Sunland Park council approves developer-filed annexation amid legal objections and community outcry

Sunland Park’s city council voted July 7 to accept a developer-filed petition to annex about 1,783.99 acres near Santa Teresa after a lengthy public hearing marked by legal objections, residents’ pleas and calls for more community outreach.

The petition, the planner said, covers roughly 1,783.99 acres and lists several landowners including Paseo Del Norte LLC and Santa Teresa Land LLC. City staff told the council that public notices and a development-review team meeting were held, and that the statutory 60-day window for the petition expired the day of the meeting.

Residents and property owners packed the council chambers and the online meeting to oppose the annexation and an associated rezoning. "Do not annex Santa Teresa," said David Parsons, a Santa Teresa resident, who urged the council not to allow new housing on the former golf course and said residents had been promised services that never materialized. Several speakers said mailed notices were unreadable or not received and that maps in the packet were insufficient for meaningful review.

Local land-use attorneys also urged caution. Frank Herdman, appearing for Paseo Del Norte and Santa Teresa Land LLC, told the council the agenda items were improperly noticed and that the proposed ordinance sought to amend a provision in the city code that had been repealed when the city adopted a new land development code. "This matter is improperly noted on your agenda…This is a violation of the New Mexico Open Meetings Act," Herdman said.

Deputy Dona Ana County Attorney James (Jim) Van Cleave urged the council to consider statutory requirements that annexation decisions address water, wastewater and other county services, and flagged the risk of creating unincorporated enclaves or "donut holes" that could complicate service delivery. "I would especially urge the council members to look at" county recommendations on water commitments, Van Cleave said.

Representatives for the petitioners urged the council to consider the landowners’ right to petition and the benefits of planning parcels within the city. "Four people own 79% of this land and have asked to become part of the city so we can plan," attorney Bill Hagen said, arguing the petitioners want coordinated development and services.

Councilors debated whether notice and procedural steps were adequate. Staff told the council the city had used a 300-foot notice buffer (100 feet beyond the state’s 200-foot standard) and had mailed hundreds of notices. After hearing public testimony and counsel’s objections, councilors agreed the annexation petition itself should be acted upon now while separate questions about rezoning and a development agreement needed further review.

On a roll-call vote the council approved the annexation petition. Councilors then postponed the zoning and a related development agreement to allow additional review by the Planning & Zoning Commission and to provide time for better public outreach; the rezoning and development-agreement items were deferred to the commission and set for council consideration Aug. 18.

What’s next: The annexation is approved by petition, but the zoning decisions and development agreement that would shape how the land is built were postponed. Residents and county officials said they plan to press for clearer master plans, infrastructure commitments—especially water and sewer—and more public workshops before zoning or plats advance.