1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: 3 Fi lin g D at e: M ay 2 2, 201 8 4 N o. A -1 -C A -3 5896 5 LI NDA FILI PPI, ADDIE DRAPER, 6 SU SA N O VIA TT, and C HARLES O VIA TT, 7 Appe llants -R es pond en ts, 8 v

. 9 BOA RD OF CO UN TY COM MISS IONER S 10 OF TORRA NC E C OUN TY, NE W MEX ICO, 11 Appellee- Petitioner, 12 an d 13 JB M LAND & CATTLE, LL C, 14 Intervenor-Pe tition er. 15 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF TORRA NC E C OUN TY 16 M at th ew G. R ey no ld s, D ist ri ctJu dg e 17 Martin E . T hreet & A ssociates 18 Joseph L. Rom ero 19 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 20 fo r Appe llants -R es pond en ts 21 W al li n Hu ss & Men de z, LLC 22 D en nis K

. W al lin 23 Moriarty , N M1 for Appellee-Petitioner

2 Kele he r & Mc Leo d, P.A. 3 Thom as C. Bird 4 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 5 Hin kl e Sh an or , LLP 6 Benj am in F. F euchter 7 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 8 for Inter

venor-Petitioner1 OPIN ION

2 KIEHN E, Judge. 3 { 1} T he Bo ar d of

Co unty Co m m iss ion er s of

T or ranc e Co unty

( the Bo ar d) 4 de te rm ine d th at

JB M L an d & Cattl e, L L C ( JB M) did not ne ed ac ondi tiona l us e 5 pe rm it unde r T or

ranc e Co unty ’ s z oni ng o rd in ance to gr owm ed ic al c an nabis on 6 property

it owned in a rura l section of the county . S ev er al o f JBM’s neighbors 7 ch al le nge d tha t de ci sio n in the dis tr ic t co urt, w hic h ov er tur ne d th e Bo ar d’ s de ci sio n 8 and held that JBM’ s propos ed use of t he property wa s a “ com

m ercia l use” for w hich 9 a co ndi tio na l us e p erm it was r equir ed

. T his c our t gr an te d and c onso lid at ed the 10 Board’ s and JBM’ s petition s to r eview the district c ourt’ s order. Conc l u d i n g t hat 11 JBM’ s propos ed use of its property wa s a perm issiv e use under the zoning ordinance, 12 w e re ve rs e the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r an d r ei nst at e the Bo ar d’ s de ci sio n. 13 BACKGRO UND 14 { 2} JBM purchased land in Torrance County for the purpos e of grow ing m edical 15 can na bis to ha rv es t and s el l i n adis pe nsary out sid e the c ounty . T he land w as in a 16 subd ivisio n zon ed as a “ conservation di strict” that “ protects and preserves ar eas 17 within the Countywhich ar e chara ct erize d by their lim ited access, m inim al 18 de ve lop m en t, li m itatio ns o n wa te r re sour ce s, na tur al be au ty , f ra gil e en vir onm en t and 19 na ti ve wil dl ife po pu la ti on s.” T or ranc e Co unty , N

. M. Z oni ng O rd inanc e (Z oni ng20 T he te rm “ H om e O cc upa tio n” is de fi ned as “ a busi ne ss, c om m er ci al or 1 21 m anuf

ac tur ing a ct ivi ty

tha t i s c le ar ly a se co ndary use of the pr em ise s f

or adw el lin g 22 unit, and which results in a p roduct or s ervice for fin ancial g ain.” Zoning Ordinance, 23 § 5 (B)( 16 ). 2 1 Or dinance), § 8(A) (1990, am ended 200 8). 2 { 3} T he se ct ionof

the or din an ce a t i ssu e fi rs t se ts fo rth a num be r of “ pe rm iss ive 3 use s” of

