Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/2004

Home

Z.B. April 10, 2004- Page 5 Boudreaux sued, and the court ruled in favor of the council's decision. Boudreaux appealed, arguing the council abused its discretion in rezoning the property for the funeral home. DECISION: Affirmed. Boudreaux failed to show the counci]'s rezoning was arbitrary or unrea- sonable. The land was originally zoned commercial prior to Boudreaux's purchase of the property, and she built her residence next to a large commercial building and established business. iBoudreaux stated she did not want to live next to a funeral home. She claimed she could not enjoy an outdoor barbeque, and people at funeral ser- vices got upset when she played music outdoors. Finally, she testified she did not think she could sell the property because no one would want to have to pass through the funeral home's parking lot to get to the rear of it. However, none of Boudreaux's concerns showed the council abused its discretion in rezoning the property, which was next to a state highway, from one commer- cial use to another. Appeal -- Subdi'dsion developer sues neighbors to declare road public County inte.wenes, raises court costs, slanders title Citation: Heath v. The Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County, 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 02-]002 (2004) The 10th Circuit has jurisdiction over Colorado, Kansas, IVew Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming. COLORADO (02/18/04) -- Heath .wanted to d?vetop a subdivision on his property. Before the county would allow him to sf2bdivide the property, it re- quired him to provide proof of access. In an effort to provide proof of legal access via neighboring Old Wagon Road, Heath sued 14 neighboring property owners whose property was tra- versed by the road, claiming an easement by way of a quiet title action based on prescriptive use and a declaratory judgment the road was public. The county requested permission to intervene in the lawsuits. The county claimed an Lnrerest in the case because if the road was declared public, the county's rights, obligations, and responsibilities could be affected. Specifi- cally, the county was concerned with its responsibility to bear the cost of main- tenance and upgrades. Heath then sued the county. The court ruled in the county's favor. Heath appealed, arguing the county's intervention caused him to pay ex- tensive legal fees in the other lawsuits, caused slander to his title,'and made him unable to use his property as he saw fit. DE C~$i,(3~f: Al'Er:med. 2004 Guinlan g,Jr)iisi]mg Group. Any reproduc:ion is prohibited. For more ~niorma~ion please call (617) $42-0048. 141