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, neighbors of a property slated for development into a residential subdivision, contested the removal of valuable material from the ground before construction. The Bernalillo County Board of County Commissioners approved a special-use permit for the excavation and removal of this material, which the petitioners challenged, asserting the board applied an incorrect standard for the permit's issuance (paras 1-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Affirmed the board's decision to issue a special-use permit for excavation and removal of material in connection with subdivision development (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioners: Argued that the board failed to employ the correct standard for the issuance of a special-use permit, specifically, that it did not include criteria established by the Supreme Court for a zone map change in a previous case (para 1).
• Respondent (Bernalillo County Board of County Commissioners): Contended that the criteria from the previous Supreme Court case did not apply to special-use permits but only to zone map downzoning circumstances (para 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the board was required to employ additional criteria established by the Supreme Court for a zone map change in the issuance of a special-use permit (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court, holding that the board was not required to apply the additional criteria from the Supreme Court case to the issuance of the special-use permit (para 18).

Reasons

• The majority, led by Judge Sutin, concluded that the criteria set forth in the Supreme Court case for zone map changes did not apply to the issuance of temporary special-use permits. The decision was based on the interpretation that nothing in the Supreme Court case indicated its criteria were meant to extend to special-use permits, which are temporary and less restrictive than zone map changes (paras 13-18). Judge Garcia dissented, arguing that the same criteria for zone changes should apply to special-use permits under the county resolution, emphasizing the need for specific factual findings to satisfy the community advantage criteria (paras 20-23).