2021 Colorado Code
Title 30 - Government - County
Article 28 - County Planning and Building Codes
Part 1 - County Planning
§ 30-28-116. Regulations May Be Amended

From time to time the board of county commissioners may amend the number, shape, boundaries, or area of any district, or any regulation of or within such district, or any other provisions of the zoning resolution. Any such amendment shall not be made or become effective unless the same has been proposed by or is first submitted for the approval, disapproval, or suggestions of the county planning commission. If disapproved by such commission within thirty days after such submission, such amendment, to become effective, shall receive the favorable vote of not less than a majority of the entire membership of the board of county commissioners. Before finally adopting any such amendment, the board of county commissioners shall hold a public hearing thereon, and at least fourteen days' notice of the time and place of such hearing shall be given by at least one publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county.

History. Source: L. 39: P. 301, § 15. CSA: C. 45A, § 15. CRS 53: § 106-2-15. C.R.S. 1963: § 106-2-15. L. 92: Entire section amended, p. 965, § 5, effective June 1. History. Source: L. 39: P. 301, § 15. CSA: C. 45A, § 15. CRS 53: § 106-2-15. C.R.S. 1963: § 106-2-15. L. 92: Entire section amended, p. 965, § 5, effective June 1.

Legislative intent was to provide board with expertise of commission in the form of recommendations on each specific amendment to that plan. Section 30-28-112 and this section were enacted to accomplish that purpose. Johnson v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 34 Colo. App. 14, 523 P.2d 159 (1974), aff'd sub nom. Colo. Leisure Prods., Inc. v. Johnson, 187 Colo. 443 , 532 P.2d 742 (1975).

Substantial compliance with statutory provisions is required for lawful enactment of a zoning change and failure to comply with essential mandates of the statutes invalidates the proceeding. Wainwright v. City of Wheat Ridge, 38 Colo. App. 485, 558 P.2d 1005 (1976).

This section pertains to those instances in which an amendment to an existing zone is proposed. Colo. Leisure Prods., Inc. v. Johnson, 187 Colo. 443 , 532 P.2d 742 (1975).

Also section applies if amendment proposed by board or private citizen. When an amendment is proposed by the board or by private citizens directly to the board, then this section applies and the proposed amendment must be submitted first to the planning commission for its approval, disapproval, or recommendation. In this manner, the board receives the recommendations of the planning commission on the specific amendment that has been proposed. Johnson v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 34 Colo. App. 14, 523 P.2d 159 (1974), aff'd sub nom. Colo. Leisure Prods., Inc. v. Johnson, 187 Colo. 443 , 532 P.2d 742 (1975).

Amendment cannot become effective until commission studies problem. If the board of county commissioners is considering a possible amendment to a previously zoned area, the amendment cannot become effective until the planning commission has had the opportunity to study the problem and the proposal and to convey its responses regarding the suggested change to the board. Colo. Leisure Prods., Inc. v. Johnson, 187 Colo. 443 , 532 P.2d 742 (1975).

The power to amend is not arbitrary, it cannot be exercised merely because certain individuals want it done or think it ought to be done, the change must be necessary for the public good. Holly Dev., Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 140 Colo. 95 , 342 P.2d 1032 (1959).

Therefore, amendments of zoning ordinances should be made with caution and only when changing conditions clearly require amendment. Holly Dev., Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 140 Colo. 95 , 342 P.2d 1032 (1959).

Changes not estopped. Estoppel does not operate to prevent a legislative body or commission from carrying out its public functions, and if conditions warranted later changes it is the duty of such public bodies to act accordingly. Holly Dev., Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 140 Colo. 95 , 342 P.2d 1032 (1959).

Readopted or comprehensive amendment not contemplated. This section permitting amendment to a zoning plan without first having maps prepared, does not sanction in that category a readopted or comprehensive amendment of the original zoning plan which affects all zoned areas, the legislative intent being that overall plans or changes should be given such publicity as will reasonably inform the owners affected, and is governed by § 30-28-112 dealing with the adoption of a zoning plan. Holly Dev., Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 140 Colo. 95 , 342 P.2d 1032 (1959).

Notice by publication is the law's substitute for personal notice, but to be effective as against any one whose rights are involved in compliance with, an allegation of, or a showing of strict compliance with the proper statute is essential to a good complaint. Holly Dev., Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 140 Colo. 95 , 342 P.2d 1032 (1959).