land tha t “ ar e al low ed ” in a c onse rv at iondis tr ic t: 4 1. L owint en sity a gr ic ult ur al op er at ion s su cha s li ve sto ck gr az ing 5 an d re la te d ra nc hi ng act iv it ie s; . . . 6 2. H or se br ee din g, board ing a nd tra ini ng; 7 3. Other low intensity production agriculture; 8 4. Cu lti va tio n and h ar ve sti ng o f plants a nd c ro plands; 9 5. W oodc utt ing a nd o the r ac tiv iti es r el at ed to ha rv es tin g tr ee s; 10 6. Singular residential dwe l l i n g unit provided it is in com pliance 11 with the requirem ents of the NewMexico L iquid W aste D ispos al 12 Re gul at ion s; and 13 7. Ac ces sory uses and structures necessary to carr y out the abov e14 lis te d pe rm iss ive use s. 15 Zoning Ordinance, § 8(B). 16 { 4} Second, the sec tion at iss ue lists “ [c] ondi tional [u] ses” that require a landowner 17 to o bta in a

c ondi tio na l us e pe rm it fro m the T or ranc e Co unty

P lanni ng and Z oni ng 18 Co m m iss ion( Z oni ng C om iss ion ): 19 1. H om e oc cu pa tio ns pr ovi de d th ey

a re co nf ine d to the r es ide nc e or 13

1 acce ssory s t ru ct ure, are clear ly a secondary

use of the structure 2 an d pr es en t no vis ua l i m pa ct to ne ighbor s as vie w ed f ro m 3 adj oinin g property or public tho roughfare; 4 2. Sm al l B ed a nd B re ak fa st o perations li m ite d to tw o gu es t 5 ba thr oom s; 6 3. H or se ba ck r idi ng s ta

ble s, pr ovi de d su ff

ic ie nt l an d ex ist s to 7 supp ort the num be r of a nim al s m ai nta ine d; 8 4. D ude r an chor oth er a gr ic ult ur al w ork e xpe ri en ce ope ratio n; 9 5. O utf

itt er s; 10 6. Ess en ti al pu bl ic ut il it y di st rib ut io n s tru ctur es ; . . . 11 7. Co m

m un ic at io ns st ru ctur es an d fa ci li ti es ; an d . . . 12 8. One supplem ental residential dwelling u n i t al lowed on a parce l 13 m eeting district m inim um standards; 2 su pp l emental re sidential 14 dw el lin g un its a llo w ed on a pa rc el of

a t l ea st e igh ty

a cr es or 1/8 15 se ct ion

. 16 Zoning Ordinance, § 8(C). 17 { 5} Third, the ordinance provides another tier of uses—“ [c] omm ercia l uses”—that 18 ar e onl y

a llo w ed on a ca se -b y -c as e bas is, a nd s ta te s th at w he n de ci din g w he the r the 1 9 co m m er ci al u s e wi l l b e p er m i t t ed i n a co n s er v at i o n d i s t ri ct , th e z o n i n g co m m i s s i o n ’s 20 pr im ar

y c onc er n is “ to m ini m iz e the e nvi ro nm en ta l im pa ct on the a re a. ” Z oni ng 21 Or dinance, § 8(A ). A lth oug h th e or din an ce doe s no t sp ec if ic al ly say that a 22 co m m er ci al use re qui re s a c ondi tio na l us e pe rm it, the part ie s do not se em to dis put e 23 this poin t, and we note that the Board stated in a previous decisio n that comm ercia l4

1 use s inac onse rv at iondis tr ic t r equir e a co ndi tio na l us e pe rm it. 2 { 6} JBM appro ac hed the Torr ance County Zoning Off

icer, the indiv idual 3 “ designated as the princip al adm inistrator and enforcem ent officer of [the T orrance 4 Co unty Z oni ng O rd inanc e, ] ” to a sk w he the r a co ndi tio na l us e pe rm it w oul d be 5 re qui re d f

or it to gr owm ed ic al c an nabis on the land. Z oni ng O rd inanc e, § 5. T he 6 Z oni ng O ff

ic er de te rm ine d tha t be ca

use m ed ic al canna

bis w as “ ei the r a plant, ac ro p, 7 or both[ , ] ” gr ow ing it w oul d be cons ide re d a per m iss ive use unde r the or din an ce a nd 8 tha t no c onditi on al us e pe rm it w as r equir ed

