1. All decisions for which the City Council has final decision-making authority for appeals pursuant to Table 6-1-1, including the LC's decision on an appeal of a Historic Certificate of Appropriateness - Minor pursuant to Subsection (a) above.
2. The EPC's decision on an appeal of an impact fee assessment, pursuant to Subsection (b) above.
3. The ZEO's decision on a declaratory ruling.
4. In an appeal to the City Council through the LUHO, the LUHO shall take 1 of the following actions:
a. Recommend a proposed disposition of the appeal to the City Council with supporting analysis and findings. The LUHO may recommend that an appeal be affirmed in whole or in part, reversed in whole or in part, and/or remanded in whole or in part.
b. Directly remand an appeal for reconsideration or further review by the lower decision-making body if a remand is necessary to clarify or supplement the record or if remand would more expeditiously dispose of the matter.
6-4(V)(1)(d) Any decision related to compliance with Articles 14-1, 14-3, and 14-5 of ROA 1994 (Uniform Administrative Code and Technical Codes, Uniform Housing Code, and Flood Hazard and Drainage Control) by City Planning Department staff for a building permit or other construction approval may be appealed pursuant to the applicable sections of those codes.
Standing to appeal a final decision may be granted to any of the following parties:
1. The owner of the property listed in the application.
2. A representative of any City department, City agency, or other governmental or quasi-governmental agency whose services, properties, facilities, interest, or operations may be affected by the application.
3. Any party appealing either of the following decisions:
a. Declaratory Ruling.
b. Adoption or Amendment of Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Comprehensive Plan.
4. Any other person or organization that can demonstrate that his/her/its property rights or other legal rights have been specially and adversely affected by the decision.
a. Such showing must be presented by the appellant as part of the appeal, and the LUHO or City Council shall enter a finding or findings as to whether this requirement has been met.
b. If it is found that the appellant cannot satisfy this standard, the appeal shall be denied.
5. Property owners (other than the applicant) and Neighborhood Associations on the basis of proximity for decisions as specified in Table 6-4-2.
Distances noted in feet in Table 6-4-2 are measured from the nearest lot line of the subject property.
b. Distances for Neighborhood Associations are based on the boundary on file with the ONC at the time the application for decision related to the subject property was accepted as complete.
d. For application types with no distance specified, the final decision may be appealed pursuant to the Subsection specified 196 in Table 6-4-2.
Application Type | Property Owners within Distance Specified | Neighborhood Associations within Distance Specified |
Application Type | Property Owners within Distance Specified | Neighborhood Associations within Distance Specified |
Administrative Decisions | ||
Archaeological Certificate | 100 ft. | 660 ft. |
Declaratory Ruling | ||
Historic Certificate of Appropriateness – Minor | 100 ft. | 660 ft. |
Impact Fee Assessment | ||
Permit – Sign | ||
Permit | 100 ft. | 660 ft. |
Alternative Signage Plan | 330 ft. | 660 ft. |
Permit – Temporary Use | 100 ft. | 660 ft. |
Permit – Wall or Fence – Minor | 100 ft. | 660 ft. |
Site Plan – Administrative | 100 ft. | 660 ft. |
Subdivision of Land – Minor | 100 ft. | 660 ft. |
Wireless Telecommunications Facility Approval | 330 ft. | 660 ft. |
Decisions Requiring a Public Hearing | ||
Conditional Use Approval | 330 ft. | 660 ft. |
Demolition Outside of an HPO | 330 ft. | 660 ft. |
Expansion of Nonconforming Use or Structure | 100 ft. | 660 ft. |
Historic Certificate of Appropriateness – Major | 330 ft. | 660 ft. |
Historic Design Standards and Guidelines | 330 ft. | 660 ft. |
Master Development Plan | 330 ft. | 660 ft. |
Permit – Carport | 100 ft. | 660 ft. |
Permit – Wall or Fence – Major | 100 ft. | 660 ft. |
Site Plan – EPC | 330 ft. | 660 ft. |
Subdivision of Land – Major | ||
Preliminary Plat | 330 ft. | 660 ft. |
Bulk Land Subdivision | 100 ft. | 660 ft. |
Final Plat[1] | N/A | N/A |
Vacation of Easement, Private Way, or Public Right-of-way | ||
Vacation of Public or Private Easement | 100 ft. | 660 ft. |
Vacation of Public Right-of-way – City Council | 330 ft. | 660 ft. |
Vacation of Public Right-of-way – DHO | 100 ft. | 660 ft. |
Variance – EPC | 330 ft. | 660 ft. |
Variance – ZHE | 100 ft. | 660 ft. |
Waiver – DHO | 100 ft. | 660 ft. |
Waiver – Wireless Telecommunications Facility | 330 ft. | 660 ft. |
Policy Decisions | ||
Adoption or Amendment of Comprehensive Plan | ||
Adoption or Amendment of Facility Plan | ||
Adoption or Amendment of Historic Designation | 330 ft. | 660 ft. |
Amendment to IDO Text – Citywide | ||
Amendment to IDO Text – Small Area | 330 ft. | 660 ft. |
Annexation of Land | 330 ft. | 660 ft. |
Zoning Map Amendment – EPC | 330 ft. | 660 ft. |
Zoning Map Amendment – Council | 330 ft. | 660 ft. |
[1] ] For Subdivision of Land - Major, only a Preliminary Plat decision may be appealed; a Final Plat is not subject to appeal. 198 | ||
1. For Decisions Requiring a Public Hearing and Policy Decisions (pursuant to Table 6-1-1), the appellant must have made an appearance of record to have standing to appeal, except in cases where an appellant is alleging improper notice.
