Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/05/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin March 25, 2011 Volume 51 No. 6 a final development plan. Still, Jordan -Arapahoe argued that the County did not have discretion to reject a final development plan if the plan was consistent with the already -approved PDP. The court disagreed, finding the County zoning code gave the County discretion to reject or modify proposed developments until it approved a final development plan. The court also rejected Jordan-Arapahoe's allegation that it had a vested right under Colorado common law by virtue of its detrimen- tal reliance on the original zoning classification. The court explained: "Colorado law recognizes a protected property interest in a zoning clas- sification when a specifically permitted use becomes securely vested by the landowner's substantial actions taken in reliance, to his or her det- riment, on representations and affirmative actions by the government." While Jordan -Arapahoe showed detrimental reliance, it did not show representation or affirmative action by the County, found the court. The PDP alone could not qualify as an affirmative action or representation because Jordan -Arapahoe "could not have reasonably relied on the PDP approval as creating a vested right absent [a second -step final develop- ment plan approval required by the county's zoning code]." See also: Eason v. Board of County Com'rs of County of Boulder, 70 P.3d 600 (Colo. App. 2003). Procedures —Seven -Member Board Votes Three to Two to Adopt Rezone Application Town says application fails because adoption requires favorable vote of majority of entire board Citation: Depot Property, LLC v. Town of Arlington, Tennessee, 2011 WL 334472 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) TENNESSEE (01/31/11)—This case addressed the issue of whether adoption of a rezoning application requires: the favorable vote of the majority of the membership of the legislative body who participates in the consideration of the rezoning application; or the favorable vote of the entire membership of the legislative body. The Background/Facts: Terry Cox purchased a home in the town (the "Property"). He later transferred the Property to Depot Property, LLC ("Depot Property"). (Hereinafter, "Cox" is inclusive of both Terry Cox and Depot Property.) The Property was zoned single family residential. Cox wanted to use the Property as a law office instead of a residence. Cox filed an application with the town to have the property rezoned for office use. This rezoning would require an amendment to the town's zon- ing ordinance. © 2011 Thomson Reuters 7