. JB M b eg anc ult iva tin g 30 0 c an nabis 9 plants , usi ng w at er

it haule d inf

ro m out si de T or

ranc e Co unty , a nd s he lte ri ng the 10 plants in shade cloth “ hoop houses” int ended to decrea se the am ount of w ater nee ded 11 to g ro w the plants

. 12 { 7} JBM’ s neighb ors, L inda Filipp i , Ad d i e D raper, Susan Oviatt and Charle s 13 Oviatt (N eighbo rs), chall enged the Zoning Office r’ s decision, arguing th at JBM 14 shou ld b e re qui re d to obt ai n ac ondi tio na l us e pe rm it a nd r ai sin g anum be r of 15 co nc er

ns r eg ar din g th e cu lti va tio n of m ed ic al c an nabis on the pr ope rty . T he se 16 co nc er

ns i nc lud ed : tha t a

pr ev iou s de ci sio n of

the Bo ar d w as not

f ol lo wed; the 17 am ount of w ater nee ded to grow the plants would be exorbitant; that crim e in the are a 18 co uld inc re as e w iththe pr es en ce of a co ntr oll ed subs tanc e an d subj ec t the pub lic to 19 unne ce ssary

r isk ; tha t the r oa d lea din g to the pr ope rty c oul d be da m ag ed ; tha t the5

1 growing of cannabis is pharm aceutical m anufacturing, not cultivation of crops; that 2 the use w oul d be c omm erci al ; an d th at the use w oul d be il le ga l du e to the status of 3 can na bi s as a S c h e d u l e 1 co nt ro ll edsu bs ta nc e u nd er fe de ral law. Ne ighb ors raised 4 their concerns w ith the Zoning Comm issio n, w hich too k n o action, and then they 5 ap pe al ed

to the Bo ar d. A ft er a publ ic he ar ing , the Bo ar d deni ed N ei ghbo rs ’ appe al , 6 upho lding the Zoning Of ficer ’ s determ ination that no cond ition al use perm it was 7 required for JBM to cultivate m edical cannabi s in a conservation di strict. T he Board 8 not ed that the c ult iva tio n of

m ed ic al canna

bis w as the c ult iva tio n of plants or c ro ps, 9 m aking it a perm issiv e use in a c o n s ervation district un der the ordinance. It further 10 stated that “ [c] omm ercia l use, as c ontem plated by Sec tion 8 of the Z onin g Ordinance, 11 does not include the produ ction of plants and crops for sale off site.” 12 { 8} N ei ghbo rs ne xt a ppe al ed to the S ev en th Judi ci al D istri ct C ou rt und er Ru le 13 1- 07 4 NM RA. T he dis tr ic t c ourt ov er tur ne d th e Bo ar d’ s de ci sio n, statin g th at “ [t ] he 14 Co m m issiondid

not f oll owthe law in its int er pr et at ionof

c om m er ci al use be ing 15 res tri ct ed to on si te sal es .” It also stated that “ this court determ ines as a m atter of law 16 unde r de nov o re vie w tha t the sa le of m ar ij ua na [c an nabis ] of fs ite is a co m

m er ci al use 17 re qui ri ng a

pe rm it fr om

the T or ranc e Co unty

Co m m iss ion

. ” A s part

of the r ea soni ng 18 for it s decision, the district court determ ined that “ [w ] hen perm issiv e uses are 19 co m m er ci al in na tur e an d r equir e bui ldi ng any str uc tur es , the ow ne r of

the pr ope rty6

1 m ust appl y to the P lanni ng an d Z oni ng Bo ar d fo r a pe rm it. T he n, on a c as e- by -c as e 2 ba sis , the Bo ar d c ane xa m ine a ll the a spe ct s a ff ec tin g th e Co nse rv at ionD istri ct in 3 deciding whether to grant the perm i t .” Th e d istrict court noted that th e term 4 “ str uc tur e, ” as de fi ne d by