2. An appearance of record can be made through any of the following:
a. The initial submittal of an application for a decision listed in Table 6-1-1.
b. The submittal of written comments that include the eventual appellant's name and contact information about the subject case submitted to the relevant decision-making body during the review process within the deadline for written comments prior to the decision.
c. Verbal comments made by the eventual appellant or appellant's agent provided at a public hearing about the subject case during the review process before the relevant decision-making body.
1. An appeal must be filed with the Planning Director within 15 calendar days, excluding holidays listed in Part 3-1-12 of ROA 1994 (Legal Holidays), after the decision.
a. The date that the decision was made is not included in the 15-day period for filing an appeal.
b. The Planning Director shall not accept appeals filed after the 15-day deadline in Subsection a above has passed.
2. For Declaratory Rulings, there is no deadline for appealing the decision.
3. The appeal shall specifically state the section of this IDO, City regulation, or condition attached to a decision that has not been interpreted or applied correctly.
1. Once an appeal has been accepted by the Planning Director, the City Planning Department staff (Historic Preservation planner) shall prepare and transmit a record of the appeal together with all appeal material received from the appellant the property owner and appellant(s) and to the LC. The LC shall schedule a hearing on the matter within 45 calendar days of receipt. The Historic Preservation Planner shall notify the parties. Appellants and parties to the appeal may submit written arguments to the LC so long as the written argument is received by LC staff at least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing.
2. The LC may accept new evidence into the record if it appears that such additional evidence is necessary for the proper disposition of the matter and could not have been placed into the record during the previous decision-making process. New evidence that clarifies evidence already in the record, that is offered to contradict evidence in the record, or that is offered on a key factual issue, may be allowed or may justify remand.
3. The LC may impose reasonable limitations on the number of witnesses heard and on the nature and length of their testimony and cross-examination.
4. The LC shall make findings exclusively on the record of the decision appealed, supplemented by any evidence allowed at the hearing.
5. The LC may affirm, reverse, or otherwise modify the lower decision to bring it into compliance with the standards and criteria of this IDO, applicable City regulations, and any prior approvals related to the subject property.
6. If the LC determines that the matter should be remanded, the LC shall set forth the reason(s) for the remand and the matters to be reconsidered and may order such remand. The matter must be heard and decided by the original decision-making body prior to any further appeal of the matter.
1. Once an appeal has been accepted by the Planning Director, the City Planning Department staff shall prepare and transmit a record of the appeal together with all appeal material received from the appellant to the property owner and appellant(s) and to the EPC. The EPC shall schedule a hearing on the matter within 45 calendar days of receipt. City Planning Department staff shall notify the parties. Appellants and parties to the appeal may submit written arguments to the EPC so long as the written argument is received by EPC staff at least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing.
2. The EPC may accept new evidence into the record if it appears that such additional evidence is necessary for the proper disposition of the matter and could not have been placed into the record during the previous decision-making process. New evidence that clarifies evidence already in the record, that is offered to contradict evidence in the record, or that is offered on a key factual issue, may be allowed or may justify remand.
3. The EPC may impose reasonable limitations on the number of witnesses heard and on the nature and length of their testimony and cross-examination.
4. The EPC shall make findings exclusively on the record of the decision appealed, supplemented by any evidence allowed at the hearing.
5. The EPC may affirm, reverse, or otherwise modify the lower decision to bring it into compliance with the standards and criteria of this IDO, applicable City regulations, and any prior approvals related to the subject property.
6. If the EPC determines that the matter should be remanded, the EPC shall set forth the reason(s) for the remand and the matters to be reconsidered and may order such remand. The matter must be heard and decided by the original decision-making body prior to any further appeal of the matter.
1. Once an appeal has been accepted by the Planning Director, the Planning Director shall prepare and transmit a record of the appeal together with all appeal material received from the appellant to impacted parties and to the LUHO through the Clerk of the City Council. The LUHO shall schedule a hearing on the matter within 30 calendar days of receipt and notify the parties. Appellants and parties to the appeal may submit written arguments to the LUHO through the Clerk of the City Council so long as the written argument is received by the Clerk of the City Council at least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing.
