This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case concerns a special-use permit granted to the appellant in 1973 for operating a contractor's yard on a property in Albuquerque, which was later amended in 1976 to allow the addition of a warehouse. The permit was issued "for the life of the use." The appellant leased the property to a third party in the 1980s, and the zoning administrator confirmed the lease complied with the permit. In 1987, neighbors complained about zoning violations, including noise, dust, and odors, leading to the revocation of the permit by the Bernalillo County Board of County Commissioners (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- Bernalillo County Planning Commission, December 2, 1987: Revoked the appellant's special-use permit based on complaints from neighbors (para 3).
- Bernalillo County Board of County Commissioners, February 16, 1988: Affirmed the Planning Commission's decision to revoke the permit (para 3).
- District Court, (N/A): Upheld the Board's decision and reaffirmed it on rehearing, finding the Board acted within its zoning authority (para 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant: Argued that the Board lacked authority to revoke the permit, which was granted "for the life of the use." Additionally, the appellant claimed the revocation constituted an unconstitutional taking in violation of due process and that the district court erred by not providing a full evidentiary hearing (para 1).
- Respondent: Asserted that the Board acted within its authority under the zoning ordinance and that the revocation was justified due to violations and the use being out of character with the surrounding area (paras 3, 10).
Legal Issues
- Did the Bernalillo County Board of County Commissioners have the authority to revoke a special-use permit granted "for the life of the use"?
- Was the revocation of the special-use permit an unconstitutional taking in violation of due process?
- Did the district court err in failing to provide the appellant with a full evidentiary hearing?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision and directed the district court to set aside the cancellation of the special-use permit (para 12).
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Bivins and Black JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the Board lacked the authority to revoke the special-use permit. Zoning powers derive solely from statutory authority and must be strictly construed. The applicable zoning ordinance provisions did not explicitly authorize the cancellation of a special-use permit granted "for the life of the use" due to violations. The Court rejected the Board's reliance on Section 18(A)(5) of the zoning ordinance, finding it pertained to development oversight rather than permit revocation. The Court also dismissed the zoning administrator's interpretation of the ordinance as incorrect. While the Board had other remedies for addressing violations, such as seeking injunctions or penalties, revocation exceeded its authority (paras 5-12).