the or din an ce , did

not dif fe re nti at e be tw ee n te m

por ar y or 5 pe rm an en t struc ture s, a nd thus the dis tr ic t c ourt c onsi de re d th e hoop hou se s onthe 6 pr op ert y

to be “ st ru ctur es .” 7 { 9} The B oard and JBM eac h filed petition s for a writ of c er t i o ra ri to this Court 8 unde r Ru le 12- 505 N MR A , w hic h w e gr an te d. W e re verse the district court’ s order 9 an d r ei nst at e the Bo ar d’ s de ci sio n. 10 DISC US SION 11 I. Stand ard of R eview 12 { 10} T he standard of re vie w tha t a dis tr ic t co urt em plo y s to ev al ua te the de ci sio n of 13 ana dm ini str at ive ag en cy is “ (1 ) w he the r the a ge nc y a ct ed f ra udul en tly , a rb itr ar ily

or 14 ca pr ic iou sly ; ( 2) w he the r ba se d upon the w hol e re co rd on a ppe al , the de ci sio n of

the 15 agency

is not su pported by subs tantial evidence; (3) whether the action of the agency 16 w as out sid e the sc ope of auth or ity of th e ag en cy ; or ( 4) w he the r the a ct ionof the 17 ag en cy

w as oth er

w ise not in ac co rd an ce w ith law . ” Ru le 1- 074( R) N MR A

. “ Upon a 18 gr an t of a petit ionf

or w ri t of c er tio rari [ unde r Ru le 12- 505 N MR A ] , the Co urt of 19 Appeals utilizes [this] sam e standard of re view to reviewthe decision of the dis trict7

1 court.” San P ed

ro N ei ghbo rhoo d A ss’ n v . San ta F e Ct y. B d. of Ct

y. Co m m ’r

s , 200 9- 2 NMCA-0 45 , ¶ 11 , 14 6 N.M. 1 06 , 20 6 P .3d 10 11 (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. 3 { 11} T his a dm ini st rat ive appe al r equir es us t o de ci de w he the r the Bo ar d pr ope rl y 4 int er pr et ed the Z oni ng O rd inanc e, a nd thus ou r st an dard of r ev ie w in thi s c as e is 5 “ w he the r the a ct ionof

the [ Bo ar d] w as oth er

w ise not in ac co rd an ce w ithlaw . ” Ru le 6 1- 07 4( R)(4 ). “ [T]he in te rp ret at io n o f a zo ni ng ord in an ce i s a q ue st io n o f la w th atwe 7 reviewde novo, using the sam e rules of c onstructio n th at ap p l y to statutes.” San 8 Pe d r o Ne ighb orho od Ass’n , 200 9- N MC A -0 45, ¶ 12; A lba v . P eo

ples E ne rgyR es . 9 Co rp. , 2004-NMC A- 084, ¶ 14, 136 N .M. 79, 94 P.3d 822. T he following three rules 1 0 ap p l y: 11 The f

irst rule is that the plain langu age of a s t at u t e is the prim ary 12 ind ic at or of le gis la tiv e int en t. Co urts ar e to giv e the w or ds use d in the 13 sta tut e the ir

or din ar y m eanin g un le ss the le gis la tur e ind ic at es adif fe re nt 14 intent. The court will not read into a statute or ordinance language which 15 is n ot the re , pa rt ic ularl y if it m ak es se nse a s w ri tte n. T he se co nd r ule is 16 to g ive pe rs ua siv e w ei ght to lon g- standi ng adm ini str at ive c onstru ct ion s 17 of statutes by

the agency

charged w ith adm inist er ing th em . T he third 18 rule dictates t h at wher e severa l sections of a statute are involved, they 19 m

ust be r ea d to ge the r so tha t a ll part s are giv ene ff ec t. 20 Id

. ¶ 17 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). 21 I I . T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t D i d N o t E x c e e d t h e S c o p e o f I t s A p p e l l a t e R e v i e w 22 { 12} W e first a ddress JBM and the Board’ s contentio n that the district court ruled 23 on i ssu es tha t ha d no t be enpr es en te d f or appe llate r ev ie w . T he Bo ar d arg ue s th at the8

