Feds. Dist. Court docket of CO Finds Takings Claims Unripe Following Plaintiff’s Failure to Proceed By Non-Conforming Parcel Plan Course of

This submit was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.

Plaintiff acquired the topic property in Could 2015 from the property of Eugene L. Facetti. Facetti had acquired the land in 1960 from the unique builders, who subdivided the topic property and different tons – ranging in dimension from 5 to 10 acres – from a bigger tract that was a part of a mining patent. The topic property and adjoining parcels have been meant to be a part of a residential growth. In June 1969, Summit County adopted its zoning laws and utilized an A-1 (Agricultural) classification to the topic property, regardless of the earlier growth or subdivision of the topic property and surrounding parcels for residential functions and the topic property and surrounding parcels being lower than 20 acres in dimension. Though the topic property was created previous to Summit County’s enactment of zoning, the defendant maintained that any “new” use of the topic property, comparable to a residence, required approval by means of the Non-Conforming Parcel Plan Overview and Approval course of. Plaintiff argued that, because the topic property existed in its present kind previous to the zoning regulation, the tons have been “authorized, non-conforming or ‘grandfathered’ parcels as to any and all elements inconsistent to the zoning ordinance enacted in 1969.

Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff’s takings declare on the premise that the declare was not ripe. Defendant’s major argument was that plaintiff didn’t submit a land use software by means of the Non-Conforming Parcel Plan course of or sought appeals or variances. In consequence, Defendant argued, the county had not rendered a remaining determination that might allow plaintiff to file a takings declare. The courtroom agreed that since plaintiff declined to proceed by means of the Non-Conforming Parcel Plan course of or one other course of that might give the defendant the chance to grant a variance for a selected growth plan, its Fifth Modification Takings Declare failed. As plaintiff’s equal safety and substantive due course of claims relied on the identical set of information, they have been equally discovered to be unripe.

Silex West, LLC v Board of County commissioners of Summit County, 2021 WL 4477326 (D. CO. 9/30/2021)

Scroll to Top