1. A. The planning authority of a municipality shall adopt regulations governing the subdivision of land within the planning and platting jurisdiction of the municipality. The subdivision regulations shall be approved by the governing body before they become effective. The subdivision regulations may provide for:

   1. (1) the harmonious development of the municipality and its environs;
   2. (2) the coordination of streets within the subdivision with existing or planned streets or other features of the master plan or official map of the municipality;
   3. (3) adequate open space for traffic, recreation, drainage, light and air; and
   4. (4) the distribution of population and traffic which tend to create conditions favorable to the health, safety, convenience, prosperity or general welfare of the residents of the municipality.

2. B. Subdivision regulations may govern:

   1. (1) the width of streets;
   2. (2) the width, depth and arrangement of lots;
   3. (3) land use, including natural drainage;
   4. (4) other matters necessary to carry out the purposes of the Municipal Code; and

   5. (5) the extent and manner in which:

      1. (a) streets are graded and improved; and
      2. (b) water, sewer and other utility facilities are installed as a condition precedent to the approval of a plat.

3. C. The subdivision regulations or the practice of the planning commission may allow tentative approval of the plat previous to the completion of improvements and the installation of utility facilities but such tentative approval shall not be entered on a plat. In lieu of the completion of improvements and the installation of utility facilities previous to the final approval of a plat, the subdivision regulations may provide for:

   1. (1) assessment or other methods whereby the municipality makes the improvements and installations at the cost of the owner of property within the subdivision; or
   2. (2) acceptance of a bond, in an amount and with surety and conditions satisfactory to the planning commission, securing to the municipality the actual construction and installation of improvements and utility facilities within a period of time specified by the planning commission and expressed in the bond. A municipality may enforce such a bond by all appropriate and legal remedies; or
   3. (3) in lieu of a bond, the municipality may enter into an agreement with a person seeking approval of a subdivision whereby the person seeking approval shall, within two years following final approval of the plat, complete the improvements and the installation of utility facilities provided for in the person's application for subdivision approval, except that the agreement set forth herein may provide that the person seeking approval shall be permitted by the municipality to sell or otherwise dispose of, or improve any lot within the subdivision, to which improvements and utility facilities have been provided by the person seeking approval at any time within the two-year period; any such agreement shall be recorded with the county clerk at the time of filing said plat.
4. D. The governing body or planning commission of the municipality shall hold a public hearing on the adoption of a subdivision regulation or an amendment to it. Notice of the time and place of the public hearing shall be published once at least fifteen days prior to the date of the public hearing.

5. E. If the requirement or restriction does not violate the zoning ordinance, the governing body or planning commission of the municipality may agree with a person seeking approval of a subdivision upon the use, height, area or bulk requirement or restriction governing buildings and premises within the subdivision. The requirement or restriction shall:

   1. (1) accompany the plat before it is approved and recorded;
   2. (2) have the force of law;
   3. (3) be enforced; and
   4. (4) be subject to amendment or repeal as the provisions of the zoning ordinance and map are enforced, amended or repealed.

History: 1953 Comp., § 14-18-6, enacted by Laws 1965, ch. 300; 1975, ch. 309, § 1.

ANNOTATIONS

No vested development rights under impact fee ordinance. — Where the municipal impact fee ordinance exempted developers who possessed development rights that vested prior to the ordinance’s date of enactment from paying the impact fee; prior to the date the ordinance was enacted, the municipal planning commission approved a site plan for subdivision of land owned by plaintiff; the approved plan established zoning, tract boundaries, vehicle access, bicycle and trail access, public transit access, internal circulation requirements, building heights, setbacks, and common landscape standards; none of the tracts were platted; and the regulations that were promulgated pursuant to the ordinance defined vested rights as development rights acquired and resulting from building permit approval, final plat approval, preliminary plat approval, or site plan for subdivision or site plan for building permit approval and defined site plan for subdivision as a plat, which covers at least one lot and specifies access and building criteria, under the ordinance, a developer receives development rights at the time it receives approval of a reliable platting pattern, the developer’s original site plan for subdivision did not confer the development rights necessary to establish vested rights under the ordinance, because it did not provide a reliable platting pattern, and the developer was not exempt from paying impact fees. Andalucia Dev. Corp., Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, 2010-NMCA-052, 148 N.M. 277, 234 P.3d 929.

No common law vested development rights. — Where the municipal impact fee ordinance exempted developers who possessed development rights that vested prior to the ordinance’s date of enactment from paying the impact fee; prior to the date the ordinance was enacted, the municipal planning commission approved a site plan for subdivision of land owned by plaintiff; the approved plan established zoning, tract boundaries, vehicle access, bicycle and trail access, public transit access, internal circulation requirements, building heights, setbacks, and common landscape standards; none of the tracts were platted; and development of the property was subject to subsequent municipal approvals and the continuance of the project remained entirely within the municipality’s discretion, the original site plan for subdivision did not confer a vested development right under common law and the developer was not exempt from paying impact fees. Andalucia Dev. Corp., Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, 2010-NMCA-052, 148 N.M. 277, 234 P.3d 929.

This section did not give municipality the right to exact from subdivider a $50.00 fee per lot subdivided to be used generally for improvements to the subdivision, where no specific directions were given for the use of money so accumulated. Sanchez v. City of Santa Fe, 1971-NMSC-012, 82 N.M. 322, 481 P.2d 401.

A planning authority has standing to enforce reasonable restrictions imposed as a condition of subdivision approval. Village of Los Ranchos De Albuquerque v. Shiveley, 1989-NMCA-095, 110 N.M. 15, 791 P.2d 466cert. denied, 109 N.M. 704, 789 P.2d 1271.

Restrictions imposed upon the use and control of the common area of a cluster housing development were within the power of the planning authority. Village of Los Ranchos De Albuquerque v. Shiveley, 1989-NMCA-095, 110 N.M. 15, 791 P.2d 466, cert. denied, 109 N.M. 704, 789 P.2d 1271.

Law reviews. — For note, "County Regulation of Land Use and Development," see 9 Nat. Resources J. 266 (1969).