2. The LUHO may accept new evidence into the record if it appears that such additional evidence is necessary for the proper disposition of the matter and could not have been placed into the record during the previous decision-making process. New evidence that clarifies evidence already in the record, that is offered to contradict evidence in the record, or that is offered on a key factual issue, may be allowed or may justify remand.
3. The LUHO may impose reasonable limitations on the number of witnesses heard and on the nature and length of their testimony and cross-examination.
4. The LUHO shall make findings exclusively on the record of the decision appealed, supplemented by any evidence allowed at the hearing.
5. The LUHO may recommend that the City Council affirm, reverse, or otherwise modify the lower decision to bring it into compliance with the standards and criteria of this IDO, applicable City regulations, and any prior approvals related to the subject property.
6. If the LUHO determines that the matter should be remanded, the LUHO shall set forth the reason(s) for the remand and the matters to be reconsidered and may order such remand without approval by the City Council. The LUHO shall notify the parties and Planning Department staff of the remand.
7. Planning Department staff shall notify parties of the date and time of the remand hearing. Public notice pursuant to Table 6-1-1 for the original decision is not required. The decision at the remand hearing is considered final unless one of the parties files a new appeal.
1. If the appeal is not directly remanded, the LUHO shall forward the recommendation and findings and a transcription of the LUHO's public hearing to City Council within 15 calendar days after the close of the hearing.
2. The City Council shall place the matter on the agenda of the next regular City Council meeting at which land use, planning, and zoning matters are heard following its receipt of the LUHO's recommendation, provided that there is a period of at least 10 calendar days between the receipt of the recommendation and the City Council meeting. The parties may submit written comments to the City Council regarding the LUHO's recommendation and findings provided that such comments are received by the Clerk of the City Council and all other parties of record no later than 4 calendar days prior to the City Council meeting.
3. At that meeting, the City Council shall vote whether to accept or reject LUHO's recommendation and findings. A motion to accept or reject the LUHO's recommendation and findings must be approved by a majority vote of the entire membership of the City Council.
4. The City Council may accept a portion of the LUHO's recommendation and findings and reject the remainder. If the LUHO's recommendation is rejected in whole or in part, or if the City Council fails to either accept or reject the recommendation, the City Council may take 1 of the following actions:
a. Remand the matter for reconsideration or further review by a lower decision-making body if necessary to clarify or supplement the record, or if remand would more expeditiously dispose of the matter.
b. Make a final determination on the appeal and adopt findings in support of its determination based only on the record without any additional hearings.
c. If the City Council determines that it cannot properly dispose of the appeal without additional hearings on the matter, schedule a full hearing on the matter no earlier than the next regular meeting at which land use matters are heard.
5. If the City Council fails to accept or reject the LUHO's recommendation and no other motions are made or approved, the appeal will be scheduled for a full hearing on the matter at the next regular meeting of the City Council.
6. If the matter is scheduled for a hearing before the City Council, the Clerk of the City Council shall notify the parties to the appeal. The parties may present oral argument at the hearing pursuant to hearing procedures as established by rule of the City Council. However, the City Council shall not accept new evidence and shall make its final decision based solely on the evidence in the record at the close of the LUHO's hearing and the oral arguments of the parties. A vote of the City Council to reverse a lower decision must be approved by a majority of the entire membership of the City Council.
7. If the City Council conducts a public hearing on the appeal, the City Council shall adopt written findings at the conclusion of that hearing or at the next scheduled meeting of the City Council; however, a City Councilor who did not participate in the action taken on the appeal may not participate in the action to adopt the findings at a subsequent meeting.
The criteria for review of an appeal shall be whether the decision-making body or the prior appeal body made 1 of the following mistakes.
Notes
| 195 | 195 IDO Annual Update 2023 - Citywide Text Amendments - EPC REVIEW. EPC Recommended Condition #18. [Spreadsheet Item #37] |
| 196 | 196 IDO Annual Update 2023 - Citywide Text Amendments - EPC REVIEW. EPC Recommended Condition #1. Revised editorially for clarity. "Indicate" in legal settings can connote a suggestion. [Spreadsheet Item #60] |
| 197 | 197 IDO Annual Update 2023 - Citywide Text Amendments - EPC REVIEW. EPC Recommended Condition #18. |
| 197 | 197 IDO Annual Update 2023 - Citywide Text Amendments - EPC REVIEW. EPC Recommended Condition #18. |
| 198 | 198 IDO Annual Update 2023 - Citywide Text Amendments - EPC REVIEW. EPC Recommended Conditions #1 and #18. Revised editorially to reflect changes adopted during the 2022 IDO Annual Update. [Spreadsheet Item #60] |