a developer’s ability to change land uses — and said such doctrine could be enforceable in the Santa Teresa subdivisions.

On water-safety questions, city staff (Mr. Huades) told the commission the local water system had "met the annual rolling average for compliance with arsenic, which is 10 parts per billion," for more than 15 months and that those results are published with the EPA and New Mexico Environment Department.

After public comment, commissioners debated and then voted on a motion to recommend annexation. The roll call recorded at least two "nay" votes and at least one "yes" (Commissioner Daniel Portillo recorded a "yes"); the motion failed. The chair and city manager confirmed that because the commission did not recommend approval, the related zoning and special-use permit items (agenda items 3 and 4) were not considered that night.

The commission chair told residents the items will be considered at the City Council stage, where the council will have the opportunity to hear public testimony and make final decisions. The meeting adjourned at about 7:13 p.m.

Next steps: the petition’s procedural record will remain part of the city’s files; commissioners and staff said they will respond in writing to residents’ detailed questions (traffic impact analysis, infrastructure and service coordination) and that any future zoning changes would be considered only if annexation or council action permits.