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 the application of a municipal impact fee ordinance enacted by the City of Albuquerque in December 2004. The ordinance exempts developers from paying impact fees if their development rights vested before the ordinance's enactment. The developers, Andalucia Development Corporation, Inc., and SPS Investments, LC, argued that their rights in Phase 3/Tract 1C of their project vested in March 2001 when the Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) approved their original site plan for subdivision. The City contended that the developers' rights did not vest because the site plan lacked a reliable platting pattern for individual lots (paras 1-7).
Procedural History
- EPC Decision, March 2001: Approved the developers' original site plan for subdivision, which included zoning and annexation but no platting pattern for individual lots (para 3).
- City of Albuquerque Decision, August 21, 2006: Affirmed the EPC's decision, finding that the developers' rights in Phase 3/Tract 1C had not vested before the ordinance's enactment (para 7).
- District Court, January 8, 2008: Reversed the City's decision, holding that the developers' rights vested in March 2001 under both the common law and the ordinance. The court also invalidated the ordinance's two-year sunset provision (paras 8-10).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants (City of Albuquerque): Argued that the developers' rights did not vest under the ordinance because the March 2001 site plan lacked a reliable platting pattern. They also contended that the district court erred in applying the common law doctrine of vested rights and in invalidating the ordinance's two-year sunset provision (paras 11, 15-16).
- Appellees (Developers): Claimed that their rights vested in March 2001 when the EPC approved their site plan for subdivision. They argued that the approval conferred development rights under the ordinance and satisfied the common law test for vested rights. They also challenged the applicability of the ordinance to Phase 3/Tract 1C (paras 6, 17, 25).
Legal Issues
- Did the developers' rights in Phase 3/Tract 1C vest under the municipal impact fee ordinance before its enactment?
- Did the developers acquire common law vested rights in Phase 3/Tract 1C?
- Was the ordinance's two-year sunset provision valid?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, holding that the developers' rights in Phase 3/Tract 1C did not vest under the ordinance or at common law.
- The Court upheld the validity of the ordinance's two-year sunset provision (paras 27-28).
Reasons
Per Kennedy J. (Fry C.J. and Castillo J. concurring):
Vested Rights Under the Ordinance: The Court held that a developer's rights vest under the ordinance only when a reliable platting pattern is approved. The March 2001 site plan for subdivision, which defined bulk land tracts but lacked a platting pattern for individual lots, did not confer development rights. The City's interpretation of the ordinance was reasonable and entitled to deference (paras 15-19).
Common Law Vested Rights: The Court found that the developers did not meet the two-pronged test for common law vested rights established in Brazos Land, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners. The March 2001 site plan approval was insufficient to constitute the necessary regulatory approval, as it remained subject to further approvals. The developers' reliance on the common law to interpret the ordinance was misplaced (paras 20-24).
Sunset Provision: The Court rejected the district court's invalidation of the ordinance's two-year sunset provision. The provision did not arbitrarily divest developers of common law vested rights but merely imposed a time limit for obtaining building permits to qualify for the exemption. The provision was consistent with the ordinance's purpose and remained valid (paras 26-27).
The Court concluded that the district court erred in its interpretation of the ordinance, its application of common law principles, and its invalidation of the sunset provision. The City's decision to impose impact fees on Phase 3/Tract 1C was upheld.