Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />..';'.' <br /> <br />.., j <br /> <br />...1..; <br /> <br />... :. <br />'.~ I... .' .. <br /> <br />. lit ; <br /> <br />74 <br /> <br />':, ...... . <br /> <br />,. . <br />.' <br /> <br />. . =- : . <br /> <br />Janl!ary 25,20101 Volume 41 No.2 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulle~in <br /> <br />Authority~County says fire district must seek r.. ..:\ <br />a' PUD modification in relation to its' propo'sed \.. <br />fire station <br /> <br />Fire district disagrees, maintaii1.i:i1g its Planning Act override <br />authority applies to the PUD Act . <br /> <br />Citation: Board of County Coni'rs of County of Boulde:r v. Hygiene <br />Fire Protection Dist., 2009 WL 4756589 (Colo. 2009) <br /> <br />COLORADO (12/14/09)-This case clarified the relationship be- <br />tween C()lorado's Planning Act and its Pun Act. Specifically, it ad- <br />dressed the issue of "whether [Planning Act] section 30-28-110(1)'s <br />override authority of political subdivisions with special statutory pur- <br />poses applies to the provisions of the POO Act." <br />The BackgroundJFacts: The Hygiene FiXe Protection District, (the <br />"District") is a "special district" (i.e., a political subdivisionestab- <br />lished to promote healthy, safety, security, and general welfare of the <br />inhabitants of such district). It is charged with "providing fire protec- <br />tion services for approximately 30,000 acres of unincorporated Boul- <br />der CoUIity (the "COUl1ty")." , <br />The District decided to build a second fire station on a parcel of pri- <br />vately oWned land (the "Parcel") riear the city. The District planned <br />to acquire. the Parcel by eminent domain. As part of that proceSs, it <br />intended to apply for location and extent review pursuant to $ 30- <br />28-110(.1)(a) of Colorado's Planning Act. Section 30-28~110(1) of <br />, the Planning Act provides that "where a county has adopted a mas~ <br />ter' plan, another political subdivision proposing to construct a public <br />building or structtirein an unincorporated portion of the county must' <br />submit to the county an application for location and extent review." <br />"The County informed the District that, along with applying for <br />location and extent review, the District needed to seek modification of <br />the POO, pursuanttoJ$rZ4-67-106(3)(b) of the POO Act." The POO <br />Act supplements the provisions of. the Planning Act as they relate to <br />and authorize PUDs. . <br />The Distriet maintained that it only needed ,to apply for location <br />and extent review; it said it did not need to seek modification of the <br />POO. Iii taking that position, the District ,noted that $- 30-28-110n) <br />of the Planning Act gave override al.lthority to p<?litical subdivisions <br />with special statutory purposes. "Location and extent review is basi- <br />cally a courtesy review with' respect to public projects 'of ,other politi- <br />cal subdivisions because the governing body of the political subdivision <br />may overrule the county's disapproval." (See $ 30-28~110(1)(c)). The <br />District contended that it had override authorityplirsuant to $ 30-28- <br />110(1), which also applied to the provisions of the PUD Act-and as <br />such it did not need to seek modification of the POO. <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />@ 2010 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />" :. <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />,. <br /> <br />. jf' ". ....: <br /> <br />~.. <br /> <br />:-:"!;o. <br />~~:/ <br /> <br />r' <br /> <br />l' . . _,_ . . '" .'~ <br /> <br />'~'i~" <br /> <br />.O"'J <br />~._~., <br /> <br />c..... <br />" <br /> <br />=-- <br /> <br /> <br />....: ". <br /> <br />'U <br />