AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Petitioners challenged a permit modification request by Smith’s Food and Drug Centers, Inc., which would allow an increase in fuel dispensation at a filling station in Albuquerque, N.M. The challenge was based on the Environmental Health Department's (EHD) refusal to hold a public hearing and, for one petitioner, on inadequate notice of the permitting action.

Procedural History

• Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board: Dismissed Petitioners' petition for a hearing based on lack of standing (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioners-Appellants: Argued that two of them were adversely affected by the EHD's refusal to hold a public hearing and that the third petitioner's failure to participate in the permitting action was due to inadequate notice (para 1).
• Respondents-Appellees (The City of Albuquerque and Smith’s Food & Drug Centers, Inc.): Argued that the petitioners lacked standing to challenge the grant of the permit modification because one did not participate in the permitting action and the others did not show they were adversely affected by the EHD’s actions (para 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether Petitioner Power had standing to appeal the issuance of the permit due to his failure to participate in the permitting action being a result of legally insufficient notice.
• Whether Petitioners Toledo and Carrasco had standing to appeal the EHD’s refusal to hold a public hearing.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the Board's decision that Petitioner Power did not have standing.
• The court reversed the Board's decision regarding Petitioners Toledo and Carrasco, finding they did have standing to appeal the EHD’s refusal to hold a public hearing (para 1).

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J. (James J. Wechsler, J., Timothy L. Garcia, J., concurring):
  The court concluded that Petitioner Power lacked standing because he failed to show his non-participation was due to legally insufficient notice, especially given that the EHD complied with its regulation in providing public notice (paras 10-11).
  The court found that Petitioners Toledo and Carrasco had standing to appeal the refusal to hold a public hearing, as they were adversely affected by the EHD’s decision. The court emphasized that their standing was based on the procedural issue of the denial of a hearing request, not on the environmental impacts of the permit modification or whether the EHD properly exercised its discretion (paras 12-16).
  The court remanded the case to the Board to hold a hearing on the merits of whether the EHD improperly refused to hold a public hearing, specifically focusing on whether the request for a public hearing and the emailed questions from local neighborhood associations constituted "significant public interest" (paras 17-18).