Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/05/2009

Home

. . January 25; 2009\ Volume 31 No.2 Zoning Bulletin restrictive covenants]-and how those conditions interact[ed] with the RCD ordinance." The court noted that, because of restrictive covenants, the Starrs had no reasonable "uses available" to them of the portion of the Property that fell outside of the ReD. Also, because more than 75% of the Prop- erty was subject to the RCD, the Starrs showed they were entitled to rely on the rebuttable presumption under the Ordinance that they had "no le- gally reasonable use" of the Property without the variance. Although the Board had argued that presumption was rebutted by the 2002 building permit, the court held that presumption was "not rebutted by a building permit that was issued but c[ ould] never be used." The court concluded that the Board had erred by denying the Starrs' request for a variance since it had failed to properly consider "the uses available" to the Starrs of their entire lot. Case Note: The Board had also concluded that because the Starrs were aware of the RCD Ordinance and other limitations when they purchased the property, any hardship was self-created and did not arise out of application of the Ordinance. However, the town con- ceded to the court that if the Starrs could not build at all without the variance, denial of the variance would result in "extreme hard- . ship" to them. As such, the court did not consider the arguments , offered as to the rule applicable to a self-created hardship. Application of Zoning Regulat,ions to Governmental Bodies-County says fire . protection district must obtain a PUD amendment before proceeding with project District contends that, as a public entity, it is exempt from county zoning regulations Citation: Hygiene Fire Protection Dist. v. Board of County Com'rs of County of Boulder, 2008 WL 5173657 (Colo. App., Dec. 11,2008) COLORADO (12/11/08)-The Hygiene Fire Protection District (the "District") wanted to build a second fire station within its service 'area in the county. The District planned to purchase land (the "Land") in a planned unit development ("POO") and to construct a fire station on the Land (the "Project"). In furtherance of these plans, the District filed an application (the "Application") for Location and Extent Review with the ) county land use department (the "Department"). Under the state's so- called Planning Act, the District was required to submit this Application 8 @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 86 " \ 'i :! .~ ) . I