This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
An applicant operated a sand and gravel mine on federal land leased from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and sought to stockpile mined materials on an adjacent private property within the San Pedro Contemporary Community Zoning District. A Santa Fe County ordinance prohibited mining and commercial uses in the district. The applicant argued that stockpiling was necessary for the mining operation, while the San Pedro Neighborhood Association opposed the activity, citing zoning restrictions (paras 1-7).
Procedural History
- Santa Fe Board of County Commissioners: Approved the applicant's request to stockpile mined materials on the adjacent private property, finding that the prohibition on stockpiling would interfere with the mining operation's commercial feasibility (paras 7-8).
- District Court of Santa Fe County: Reversed the Board's decision, holding that the Board's approval was not in accordance with the law and lacked substantial evidence (paras 8-9).
Parties' Submissions
- Applicant: Argued that stockpiling on the adjacent property was necessary for the mining operation's commercial viability and that the zoning ordinance did not explicitly prohibit stockpiling. Claimed that the prohibition would render the mining operation commercially impracticable under federal law (paras 4-6, 23-27).
- San Pedro Neighborhood Association: Contended that stockpiling constituted a prohibited commercial use under the zoning ordinance and that the Board's decision lacked legal and evidentiary support (paras 18-21).
- Board of County Commissioners: Asserted that stockpiling was not a mining or commercial use but rather an industrial use, which was permissible under the ordinance. Also argued that the ordinance could not conflict with federal law by making the mining operation commercially impracticable (paras 6, 20, 23-27).
Legal Issues
- Whether the prohibition on mining in the zoning ordinance includes stockpiling of mined materials (paras 13-16).
- Whether stockpiling constitutes a prohibited commercial use under the zoning ordinance (paras 17-21).
- Whether the zoning ordinance renders the mining operation commercially impracticable, thereby conflicting with federal law (paras 23-27).
- Whether the Board's decision to issue a temporary permit was supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with the law (paras 22, 29).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the Board's approval of stockpiling was not supported by substantial evidence and was not in accordance with the law (para 30).
Reasons
Per Vigil J. (Wechsler and Kennedy JJ. concurring):
Mining Prohibition: The Court held that the zoning ordinance's prohibition on mining did not extend to stockpiling, as stockpiling does not involve the extraction of minerals and is not included in the ordinary definition of mining (paras 13-16).
Commercial Use: The Court found that stockpiling mined materials for future sale constituted a commercial use under the ordinary meaning of the term. The prohibition on commercial uses in the zoning ordinance therefore applied to the applicant's proposed activity (paras 17-21).
Industrial Use: The Board's classification of stockpiling as an industrial use was rejected due to a lack of evidence in the record to support this finding (para 22).
Commercial Impracticability: The Court concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the prohibition on stockpiling rendered the mining operation commercially impracticable. The evidence showed that the mining operation was profitable and not marginal, and the high standard of commercial impracticability was not met (paras 23-27).
Temporary Permits: The Court declined to address the issue of whether the Board had authority to issue temporary permits, as it was not raised in the petitions for certiorari (para 29).