Laserfiche WebLink
z.g. <br /> <br />February I0, 2005 -- Page 7 <br /> <br />tural." Those between 35 and 60 acres were zoned Agricultural A-1. Such lots <br />did not have as many ~UseS permitted by right as the'larger lots, and the uses <br />were .permitted only by special review, In addition, the division of property intO <br />A- I size lots required rezoning Of the ipr0pertY. <br /> Shortly after the division was recorded, the county told Boone he had <br />created one or more illegal parcel~. The county would not issue building per- <br />mits until Boone applied and' re~ei~ed approval.for the appropriate rezoning <br />applications. This appr6val.tequired the payment.of several special fees. <br /> Instead of applying'for rezordng, B.0one sued. since state law precluded the <br />application of subdivision regulations to parcels of 35 acres or more, Boone <br />argued this exemption rendered the county'S A-1 rezoning regulations invalid. <br />The court rUled in his favor. :, <br /> The county appealed, arguing the exemption did not preclude the county <br />from requiring Boone to rezone parcels larger than 35 acres but less ~han 60 <br />acres. <br />DECISION: Reversed. <br /> The state's 35-acre subdivision exemption did not render the coUnty's A-I <br />rezoning regulations invalid: <br /> The plain language of the state exemption applied only to subdivision regu- <br />lations. However, there:.was no. parallel exemption from the county's zoning <br />regulations, and there was no intent;to limit county zoning powers~ Under state <br />law, the county zoning authoritY eXPresily included the power to regulate use <br />based on lot size. Conse~quently, it could require certain [ets to be rezoned. <br /> Even so, the county's statutorY zoning enforcement powers did not include <br />enjoining or invalidating conveyances. However,. the county's rezoning proce- <br />dure did not claim to invalidate a conveyance that-divided a larger tract zoned <br />Agriculture into smaller,parcels SUbject it° A-! zoning. Importantly; Boone was <br />not precluded from transferring his land. <br /> Finally, there was no' authority:prohibiting a county from imposing reason- <br />able fees in connection with rezoning.:The record did not include any:evidence <br />these fees were unreasonable, and; .despite the prospect of having to pay these <br />fees, Boone still chose to. divide his land. <br />see also: City of Boulder v. Fowler Irrevocable Trust 1992-1, 53 P.3d 725 <br />(2002). <br /> <br />GET YOUR NEWSLETTER ONLINE FREE <br />WITH LIVELINKS AT: www. quinlan.com. <br /> <br />© 2005 Ouinlan Publishing Group. A~y reprodUctiOn ii prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. <br /> <br />105 <br /> <br /> <br />