This submit was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.
Plaintiff acquired the subject property in Might 2015 from the property of Eugene L. Facetti. Facetti had acquired the land in 1960 from the distinctive builders, who subdivided the subject property and completely different tons – ranging in dimension from 5 to 10 acres – from an even bigger tract that was part of a mining patent. The subject property and adjoining parcels have been meant to be part of a residential enchancment. In June 1969, Summit County adopted its zoning guidelines and utilized an A-1 (Agricultural) classification to the subject property, whatever the earlier enchancment or subdivision of the subject property and surrounding parcels for residential capabilities and the subject property and surrounding parcels being decrease than 20 acres in dimension. Although the subject property was created earlier to Summit County’s enactment of zoning, the defendant maintained that any “new” use of the subject property, equal to a residence, required approval through the Non-Conforming Parcel Plan Overview and Approval course of. Plaintiff argued that, given that matter property existed in its current type earlier to the zoning regulation, the tons have been “approved, non-conforming or ‘grandfathered’ parcels as to any and all parts inconsistent to the zoning ordinance enacted in 1969.
Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff’s takings declare on the concept the declare was not ripe. Defendant’s main argument was that plaintiff did not submit a land use utility through the Non-Conforming Parcel Plan course of or sought appeals or variances. Consequently, Defendant argued, the county had not rendered a closing decision which may permit plaintiff to file a takings declare. The court docket docket agreed that since plaintiff declined to proceed through the Non-Conforming Parcel Plan course of or one different course of which may give the defendant the possibility to grant a variance for a specific enchancment plan, its Fifth Modification Takings Declare failed. As plaintiff’s equal security and substantive due course of claims relied on the an identical set of particulars, they’ve been equally found to be unripe.
Silex West, LLC v Board of County commissioners of Summit County, 2021 WL 4477326 (D. CO. 9/30/2021)