Chapter 3 - § 3.12 • CHALLENGES TO INDIVIDUAL PUD REZONING ORDINANCES

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 3.12 • CHALLENGES TO INDIVIDUAL PUD REZONING ORDINANCES

See Introduction, "Judicial Review of Quasi-Judicial Acts."

Appeals from county or municipal actions approving or denying an application for a specific PUD must be brought in district court under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4).⁶⁰ The following parties generally have standing to appeal from a determination of the governing entity of a county or municipality on a PUD application.

§ 3.12.1—Adjacent Property Owners

An owner of property immediately adjacent to the property rezoned by a PUD plan has standing to bring an action to challenge a rezoning that adversely affects his or her property.⁶¹ Implicit in the decisions granting standing to adjacent property owners is the conclusion that a complaining property owner has a legally protected interest in insulating its property from adverse effects caused by the legally deficient rezoning of adjacent property.⁶²

§ 3.12.2—Adjacent Home Rule Municipality

The Colorado Constitution imposes constraints on legislative action impinging on the interests of home rule municipalities. A home rule municipality adjacent to property rezoned to a PUD has standing to challenge the legality of a county's zoning ordinances, including whether there was compliance with applicable legal standards in exercising the county's zoning powers or whether statutorily required procedures were violated. A home rule municipality may not challenge a county's discretionary land use decisions, such as approval or disapproval of a PUD plan. Thus, where a home rule city challenged a county's amendment to the county master plan to rezone certain areas to PUDs for research and development, the city did not have standing. The city would have had standing, however, to challenge the approval of a specific PUD application on the basis of violation of the county's own zoning ordinances, zoning powers, or required procedures.⁶³

--...