1 dis tr ic t c ourt e xc ee de d th e pr ope r sc ope of appe llate r ev ie w be ca

use the onl y

iss ue 2 tha t N ei ghbo rs r ai se d inthe ir state m en t of

appe llate iss ue s was a cl ai m that the 3 Board’ s decision in this case was con trary to a d ecision that it had reached in another 4 case. JB M and the Bo ar d ar gue tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n w as out sid e the sc ope 5 of its a ppellate review because it wa s based on m atters that N eighbo rs had not raised 6 in the ir

state m en t of

appe llate iss ue s. Bu t ne ith er JB M n or th e Bo ard ci te a ny 7 authority stating that the district c ourt m ay not consider issues no t specifically raised 8 in the state m en t of

appe llate iss ue s, a nd the re fo re w e w ill not co nsi de r thi s arg um en t. 9 Se e In re A dopt ion of D oe , 198 4- N MS C- 024, ¶ 2, 100 N

. M. 764 , 676 P .2d 1 329 10 (“ Is sue s r ai se d in ap pe llate br ie fs w hic h ar e unsu ppor te d by c ite d auth or ity

w ill not 11 be review ed by

us on appeal.”). 12 { 13} The B oard also argues that Ne ighb ors did no t preserve their arg u m ent that 13 JB M’ s land u se w as c om m er ci al in na tur e an d th er ef or e re qui re d a

c ondi tio na l us e 14 pe rm it. S im ilarl y , JB M arg ue s th at the Bo ar d di d no t addr es s whe the r the c ult iva tio n 15 of m ed ic al canna

bis w as co m

m er ci al , an d thu s the dis tr ic t co urt er re d in d eci ding 16 whether the use was c omm ercia l. O ur reviewof the rec ord, howe ver, indicates that 17 N ei ghbo rs a de qua te ly pr es er ve d th ei r ar gum en t. Bo th JB M an d the Bo ar d un de rs too d 18 Ne ighb ors to have raised the issue, because they both discuss ed it in their responses 19 to N ei ghbo rs ’ state m en t of appe llate iss ue s. A nd the Bo ar d r ule d onthe iss ue in its9

1 fi ndi ngs of

fact an d c onc lus ion s of

law w he n it

state d th at

c om m er ci al use s do not 2 in cl ud e th e p ro du ct i o n o f p l a n ts or c ro ps forsal e o ffs it e. See Lopez v. Las Cruces 3 Police D ep’t , 2006-NMC A- 074, ¶ 6, 1 3 9 N.M . 730, 137 P. 3d 67 0 (holdin g that an 4 iss ue w as pr es er

ve d f or appe llate re vie w w he re the dis tr ic t cour t “ w as a le rt ed

to the 5 is su e” an d “ de ci de d” it ). 6 { 14} Further, JBM and the Board ar gue that the dist rict court r uled that JBM needed 7 a buildin g perm it for the hoop ho uses on th e property , a n d that this was im proper 8 be caus e no pa rty

r ai se d th at

iss ue in the dis tr ic t c ourt. H ow ev er , w e int er pr et the 9 district court’ s order not as requiring a build ing perm it, but as requiring a conditio nal 10 use pe rm it w he n apr opos ed use is com

m er ci al in na tur e an d r equir es bui ldi ng any 11 str uc tur es . T hus, w e co nsi de r the de ba te r eg ar din g stru ct ur es to be int er

