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 the approval by the Bernalillo County Board of County Commissioners of an amendment to Southwest Landfill, Inc.'s special-use permit, allowing the landfill to expand its operations from accepting only construction debris to also accepting municipal waste. The appellants, including residents, neighborhood organizations, and the Pueblo of Isleta, opposed the expansion, citing concerns about compliance with county policies, environmental risks, and procedural irregularities (paras 1-2, 6-7).
Procedural History
- Bernalillo County Planning Commission, November 1996: Recommended approval of Southwest Landfill's application despite staff objections, subject to further determination of compliance with environmental policies (paras 4-5, 20).
- Bernalillo County Board of County Commissioners, December 1996: Approved the application by a 3-2 vote, denying the appellants' appeal (para 6).
- District Court of Bernalillo County, (N/A): Dismissed the appellants' petition for certiorari review, finding it without merit (para 7).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants: Argued that the Board's decision violated county law, including the Ground-Water Protection Policy and Action Plan (GPPAP) and Resolution No. 116-86, and that the application should have been treated as a new permit requiring more stringent review. They also contended that the Board's decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence (paras 1, 12-13, 23-24).
- Respondents (Southwest Landfill, Inc. and the Board): Claimed that the GPPAP and Resolution No. 116-86 were not binding and that the application was properly treated as an amendment to an existing permit. They argued that the Board's decision was supported by evidence and complied with applicable laws (paras 12, 15, 23-24).
Legal Issues
- Did the Board's approval of the permit amendment violate county law, including the GPPAP and Resolution No. 116-86?
- Was the application for the permit amendment improperly treated as an amendment rather than a new permit?
- Was the Board's decision arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the Board's decision, finding it arbitrary, capricious, and not in accordance with law (para 31).
Reasons
Per Armijo J. (Donnelly and Bosson JJ. concurring):
The GPPAP, adopted by resolution and incorporated into Ordinance No. 96-22, is binding on the Board. The Board failed to determine whether the landfill expansion would infringe on "crucial areas" or "wellhead protection areas" as required by the GPPAP. The record lacked substantial evidence to support the Board's implied conclusion that the expansion complied with the GPPAP (paras 13-22).
Resolution No. 116-86, also incorporated into Ordinance No. 96-22, imposes procedural and substantive requirements for special-use permits. The Court found that Southwest's application, which sought a significant expansion of operations, should have been treated as a new permit application rather than an amendment. The Board erred in failing to apply the requirements of Resolution No. 116-86 (paras 23-29).
The Board's decision was arbitrary and capricious because it lacked substantial evidence to support compliance with the GPPAP and Resolution No. 116-86. The Board also failed to address critical procedural questions, such as whether the application constituted a new permit (paras 17, 26-29).
The Court declined to address additional issues raised by the appellants, as the decision was resolved on other grounds (para 30).