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 Embudo Canyon Neighborhood Association (ECNA) opposed a zoning change application submitted by agents for Hinkle Family Fun Center, Inc. The application sought to rezone a 9.55-acre tract of land at the intersection of Tramway Boulevard and Indian School Road in Albuquerque from C-2 (community commercial) to SU-1 (special use) to allow the operation of a permanent outdoor amusement facility, including go-carts, batting cages, and bumper boats. Hinkle argued that the zoning change was necessary due to increased traffic and population in the area and that the proposed use would benefit the community (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- Environmental Planning Commission: Approved the zoning change application (para 5).
- Albuquerque City Council: Affirmed the Environmental Planning Commission's decision (para 5).
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Affirmed the City Council's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the zoning change and that it did not constitute illegal spot zoning (para 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (ECNA): Argued that the zoning change was not supported by substantial evidence, violated Resolution 270-1980, and constituted illegal spot zoning (paras 6, 15).
- Respondent (City of Albuquerque): Contended that the zoning change complied with the Comprehensive Plan, was supported by substantial evidence, and did not constitute spot zoning (paras 13, 18-21).
Legal Issues
- Was there substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the City Council's decision to approve the zoning change?
- Did the City Council's approval of the zoning change constitute illegal spot zoning?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the decision of the district court, upholding the zoning change (para 23).
Reasons
Per Donnelly J. (Pickard and Armijo JJ. concurring):
The Court applied an administrative standard of review, examining whether substantial evidence supported the City Council's decision and whether the zoning change complied with applicable laws (para 7). The Court found that:
Substantial Evidence: The City Council's findings were supported by evidence, including testimony and petitions from community members and organizations, demonstrating that the zoning change would provide recreational and employment benefits to the community. The Council also imposed restrictions to mitigate potential adverse effects, such as noise (paras 13-14).
Spot Zoning: The rezoning did not constitute impermissible spot zoning. The Court noted that the SU-1 zoning was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and compatible with surrounding areas. The Council's decision was based on evidence that the proposed use was advantageous to the community and that any adverse effects were mitigated (paras 18-22).
The Court concluded that the City Council's decision was lawful and supported by substantial evidence, and the zoning change did not violate Resolution 270-1980 or constitute spot zoning (paras 22-23).