Strict compliance with notice provisions. A notice of hearing as the basis of a local ordinance should unambiguously set forth reasonable information concerning the subject matter of the hearing to the end that adequate warning be given to all persons whose rights may be affected by action of the local board, because changes in zoning ordinances affect property rights, and the provisions as to a notice of hearing must be strictly complied with, and a notice which does not warn of the nature of the proposed amendments is no notice. Holly Dev., Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 140 Colo. 95 , 342 P.2d 1032 (1959).

Strict compliance with statutory provisions for notice and public hearing required for amendatory zoning resolution. Webster Props. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 682 P.2d 506 (Colo. App. 1984).

There is no statutory provision for notice of planning commission hearings. Center Land Co. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 44 Colo. App. 523, 619 P.2d 782 (1980).

Hearing requirement does not give landowner a right to an unlimited hearing with regard to zoning changes. Landowner's procedural due process rights not infringed when he sought permission to present 4 to 5 hours of evidence, but the board limited his presentation to 15 minutes, and landowner introduced 4 affidavits and 16 exhibits into the hearing record. Jafay v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Boulder County, 848 P.2d 892 (Colo. 1993).

Condition precedent. If legislative authority is delegated by the state to some inferior body with a restriction by which it is to be used only on notice to persons whose interests are thereby affected, compliance therewith is a condition precedent to its lawful exercise. Holly Dev., Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 140 Colo. 95 , 342 P.2d 1032 (1959).

Ambiguity resolved against notice. Any ambiguity in a notice to the public of an important zoning change, which is the only notice that the public has, should be resolved against the notice. Holly Dev., Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 140 Colo. 95 , 342 P.2d 1032 (1959).

Lay meaning applied to notice. When a statute requires a notice to be given to the public, such a notice should fairly be given the meaning it would reflect upon the mind of the ordinary layman, and not as it would be construed by one familiar with the technicalities solely applicable to the laws and rules of the zoning commission, otherwise, such a notice, instead of informing, would actually mislead the public, including the persons immediately interested. Holly Dev., Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 140 Colo. 95 , 342 P.2d 1032 (1959).

Factors to be considered in construing ordinance. Because zoning laws should be given a fair and reasonable construction in light of the setting in which employed, the factors surrounding adoption of an ordinance should be considered. Wainwright v. City of Wheat Ridge, 38 Colo. App. 485, 558 P.2d 1005 (1976).

As soon as reasonably possible after their adoption, actual changes should be placed upon an authorized copy of an original county zoning map or maps with the date of the action shown along with the type of change, because this enables the public readily to discover the relative location of the legal description contained in both the public notice and the commissioners' minutes. Holly Dev., Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 140 Colo. 95 , 342 P.2d 1032 (1959).

As soon as reasonably possible after adoption by the board of county commissioners of changes in zoning, they should be placed upon an authorized copy of an original map or maps with the date of the action shown along with the type of change. Wainwright v. City of Wheat Ridge, 38 Colo. App. 485, 558 P.2d 1005 (1976).

Effect of inadvertent change in zoning map. Where there was no resolution by the board of county commissioners amending a zoning map, the inadvertent or erroneous change in the zoning map was without effect. Wainwright v. City of Wheat Ridge, 38 Colo. App. 485, 558 P.2d 1005 (1976).

Failure to comply with section renders board's proceeding and resolution void. Where the amendment which the board enacted was neither proposed by the planning commission nor submitted for commission consideration, although the planning commission provided a recommendation, it was never given an opportunity to pass upon the amendment which the board of county commissioners adopted, the proceedings before the board, as well as the resultant zoning resolution, were null and void. Colo. Leisure Prods., Inc. v. Johnson, 187 Colo. 443 , 532 P.2d 742 (1975).

Arbitrary or capricious action. Where the board of county commissioners in amending a county zoning resolution, fails to give consideration to the need for reasonable stability in zoning regulations and the requirement of certainty of description as well as proper notice of the proposed change, it acts arbitrarily and capriciously, abuses its discretion and exceeds its jurisdiction. Holly Dev., Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 140 Colo. 95 , 342 P.2d 1032 (1959).

When a general zoning ordinance is passed, those who by property in zoned districts have the right to rely upon the rule of law that the classification made in the ordinance will not be changed unless the change will be required for the public good. Holly Dev., Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 140 Colo. 95 , 342 P.2d 1032 (1959).

Applied in Bd. of County Comm'rs v. City of Thornton, 629 P.2d 605 (Colo. 1981); Beaver Meadows v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 709 P.2d 928 (Colo. 1985).