tw ine d w ith 12 the questio n of com

m ercia l use. 13 III . JB M ’s P ro po se d La nd U se D id N ot R eq ui re a C on di ti on al U se P er m it 14 A. The B oard’s D ecision Was Consisten t w i th th e Language of t he Z oning 15 Ordinanc e 16 { 15} T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r sta te d that “ to give ef fe ct to the obj ec tiv e an d pu rp ose 17 of the Co nse rv at ionD istri ct , giv e ef fe ct to its en tir e te xt, an d av oid anabsur d r es ult ” 18 the Zoning Or dinance shou ld be interpreted to m ean that “ [w ] hen perm issiv e uses are 19 co m m er ci al in na tur e an d r equir e bui ldi ng any str uc tur es , the ow ne r of

the pr ope rty 20 m ust appl y to the Pl an nin g an d Z oni ng Bo ar d f or ape rm it. T he n, on a

c as e- by -c as e10

1 ba sis , the Bo ar d c ane xa m ine a ll the a spe ct s a ff ec tin g th e Co nse rv at ionD istri ct in 2 de ci di ng whet he r to gra nt th e p erm it .” The dist rict cou rt’ s conclusio n is, at the ver y 3 least, e rroneous because the ordinance specifically p ro vides that “ [a] ccessory uses 4 and structures necessary to carr y out the above-listed perm issiv e uses” ar e them selves 5 perm issiv e uses in a conservation dis trict. Zoning Or dinance, § 8(B)( 7). Given that 6 the Bo ar d’ s in te rp re ta tio n of th e Z oni ng O rd inanc e is c onsi ste nt w iththe e xpr es s 7 w or din g c ont ai ne d with in it , and the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s is not , the Bo ar d pr ope rl y 8 determ ined that JBM’ s use of s hade cloth hoop hous es o n the property did no t require 9 a co ndi tio na l us e pe rm it. 10 B. The D istrict C ourt P roperly Em ployed the De Novo Stand ard Bu t Er red 11 in Its Inte rpre tation of “C om m ercial U se” 12 { 16} W e ne xt c onsi de r w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt er re d inappl y ing ade nov o 13 standard

of r ev ie w a nd b y

de ci din g th at

m ed ic al c an nabis c u l t i v atio n is a “ com m ercia l 14 use ” unde r the Z oni ng O rd inanc e. T he dis tr ic t co urt he ld tha t the Bo ar d’ s de fi nit ion 15 of “ co m m er ci al use [, ] ” w hic h e xc lud ed the gr ow ing of pl an ts and c ro ps f or sa le 16 off sit e, w as im

pr ope r be ca

use it c onf lic te d w iththi s C ourt’ s de ci sio n in San P ed ro 17 Neighbor hood

Ass’n , 2009 -N MC A -0 45, ¶¶ 18- 21. JB M and the Bo ar d arg ue that the 18 district court wa s lim ited to conductin g a w hole record re view to determ ine whether 19 the facts su pported the Board’ s decision, and that it was im proper for the district court 20 to undertake a de novo review of the ordinance. W e conclude, howe ver, that it was11

1 pr ope r fo r the dis tr ic t c ourt to ap ply a de novo standard of r ev ie w w he n in te rp re tin g 2 the or din an ce . T ha t i s be ca use the ve ry

e sse nc e of the ap pe llate ro le in the c ont ex t of 3 sta tut or

y int er pr et at ion —e ve n w he n un de rt ak enby dis tr ic t c ourts e xe rc isi ng the ir 4 li m it ed ap pe ll at e au th or it y —i s ba se d on de no vo rev ie w. Se e Sta te v . T ruj ill o , 200 9- 5 N MS C- 012, ¶

9, 146 N

. M. 14, 206 P

. 3d 1 25 ( stat in g pr inc ipl e tha t qu es tio ns o f 6 statutory

interpretation are m atters of lawand are review ed de novo). 7 { 17} W e al so c onc lud e tha t the dis tr ic t cour t m isi nte rp re te d this Co urt’ s ho ldi ng i n 8 San P ed

ro Neighbor hood

Ass’n

. I n th at

c as e, aloc al zo nin g ordi na nc e pr ohi bit ed a ll 9 “ co m m erci al us es ” ex cep t fo r ho m e-b as edbu si ne ss es . 20 0 9

