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 the Bernalillo County Board of County Commissioners' (the Board) approval of the Level B master plan and Level B development agreement for the Santolina planned community in Bernalillo County. They argued that the necessary prerequisites for such approval were not in place at the time it occurred.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants-Petitioners: Argued that the district court erred in affirming the Board's approval of the Level B master plan and development agreement because the required prerequisites were not met at the time of approval.
• Appellees-Respondents (Bernalillo County Board of County Commissioners, O’Malley, Stebbins, Quezada, Talbert, and Smith; Consensus Planning & Western Albuquerque Land Holdings, LLC): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in affirming the Board’s approval of the Level B master plan and Level B development agreement without the proper prerequisites in place.
• Whether the district court erred in finding that the Board’s approval of the Level B master plan was a legislative act requiring legislative, rather than administrative, review on appeal.

Disposition

• The district court’s orders affirming the Board’s approval of the Level B master plan and the Level B development agreement were affirmed for substantially the same reasons as within each respective order (para 2).

Reasons

• HANISEE, Chief Judge (with JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge and GERALD E. BACA, Judge concurring): The Court found no error in the district court's decisions, affirming the Board's approval of the Level B master plan and development agreement. The appellants failed to demonstrate that the district court erred, as required by precedent. The district court's orders were deemed thorough, well-reasoned, and explanatory, addressing all issues presented in the appeal. The presumption of correctness favored the district court's actions, and the appellants did not affirmatively demonstrate error. Thus, the Court affirmed the district court’s decisions for the same reasons stated in each respective order (paras 1-2).