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

The case concerns a dispute over a cell phone tower erected by a private entity, Milagro Wireless, LLC, on a portion of the I-25 right-of-way owned by the New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department. The County of Santa Fe sought to prohibit the construction, arguing it violated county zoning ordinances. Milagro Wireless contended that the ordinances did not apply because the tower was on state land and had the Highway Department's approval (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County: Dismissed the County of Santa Fe's complaint for declaratory relief, holding that local zoning ordinances do not apply to state-owned land (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff (County of Santa Fe): Argued that its zoning ordinances should apply to the cell phone tower because the activity was conducted by a private commercial entity, not the state. It also contended that the Highway Department lacked authority to approve the construction of the tower (paras 3-4, 6).
• Defendants (Milagro Wireless, LLC, and New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department): Asserted that local zoning ordinances do not apply to state-owned land and that the Highway Department had the authority to approve the construction of the tower as part of its duty to regulate the use of its right-of-ways (paras 2-3, 6).

Legal Issues

• Do local zoning ordinances apply to state-owned land when the activity is conducted by a private entity with the state's approval?
• Does the New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department have the authority to approve the construction of a cell phone tower on state land?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the district court's dismissal of the County of Santa Fe's complaint (para 9).

Reasons

Per Bustamante J. (Alarid and Castillo JJ. concurring):

• The Court reaffirmed the principle that local zoning ordinances generally do not apply to state-owned land unless there is an express statutory delegation of such authority. The County failed to identify any statute granting it the power to enforce zoning ordinances on state land (paras 4, 7).
• The Court rejected the County's argument that the activity was distinguishable because it was conducted by a private entity. The Court emphasized that the tower was erected with the express approval of the Highway Department, and the governmental-proprietary distinction was no longer valid for legal analysis (paras 4-5).
• The Court found that the Highway Department had the authority to regulate the use of its right-of-ways, including permitting the construction of utility facilities like cell phone towers. The County's arguments questioning the scope of this authority were deemed irrelevant to the issue of whether local zoning ordinances could apply to state land (para 6).
• The Court dismissed the County's reliance on various statutory provisions, finding no express delegation of authority to enforce zoning ordinances on state land. The cited statutes either addressed unrelated issues or did not support the County's interpretation (paras 7-8).