- NMCA-0 45 , ¶ 17 . A 10 landowne r soug ht t o st oc kpi le gr av el f ro m ane ar by m ine o n la nd su bj ec t t o th e 11 or din an ce , an d ar gue d tha t it w oul d not be a“ co m m er ci al use ” be ca

use he w oul d no t 12 be ex ch an gi ng go od s o n t he lan d i ts el f. Id

. ¶ 19. Bec au se the landowne r w an te d to 13 st oc kp il e th e g rav el so th at it wou ld be read y whe ne ve r hi s cu st om ers want edit , we 14 he ld tha t the pr opos ed sto ck pil ing w as a “ co m

m er ci al ” use be ca

use it w as “ re la te d to 15 the buy ing and selling of the m ined m aterials. ” Id

. (internal quotation m arks om itted). 16 In re ac hin g this dec isi on, w e m er el y em plo y ed the r ule s of statut or y c onstru ct ion , a nd 17 applied the plain, diction ary -based m eaning of the term “ com m ercia l.” Id

. ¶¶

18- 20 1 8 ( i n t e rn a l qu o t a t i o n m a rk s o m i t t e d )

. H o w e v e r , o u r d e c i s i o n in San P ed ro 19 Neighbor hood

Ass’n does not establish a definition of the term “ com m ercia l use” that12

1 wou ld ap pl y to ev ery zo ni ng or di na nc e en act ed by ev ery co un ty in th e s t at e. San 2 P ed ro Neighbor hood

Ass’n did not pr es en t the iss ue of w he the r ap ply ing the pla in, 3 dic tio na ry -b as ed

m eanin g of

the te rm “ co m m er ci al ” w oul d r en de r oth er pr ovi sio ns 4 of the or din an ce ine ff

ec tiv e, but

the pr es en t c as e doe s. 5 { 18} Inthi s c as e, w e be ginby de te rm ining w he the r the pla in, ge ne ri c m eanin g of 6 “ co m m er ci al us e” a

ppl ie s, be ca

use the Z oni ng O rd inanc e its el f doe s no t de fi ne 7 “ com m ercia l use[.] ” See Zoning Ordinance, § 5(B)

. T he “ int en t” portio n of S ec tio n 8 8 of the Z oni ng O rd inanc e sta te s th at “ [c ] om m er cial uses w ill not

be a llo w ed

[ in a 9 co nse rv at iondis tr ic t] e xc ep t onac as e by c as e ba sis in w hic h the pr im ar y c onc er n of 10 th e Zon in g C omm is si on wil l b e to m in im iz e th e en vi ro nm en ta l im pa cton th e are a.” 11 Zoning Ordinance, § 8( A ). S ec tio n 8 o f the Z oni ng O rd inanc e the n sp ec if ic al ly 12 enum er at es som e pe rm iss ive use s tha t ap pe ar to be c om

m er ci al in na tur e, inc lud ing 13 lowint en sity

a gr i c u l t ur e; hor se br ee din g, board ing a nd tra ini ng; a nd w oodc utt ing a nd 14 oth er a ct ivi tie s re la te d to ha rv es tin g tr ee s. Z oni ng O rd inanc e, § 8( B)

. T he inc lus ion 15 of the se pe rm it te d a ct ivi tie s su gge sts that the te rm “ co m m er ci al use ” shou ld n ot b e 16 giv enbr oa d sc ope , a s it w as in San Pedro Neighbo rhoo d Ass’n , b ecau se do ing so 17 wou ld ren de r in effe ct iv e th e p ro vi si on on pe rm is si ve us es . Se e B lue Ca ny on W el l 18 A ss’ n v . J

ev ne , 201 8- N MC A -0 04, ¶ 9, 410 P

. 3d 251 (“ W e int er pr et statut es to av oid 19 re nde ri ng the L eg isl at ur e’ s langua ge sup er fl uous . ” (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and13

1 c i t at i o n o mi t t e d ) )

