Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin March 25, 2011 I Volume 5 I No. 6 <br />For these reasons, the court reversed the district court's order grant- <br />ing summary judgment for the city, and remanded the matter for further <br />proceedings. <br />See also: Guru Nanak Sikh Soc. of Yuba City v. County of Sutter, 456 <br />E3d 978 (9th Cir. 2006). <br />See also: Grace Church of North County v. City of San Diego, 555 F. <br />Supp. 2d 1126 (S.D. Cal. 2008). <br />Vested Property Rights —Landowners Spent <br />Millions on Capital Development in Reliance on <br />Zoning Under Preliminary Development Plan <br />After county rezones land, landowners claim a vested <br />property right <br />Citation: Jordan -Arapahoe, LLP v. Board of Com'rs of the County of <br />Arapahoe, Colo., 2011 WL 420439 (10th Cir. 2011) <br />The Tenth Circuit has jurisdiction over Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, <br />Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming. <br />TENTH CIRCUIT (COLORADO) (02/08/11)—This case addressed <br />the issue of whether a county's approval of a preliminary development <br />plan ("PDP") created a vested property right. <br />The Background/Facts: Jordan -Arapahoe, LLP and Jacob Mazin <br />Company, Inc. (together, "Jordan -Arapahoe") owned land in the coun- <br />ty (the "Property"). A 1998 PDP, amended in 1999, (the "1998/1999 <br />PDP" or the "PDP") rezoned Jordan-Arapahoe's land from agricultural <br />to Mixed Use -Planned Unit Development ("MU-PUD"). The 1998/1999 <br />PDP noted that "Automotive Sales and Repair" was an allowable use <br />under the MU-PUD zoning. <br />Relying on the 1998/1999 PDP provision of "Automotive Sales and <br />Repair" as an allowed use, Jordan -Arapaho paid approximately $2.6 <br />million in capital development costs on the Property. The capital devel- <br />opment was done in preparation for selling the Property to a buyer inter- <br />ested in using it for an automotive dealership. <br />In April 2006, Jordan -Arapahoe agreed to sell the Property to Car - <br />Max. The sale was contingent upon confirmation that CarMax's in- <br />tended use of an automotive dealership was permitted under the zoning <br />regulations. <br />After learning of the planned development, the county Board of Com- <br />missioner's (the "County") rezoned the Property. The rezone effectively: <br />made it impossible to build a car dealership on the Property and negated <br />Jordan-Arapahoe's contract with CarMax. <br />© 2011 Thomson Reuters <br />