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 Plaintiffs, property owners in the extraterritorial area of Bernalillo County, were cited for violating Ordinance 213, which governed zoning in the area. They argued that the County lacked statutory authority to enforce the ordinance and that their property uses were grandfathered as they predated the County's zoning authority. The County maintained that Ordinance 213 was valid and enforceable under a 1975 saving clause and subsequent legislative amendments (paras 3-4).
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: Initially ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs, finding that the County lacked authority to enforce Ordinance 213. Upon reconsideration, the court reversed its decision, holding that the 1975 saving clause preserved Ordinance 213 and granted the County zoning authority over the extraterritorial area (para 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that the County lacked statutory authority to enforce Ordinance 213 in the extraterritorial area, that the ordinance was invalid after the repeal of its enabling legislation, and that their property uses were grandfathered as they predated the County's zoning authority (paras 1, 3-4, 29).
- Defendants-Appellees (County): Contended that the 1975 saving clause preserved Ordinance 213 in its entirety, allowing the County to enforce it in the extraterritorial area. They also argued that subsequent legislative amendments did not repeal the ordinance or limit the County's authority (paras 4, 7, 10, 23-26).
Legal Issues
- Was the County collaterally estopped from litigating the validity of Ordinance 213?
- Did the 1975 saving clause preserve Ordinance 213 in the extraterritorial area?
- Did subsequent legislative amendments repeal Ordinance 213 or limit the County's authority to enforce it?
- Were the Plaintiffs' property uses grandfathered under the Joint Powers Agreement?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that Ordinance 213 was valid and enforceable in the extraterritorial area and that the County had authority to enforce it against the Plaintiffs' properties (para 30).
Reasons
Per Apodaca J. (Pickard J. concurring):
Collateral Estoppel: The County was not barred from litigating the validity of Ordinance 213 because prior decisions involved different parties and collateral estoppel does not generally apply to governmental agencies administering laws for similarly situated persons (paras 5-6).
1975 Saving Clause: The saving clause explicitly preserved Ordinance 213, allowing it to remain in effect as if enacted under the 1975 Act. The Court rejected the Plaintiffs' argument that the ordinance was only valid outside the extraterritorial area, finding no legislative intent to leave the area unzoned (paras 10-20).
Subsequent Amendments: Later legislative changes, including the 1977 Act, did not repeal Ordinance 213 or limit the County's authority to enforce it. The Court found no statutory provision requiring the County to reenact or validate the ordinance (paras 23-26).
Grandfathering: The Plaintiffs' property uses were not grandfathered because Ordinance 213 had been valid and enforceable in the extraterritorial area since its adoption in 1973, predating the Joint Powers Agreement (para 29).
Special Concurrence by Hartz J.:
- Agreed with the majority's reasoning and result but emphasized that the 1975 saving clause had the same effect as similar provisions in prior legislation, ensuring that previously enacted ordinances remained valid without requiring reenactment (paras 32-36).