. U n d e r N e i g h b o r s ’ i n t e r

p r e t a t i o n , l a n d o w n e r s w o u l da l mo s ta l w ays 2 ha ve to ap ply

f or ac ondi tio na l us e pe rm it to en ga ge in som e of the ta sks that the 3 ordinance lists as perm issiv e uses. Additionally , m any of the “ conditi onal uses” listed 4 by the or din an ce wou ld in vol ve ons ite sa le s, suc h a s be d and b re ak fa st o pe ratio ns, 5 ri din g sta

ble s, dude ranc he s, an d ag ri cu ltura l w ork ex pe ri en ce ope ratio ns. Z oning 6 Or dinance, § 8(C). Thus, the Board’ s interpretation of the term “ com m ercia l use” as 7 not inc lud ing the cu lti va tio n of plants f or sa le of fs ite is re as ona

ble , be ca use it 8 ha rm oni ze s th e “ pe rm iss ive use s” pr ovi sio n w iththe “ co ndi tio na l use s” an d “ int en t” 9 pr ov is i o ns of t he ord in an ce. See B lue Canyon W ell Ass’n , 2018 -N MCA -004, ¶ 9 10 (“ W e co nsi de r al l part s of the statut e tog ethe r, re ad ing the sta tut e in i ts e nti re ty a nd 11 co nstru ing ea ch pa rt in co nne ct ion w ith ev er y oth er pa rt to pr oduc e a h arm oni ous 12 who le .” (al te rat io ns , in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s, an d c it at io n o m it te d) ). 13 { 19} N ex t w e co nsi de r the se co nd r ule , w hic h is to g ive pe rs ua siv e w ei ght to lon g14 standi ng a dm ini str at ive c onstru ct ion s of statu te s by the a ge nc y

c ha rg ed w ith 15 ad m in is te rin g t he m . San P ed ro Neighbor hood

Ass’n , 200 9- N MC A -0 45 ¶ 12; A lba , 16 2004 -N MC A -0 84, ¶

22. T houg h th e Bo ar d arg ue s th at it ha s a lw ay s in te rp re te d th e 17 ordinance to m ean th at comm ercia l uses do no t include sale of crops or plants offsite, 18 the onl y

e vid ence th e Bo ar d pr es en ts r eg ar din g it s in te rp re ta tio n of the te rm is the 19 ar gum en t of

c ouns el

. W ith no ev ide nc e in the r ec or d, w e de cl ine to giv e w ei ght to14

1 th is fact or . See Cha n v. Montoya , 2011 -N MC A -0 72, ¶ 9, 150 N

. M. 44, 256 P

. 3d 9 87 2 (“ It is not our pr ac tic e to r el y

on a sse rt ion s of cou nse l unac co m pa nie d by sup port i n 3 the record. The m ere assertions and argum ents of counsel are not evidence.” (internal 4 quot ation m arks and citation om itted)). 5 { 20} Finally , when several sections of a statute a re i n volv ed, w e ar e to rea d them 6 t o g et h ers o t h atal l p ar t s ar e g i v en ef fe ct . As s e t f

o r t h ab o v e, t h e B o ar d ’s 7 int er pr et at ionof

the or din an ce pr ovi de s th e m ost harm oni ou s re ad ing of the 8 ordinance. 9 CON CLU SION 10 { 21} W e hol d th at

the Bo ar d’ s de ci sio n th at the cu lti va tio n of

m ed ic al c an nabis is 11 a p erm issiv e u se under the ordinance that did no t require a conditi onal use perm it was 12 a re as ona

ble int er pr et at ionof

it s o wno r d i na nc e. A cc or din gly , w e re ve rs e the de ci sio n 13 of the dis tr ic t c ourt. 14 { 22} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

15

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 16 EM IL J. KI EH N E, Ju dg e15

1 WE CO NCUR:

2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 3 J. M ILES HA NISE E, Judge

4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 5 ST EP HE N G. F R EN C H, Ju dg e