Citizens for Responsible Growth (“CRG”) sought review of a court of appeals’ judgment reversing a district court order in favor of RCI Development Partners (“RCI”). RCI had submitted three applications to the Elbert County Board of County Commissioners (“the Board”) in pursuit of approval to build a large Planned Urban Development in Elbert County. On January 3rd and 4th of 2007 the Board approved each application by oral vote. On January 17th, the Board recorded a resolution with the County Clerk indicating its approval of the applications. CRG filed a complaint, alleging that the Board had exceeded its jurisdiction and abused its discretion in approving the developer’s applications. The district court found that the action was timely filed and after consideration of the merits, that the Board had exceeded its authority by making decisions inconsistent with Elbert County’s master plan and other land-use regulations. The court of appeals reversed, noting that although finality for purposes of judicial review occurs upon the adoption of a written resolution, CRG had failed to disprove the Board adopted its written resolution sometime before January 17th.
The Supreme Court of Colorado addressed what constituted a “final decision” within the context of Elbert County’s rules and regulations and the meaning of certain regulatory provisions. It stated that when a party’s property interests are adversely affected by a final decision, and the party did not receive timely notice of that decision, they may not be deprived of review for failing to seek it in a timely manner. The regulations at issue mandate that any decision by the Board to approve or deny a permit must state the reasoning with findings and conclusions in writing. The court used this provision to determine that the Board’s enabling authority itself contemplated that a decision is final only when supported by written findings and conclusions. Furthermore, a decision is not final if it is superseded or subject to reconsideration. Here, the Court found the written resolution to be the final decision because at the hearings, they had orally approved three separate applications, but finalized them in one written resolution, demonstrating intent to supersede its oral adoption of the applications. Because depriving CRG of judicial review without notice of the resolution would violate due process, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed the appeals’ court decision.
Citizens for Responsible Growth v. RCI Development Partners, 2011 WL 2139135 (Colo., 5/31/11).
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8074&courtid=2
