Gordon v. Board of County Com'rs of El Paso County

• Decision Date: 27 May 1963
• Docket Number: No. 20049,20049
• Citation: 382 P.2d 545,152 Colo. 376
• Parties: William G. GORDON, Joan Helen Gordon, Charles Hewlett Upton, et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF the COUNTY OF EL PASO, and Elroy Stum, Defendants in Error.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Page 545

382 P.2d 545

152 Colo. 376

William G. GORDON, Joan Helen Gordon, Charles Hewlett Upton, et al., Plaintiffs in Error, v. The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF the COUNTY OF EL PASO, and Elroy Stum, Defendants in Error.

No. 20049.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

May 27, 1963.

Rehearing Denied June 24, 1963.

Donald E. LaMora, H. T. McGarry, Colorado Springs, for plaintiffs in error.

Strand & Geddes, Tarter & Tarter, Colorado Springs, for defendant in error Board of County Commissioners of El Paso County.

Goodbar & Goodbar, Colorado Springs, for defendant in error Elroy Stum.

MOORE, Justice.

This writ of error is directed to a judgment of the district court affirming the action of the Board of County Commissioners of El Paso county which purported to change the zoning regulations affecting certain real estate. We will refer to plaintiffs in error as 'protestants' and to defendants in error as the 'Board' and the 'applicant' respectively.

The applicant filed a request with the El Paso County Planning Commission for a change in zoning classification of certain real estate owned by him. The requested change (to a classification called C-2) would permit the construction of a shopping center on the real estate described, which was not permitted under the existing zoning. Protestants appeared and objected to the proposed change.

A hearing was had before the Planning Commission, at the conclusion of which the following occurred:

'MR. SERY: I would like to make the motion that the petition of Elroy Stum requesting a zoning change from C-4 and A-1 garden farm district to a C-2 zone be recommended to the County Commissioners for their approval.

'CHAIRMAN STRAUS: Is there a second?

'MR. BALL: I second it.

'CHAIRMAN STRAUS: It has been moved by Mr. Sery and seconded by Mr. Ball that the petition of Elroy Stum be approved and recommended to the County Commissioners. All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Chorus of ayes.)

'CHAIRMAN STRAUS: Opposed? (No response)

'CHAIRMAN STRAUS: So recommended to the County Commissioners.'

No resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission which referred '* * * expressly to the maps and descriptive matter intended by the commission to form the whole or part of the plan,' in compliance with the provisions of C.R.S. '53, 106-2-7.

When the matter came before the Board the record of proceedings before the Planning Commission was admitted without objection. Witnesses appeared and testified, some of whom had appeared before the Planning Commission. The hearing before the Board concluded with the following action:

'MR. ROSS: I move that the application to change the zoning to C-2 from A-1 and C-4 made by Elroy Stum be granted.

'MR. MONK: I second that motion.

'MR. TORRENCE: You have heard the motion. All in favor say aye. (All three say 'aye').

'MR. TORRENCE: Unanimous. Meeting adjourned.'

Here again no resolution was adopted, the language of which identified any real estate to be affected by the purported change in zoning.

Substantial compliance with the statutory provisions applicable to resolutions of county commissioners on the subject of zoning of property is a prerequisite to a lawful enactment whether it be the original zoning regulation or an amendment thereof. Failure to comply with the essential mandates of the statute constitutes a jurisdictional defect and invalidates validates the entire proceeding. Yokley--Zoning Law and Practice, 2nd ed., Vol. 1, Sec. 70.

From 101 C.J.S. Zoning § 11, p. 695, we quote a statement of the applicable principle:

'Where a statute authorizes the adoption of zoning regulations by means of resolution, the municipality may not act by way of ordinance; but where the statute requires an ordinance for the attainment of the zoning restriction, a resolution is ineffective to accomplish the desired result. * * *'

The pronouncements of this court in cases dealing with zoning ordinances adopted by cities are applicable to the actions of county commissioners in connection with zoning 'resolutions' which they are now authorized to adopt, unless some specific statutory provision authorizes a different procedure. Again, broad general rules which are pertinent are found in 101 C.J.S. Zoning § 83, p. 835, as follows:

'A change or amendment must be enacted in conformity to the grant of power and the enabling statute to the same extent as an original zoning ordinance. * * * Accordingly, the validity of an amendatory zoning ordinance must be determined by the same rules and tests as those applied in ascertaining the validity of original zoning ordinances.'

At 101 C.J.S. Zoning § 100, p. 856, we find the following:

'Compliance with the procedure prescribed by statute is a prerequisite to any valid change in zonal boundaries or regulations in a municipality or other governmental entity. Accordingly, where a commissioner or other official is authorized to change, modify, or amend a zoning plan, the statutory provisions prescribing the method and procedures to be followed in exercising such power must be complied with. Changes of uses and restrictions, and rezoning of use districts, can ordinarily be accomplished only through an amendment of a zoning ordinance.

'In amending the zoning law, the official or body making the amendment is enacting law, binding on the public, and is not merely dealing with the rights of the owners of the particular property affected, and the act is legislative and based on present facts, rather than judicial and dependent on past facts.'

By C.R.S. '53, 106-2-1 and 106-2-2 the commissioners of the respective counties are authorized to provide 'for the zoning of all or any part of' the unincorporated territory in their county, and they are authorized to appoint a planning commission. C.R.S. '53, 106-2-7 (and preceding subsections) deals with the powers and duties of the Planning Commission and contains, inter alia, the following:

'A county or regional planning commission may adopt the county or regional master plan as a whole by a single resolution, or, as the work of making the whole master plan progresses, may adopt parts thereof, any such part to correspond generally with one or more of the functional subdivisions of the subject matter which may be included in the plan. The commission may amend, extent, or add to the plan, or carry any part of it into greater detail from time to time. The adoption of the plan or any part, amendment, extension, or addition shall be by resolution carried by the affirmative votes of not less than a majority of the entire membership of the commission. The resolution shall refer expressly to the...