1. A. Before a plat of any subdivision within the jurisdiction of a municipality is filed in the office of the county clerk, the plat shall be submitted to the planning authority of the municipality having jurisdiction for approval.

2. B. The rules and regulations of the planning authority shall state:

   1. (1) the scale and manner in which the plat is to be prepared;
   2. (2) the number of copies of the plat which shall accompany the original plat;
   3. (3) what other information shall accompany the plat; and
   4. (4) the standards and regulations for subdivisions to which the planning authority may require the subdivider to conform.
3. C. The person submitting the plat shall pay the necessary filing fee to the municipality, and the planning authority, after approval and endorsement, shall file the plat with the county clerk. If the plat is not approved, the planning authority shall return the filing fee and the plat to the person submitting the plat.
4. D. A plat submitted for approval by the planning authority shall contain the name and address of the person to whom a notice of hearing shall be sent. Notice of the time and place of a hearing on a plat shall be sent by mail to the address on the plat not less than five days before the day of the hearing. No plat shall be acted upon without a public hearing unless the requirement that a public hearing be held is waived by the person seeking approval of the plat.
5. E. The planning authority of a municipality shall approve or disapprove a plat within thirty-five days of the day of final submission of the plat. If the planning authority does not act within thirty-five days, the plat is deemed to be approved, and upon demand, the planning authority shall issue a certificate approving the plat. The person seeking approval of the plat may waive this requirement and agree to an extension of this time period. The reason for disapproval of a plat shall be entered upon the recordings of the planning authority.
6. F. No plat of territory within the planning and platting jurisdiction of a municipality shall be filed and recorded unless it has been approved by the planning commission or the governing body of the municipality pursuant to regulations and procedures adopted by ordinance of the governing body.

History: 1953 Comp., § 14-19-7, enacted by Laws 1965, ch. 300; 1999, ch. 137, § 1.

ANNOTATIONS

The 1999 amendment, effective June 18, 1999, in Subsection F, deleted the Paragraph (1) and (2) designations, deleted "and endorsed by the chairman and secretary of the planning commission" following "planning commission", and substituted "of the municipality pursuant to regulations and procedures adopted by ordinance of the governing body" for "and endorsed by the mayor and clerk of the municipality if the governing body has reserved this power in creating the planning commission or if there is no planning commission".

Section does not create equal protection right. — Any equal protection right to approval of a plat under Subsection E was not well enough established to maintain the defendants had knowledge of it; the defendants had qualified immunity on the claim of equal protection violation. Norton v. Village of Corrales, 103 F.3d 928 (10th Cir. 1996).

No violation of substantive due process rights. — The plaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of substantive due process rights under Subsection E of this section; the defendants had a reasonable basis for delaying further subdivision application and approval of pending plats based on the plaintiff's failure to procure a business registration and on the fact that plaintiff corporation was not in good standing with the State Corporation Commission (now public regulation commission). Norton v. Village of Corrales, 103 F.3d 928 (10th Cir. 1996).

Review by appeal, not mandamus. — Developer who alleged that city council failed to approve his plat within the statutory time limit of 35 days and that, therefore, the plat was approved by operation of law had adequate remedies at law through 3-19-8 NMSA 1978, which he had not exhausted; the administrative procedures of that section, not the extraordinary writ of mandamus, provided developer with his proper avenue to challenge the council's actions. State ex rel. Hyde Park Co. v. Planning Comm'n of the City of Santa Fe, 1998-NMCA-146, 125 N.M. 832, 965 P.2d 951.

Law reviews. — For comment, "Regional Planning - Subdivision Control - New Mexico's New Municipal Code," see 6 Nat. Resources J. 135 (1966).

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