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 Plaintiff, a licensed amateur radio operator, constructed two 140-foot amateur radio antenna towers on his property in Bernalillo County, New Mexico, after receiving initial approval from the County. However, the County later issued stop work notices, citing non-compliance with zoning ordinances. The Plaintiff argued that the towers were exempt from height restrictions and necessary for his amateur radio operations, including emergency communications and contests (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• District Court, Bernalillo County: The Plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action after receiving stop work notices. The court remanded the matter to the County Planning Commission (CPC) for administrative proceedings. The CPC found the towers violated zoning ordinances. The district court denied the Plaintiff's requested relief, affirming the CPC's findings (paras 2, 7-8).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that amateur radio towers are a permissive use not subject to height restrictions, that recent zoning amendments did not prohibit the towers, and that the County's interpretation of the zoning ordinance violated federal preemption and improperly delegated legislative authority (para 2).
• Defendant-Appellee (Board of County Commissioners): Contended that the towers violated zoning ordinances, were not a "customarily incidental" use in the A-2 zone, and that the County acted within its authority to regulate such structures (paras 7-8).
• Amicus Curiae (American Radio Relay League): Supported the Plaintiff, emphasizing the federal protections for amateur radio operations (para 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff's amateur radio towers are a "customarily incidental" use under the A-2 zoning ordinance.
• Whether the County's interpretation of the zoning ordinance violated federal preemption.
• Whether the 1999 zoning amendments removed amateur radio towers as a permissive use in the A-2 zone.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the towers were not a "customarily incidental" use in the A-2 zone and that their height was unreasonable for the zone (para 26).

Reasons

Per Wechsler CJ (Castillo and Kennedy JJ. concurring):

• The Court determined that the zoning ordinance's "customarily incidental" provision required a case-by-case analysis, considering the physical characteristics of the structure and the purpose of the A-2 zone, which emphasizes preserving scenic and natural values (paras 17-20).
• The Court found that the 1999 zoning amendments did not explicitly remove amateur radio towers as a permissive use in the A-2 zone. However, the towers still needed to meet the "customarily incidental" standard (paras 14-16).
• The CPC's finding that the towers' height was unreasonable for the A-2 zone was supported by substantial evidence, including testimony from neighbors about the towers' visual impact and the stated purpose of the A-2 zone to preserve scenic values (paras 23-25).
• The Court concluded that the County's actions did not violate federal preemption, as the zoning ordinance allowed for reasonable regulation of amateur radio towers (paras 23-26).