This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A city councilor obtained a special exception to operate an automobile storage yard in a residential zone. Three years later, neighbors challenged the exception, alleging lack of notice, procedural irregularities, and the Board's lack of authority to grant the exception (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- Espanola City Council, December 1, 1998: The City Council denied the neighbors' petition to void the special exception due to a tie vote and issued no findings of fact or legal basis for its decision (paras 4-5).
- District Court, (N/A): The district court reversed the City Council's decision, declared the special exception void, and remanded the case to the Board for a new hearing (para 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Petitioner (Seeds): Argued that the neighbors' challenge was untimely as it was filed three years after the special exception was granted. He also contended that the statute allowing discretionary review by the Court of Appeals was unconstitutional as it violated his right to one appeal under the New Mexico Constitution (paras 1, 4, 6).
- Respondents (VanderVossens): Claimed they were not notified of the 1995 hearing and argued that the Board acted outside its authority by granting the special exception without the required two-thirds majority vote and for a use not listed as permissible in the zoning ordinances (paras 3-4, 8).
Legal Issues
- Was the statute allowing discretionary review by the Court of Appeals unconstitutional for denying a party the absolute right to one appeal?
- Was the special exception granted by the Board void or voidable, and could it be challenged after the statutory deadline?
- Did the neighbors file their challenge to the special exception in a timely manner?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's reversal of the City Council's decision in part, reversed the declaration that the special exception was void, and remanded the case to the City Council for further proceedings (para 28).
Reasons
Per Bosson CJ. (Alarid and Sutin JJ. concurring):
Constitutionality of Discretionary Review: The Court held that the statute allowing discretionary review by the Court of Appeals was constitutional. The "absolute right to one appeal" under the New Mexico Constitution applies only to cases within the district court's original jurisdiction, not to appeals from administrative decisions (paras 7-16).
Void vs. Voidable Decision: The Court determined that the Board's decision was voidable, not void. Procedural irregularities, such as lack of notice or failure to meet voting requirements, do not render a zoning decision void unless the Board acted ultra vires, which was not the case here (paras 17-21).
Timeliness of Appeal: The Court emphasized that the neighbors' challenge depended on whether they had notice of the 1995 hearing. If they had notice, their appeal was untimely; if not, the appeal was timely. The City Council failed to resolve this factual issue or provide a legal basis for its decision, necessitating a remand (paras 22-27).
Remand Instructions: The Court directed the City Council to conduct a hearing to determine whether the neighbors had notice of the 1995 hearing. If they had notice, the petition must be denied. If not, the City Council must decide the merits of the petition (para 28).