Justia Zoning, Planning & Land Use Opinion Summaries

In this case, the District Court for Jefferson County dismissed a condemnation petition for a private way of necessity because the developer of the allegedly landlocked parcel did not sufficiently define the scope of and necessity for the proposed condemnation. Evidence showed that the development might vary from one to thirty residential dwellings which prevented the court from entering a condemnation order that would minimize the burden to be placed upon condemnee’s property. The court of appeals ruled that the condemnation could proceed based only upon the zoning of the condemnor’s property. The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court, and reinstated the district court’s judgment. The Supreme Court held that, when a petitioner seeks to condemn a private way of necessity for access to property it wishes to develop in the future, it must demonstrate a purpose for the condemnation that enables the trial court to examine both the scope of and necessity for the proposed condemnation, so that the burden to be imposed upon the condemnee’s property may be ascertained and circumscribed through the trial court’s condemnation order. The record in this case supported the trial court’s dismissal of the condemnation petition.

In 2006, the Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District (District) filed an application for absolute water rights, based on their conditional water rights on "Four Counties Ditch Number 3." The State Engineers opposed the application and moved for summary judgment. The water court denied the Engineers' motion, but ruled as a matter of law that in order to perfect a conditional water storage right, the District needed to show that “it diverted and put to beneficial use water in excess of its existing absolute decrees.” Upon careful consideration of the water court's record, the Supreme Court affirmed its decision.

Citizens for Responsible Growth (Citizens) challenged Elbert County's approval of RCI Development Partners, Inc.'s (RCI) land-use applications. The Board of Commissioners (Board) approved RCI's applications by an oral vote. At court, Citizens argued that holding an oral vote violated the county's own rules regarding Board hearings and approval of land-use applications. The Board's decision needed to be in writing. RCI moved to dismiss Citizens' complaint, arguing that the Board's oral approval constituted a "final agency action" and was binding. RCI further argued that Citizens brought their challenge too late for the court to consider. Without reviewing the merits of the district court's order, the appellate court found that the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction by reviewing the case. The appeals court found that Citizens filed its appeal beyond the thirty days after the Board of County Commissioners' "final" decision, and dismissed the case. Citizens appealed to the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that Elbert County regulations required a written ruling to finalize the Board of Commissioners' action. Because the land-use applications were approved orally, they were not "final" actions until the Board issued a written resolution to adopt them. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and remanded the case for further proceedings.

South Fork Water and Sanitation District (District) petitioned for a declaratory judgment to prevent the Town of South Fork (Town) from acquiring water rights and water systems to serve its residents. A significant portion of the Town overlaps the Districtâs boundaries. Between 2001 and 2003, the District began to develop a utility plan that included construction of a centralized water system. The District took preliminary steps toward the provision of water service, but failed to secure the necessary funding to build the centralized water system. With no money, the District could not purchase existing water systems in the area. The Town is authorized under its charter to provide water service to its residents, and began preparations to do so in 2006. The District filed a declaratory judgment complaint against the Town alleging the Town was furnishing water services within the Districtâs boundaries without approval. The Supreme Court found that because the District did not provide water to the Town, and could not demonstrate that it could, the District could not withhold approval to the Town to provide water service. The Court affirmed the appellate courtâs decision.