Concerned Citizens of Park County v. Board of County Com'rs for Park County, 81CA0310
| Decision Date | 29 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 81CA0310,81CA0310 |
| Citation | 636 P.2d 1338 |
| Parties | CONCERNED CITIZENS OF PARK COUNTY, and Alvis J. Walls, and Leona C. Nelson, and Bobbie L. Wood, and Antoinette A. Miller, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR PARK COUNTY, State of Colorado and Larry Streeter, and Ken W. Davis, and Paul Imboden, and the Park County Planning Commission, and John Gillott, and Martha Fitzsimmons, and John Crawford, Sr., and Arthur Riley, and James Campbell, Defendants-Appellees. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Robert C. Ozer, Conifer, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Marshall McClung, Fairplay, for defendants-appellees.
Plaintiffs appeal from the trial court's dismissal of their complaint and the denial of their motion to amend the complaint. We affirm the dismissal, and reverse the denial of the motion to amend.
Plaintiffs brought this action seeking a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction to enjoin the defendants from further rezoning except in accordance with a master plan adopted, certified, and submitted to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs, and also seeking a declaratory judgment that further rezoning in Park County would be invalid unless it was in accordance with such a master plan. Plaintiffs also sought punitive damages.
The temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction were denied, and defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiffs then filed a motion to amend the complaint to add a claim for relief against a county commissioner for money damages, another claim asserting that one county commissioner had moved from the State of Colorado, and that his office was vacant, and yet another claim asserting that as a result of a recall effort against all three county commissioners of Park County, certain of the plaintiffs were being denied county services, "courtesies," and patronage. After hearing arguments, the trial court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. It also denied the motion to amend.
Plaintiffs first contend that the trial court erred in dismissing their complaint for failure to state a claim for relief. We disagree.
The statutory scheme in Colorado does not mandate the adoption of a master plan by a county, but rather it authorizes the board of county commissioners to appoint a planning commission whose duty it is to make and adopt a master plan. Section 30-28-103, C.R.S.1973 . There is no statutory requirement that a county adopt a master plan where, as here, a county planning commission has been appointed. Absent such a requirement, we will not hold that a zoning resolution must be preceded by the adoption of a formal written plan....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rule 15 AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADINGS.
...1981); Graefe & Graefe, Inc. v. Beaver Mesa Exploration Co., 635 P.2d 900 (Colo. App. 1981); Concerned Citizens v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 636 P.2d 1338 (Colo. App. 1981); Turley v. Ball Assocs., 641 P.2d 286 (Colo. App. 1981); Nelson v. Lake Canal Co., 644 P.2d 55 (Colo. App. 1981); King v.......
-
Chapter 1 - § 1.3 • STATUTORY COUNTIES
...gas facilities are subject to a separate statute in C.R.S. § 29-20-108. --------Notes:[23] Concerned Citizens v. Park County Comm'rs, 636 P.2d 1338 (Colo. App. 1981).[24] Id. [25] C.R.S. § 30-28-106(4).[26] C.R.S. § 30-28-103(1), (2).[27] C.R.S. § 30-28-119.[28] C.R.S. § 30-28-106(1); Adams......
-
Growth Management: Recent Developments in Municipal Annexation and Master Plans
...63rd Leg. 2d Ext. Sess. (2001) (amending CRS §§ 30-28-106 and 31-23-206). 48. Concerned Citizens v. Board of County Comm'rs, Park County, 636 P.2d 1338 (Colo. App. 49. Supra, note 47 at §§ 1 and 2. 50. CRS § 29-1-304.5(3)(d)(II). 51. CRS § 24-32-3209(1)(h). 52. CRS § 24-32-3209(2)(b). 53. C......