Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-106 (2026)

Enforcement and modification of provisions of the plan

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) To further the mutual interest of the residents, occupants, and owners of a planned unit development and of the public in the preservation of the integrity of the plan, the provisions of the plan relating to the use of land and the location of common open space shall run in favor of the county or municipality and shall be enforceable at law or in equity by the county or municipality without limitation on any power or regulation otherwise granted by law.

(2) All provisions of the plan shall run in favor of the residents, occupants, and owners of the planned unit development, but only to the extent expressly provided in the plan and in accordance with the terms of the plan, and, to that extent, said provisions, whether recorded by plat, covenant, easement, or otherwise, may be enforced at law or in equity by residents, occupants, or owners acting individually, jointly, or through an organization designated in the plan to act on their behalf. However, no provisions of the plan shall be implied to exist in favor of residents, occupants, and owners except as to those portions of the plan which have been finally approved.

(3) All those provisions of the plan authorized to be enforced by the county or municipality may be modified, removed, or released by the county or municipality, subject to the following:

(a) No modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan by the county or municipality shall affect the rights of the residents, occupants, and owners of the planned unit development to maintain and enforce those provisions at law or in equity as provided in subsection (1) of this section.

(b) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b.5) of this subsection (3), no substantial modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan by the county or municipality shall be permitted except upon a finding by the county or municipality, following a public hearing called and held in accordance with the provisions of section 24-67-104 (1)(e) that the modification, removal, or release is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire planned unit development, does not affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the planned unit development or the public interest, and is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. (b.5) (I) Subject to the requirements of subparagraph (II) of this paragraph (b.5), in the case of any land located within a planned unit development that has been set aside for a governmental use or purpose as specified in the plan, the plan agreement, or related documents, a governmental entity that holds legal title to the land may, with the approval of the county or municipality in which the land is located, as applicable, and following a public hearing called for and held in accordance with the provisions of section 24-67-104 (1)(e), do any of the following, singularly or in combination:

(A) Subdivide all or any portion of the land;

(B) Remove or release all or any portion of the land from any limitations on its use or purpose by the governmental entity as specified in the plan, the plan agreement, or related documents; or

(II) Any action authorized in accordance with the requirements of subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (b.5) shall only be undertaken upon a finding by the county or municipality, as applicable, following the public hearing required pursuant to subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (b.5) that all or any portion of the land is not reasonably expected to be necessary for a governmental use or purpose or that the governmental use or purpose will be furthered by disposal of the land. Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph (b.5), where action has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of this paragraph (b.5), the future use of all or any portion of the land shall in all other respects be consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire planned unit development and with the plan.

(c) Residents and owners of the planned unit development may, to the extent and in the manner expressly authorized by the provisions of the plan, modify, remove, or release their rights to enforce the provisions of the plan, but no such action shall affect the right of the county or municipality to enforce the provisions of the plan.

Source: L. 72: p. 512, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 106-6-6. L. 2005: (3)(b) amended and (3)(b.5) added, p. 695, § 1, effective June 1.

Editor's note: Section 2 of chapter 200, Session Laws of Colorado 2005, provides that the act amending subsection (3)(b) and enacting subsection (3)(b.5) applies to any planned unit development approved prior to, on, or after June 1, 2005.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist., 221 P.3d 1063 (Colo. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist., 221 P.3d 1063 (Colo. 2009). · cites it 50× “The PUD Act's Enforcement Provision The PUD Act's general enforcement provision, section 24-67-106(1), supports our interpretation of the Planning Act's relationship to the PUD Act.”

Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 205 P.3d 487 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 60× “§ 24-67-106, C.R.S.2008. No such modification could be made, however, without first holding a public hearing in the manner designated by the County.”

South Creek Assocs. v. Bixby & Assocs., Inc., 781 P.2d 1027 (Colo. 1989). · cites it 14× “Lastly, the dissent asserted that section 24-67-106(2) of the Planned Unit Development Act of 1972, §§ 24-67-101 to XX-XX-XXX, 10B C.”

Whatley v. Summit Cnty. Bd. of Cty. Com'rs, 77 P.3d 793 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 11× “In contrast, § 24-67-106, C.R.S.2002, titled "Enforcement and modification of provisions of the plan," provides, in part: No substantial modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan by the county or municipality shall be permitted except upon a [specified]…”

Bd. of Assessment Appeals v. Colorado Arlberg Club, 762 P.2d 146 (Colo. 1988). · cites it 2× “§ 24-67-106(3)(b), 10 C.R.S. (1982). Because no evidence was presented that a change in the plan had been requested, that a public hearing had been held, or that water and sewer facilities were or could be made available, the record does not establish definitively that an…”

Wolf Creek Ski Corp. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 170 P.3d 821 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “Plaintiffs, Wolf Creek Ski Corporation (Wolf Creek), Colorado Wild, and the San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council, cross-appeal the portion of the order holding that the developer did not violate a scenic easement or a water decree, and that the board did not violate section…”

South Creek Assocs. v. Bixby & Assocs., Inc., 753 P.2d 785 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 7× “” Section 24-67-106(2), C.R.S. (1982 Repl. Vol.”

Whatley v. Summit Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 77 P.3d 793 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 9× “In contrast, § 24-67-106, C.R.8.2002, titled "Enforcement and modification of provisions of the plan," provides, in part: No substantial modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan by the county or municipality shall be permitted except upon a [specified]…”

Tiffany Kavanaugh in her Off. capacity as Telluride Town Clerk v. Telluride Locals Coalition Petitioners' Comm.; Matthew Hintermeister; Ian Wilson; Daniel Aurand; & Brighton Props., LLC, a Colorado Ltd. Liab. Co.., 2026 CO 47 (Colo. 2026). · cites it 4× “In doing so, it pointed to section 24-67-106(3)(b), C.R.S. (2025), which requires a locality to first provide notice and a public hearing before amending a PUD agreement.”

Tiffany Kavanaugh in her Off. capacity as Telluride Town Clerk v. Telluride Locals Coalition Petitioners' Comm.; Matthew Hintermeister; Ian Wilson; Daniel Aurand; & Brighton Props., LLC, a Colorado limitedliability Co.., 2026 CO 47 (Colo. 2026). · cites it 7× “In doing so, it pointed to section 24-67-106 (3) (b) , C.R.S. (2025) , which requires a locality to first provide notice and a public hearing before amending a PUD agreement.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-106(1) — 1 case

Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist., 221 P.3d 1063 (Colo. 2009). “The PUD Act's Enforcement Provision The PUD Act's general enforcement provision, section 24-67-106(1), supports our interpretation of the Planning Act's relationship to the PUD Act.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-106(2) — 2 cases

South Creek Assocs. v. Bixby & Assocs., Inc., 781 P.2d 1027 (Colo. 1989). “Lastly, the dissent asserted that section 24-67-106(2) of the Planned Unit Development Act of 1972, §§ 24-67-101 to XX-XX-XXX, 10B C.”

South Creek Assocs. v. Bixby & Assocs., Inc., 753 P.2d 785 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987). “” Section 24-67-106(2), C.R.S. (1982 Repl. Vol.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-106(3) — 3 cases

Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 205 P.3d 487 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). “§ 24-67-106, C.R.S.2008. No such modification could be made, however, without first holding a public hearing in the manner designated by the County.”

Whatley v. Summit Cnty. Bd. of Cty. Com'rs, 77 P.3d 793 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “In contrast, § 24-67-106, C.R.S.2002, titled "Enforcement and modification of provisions of the plan," provides, in part: No substantial modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan by the county or municipality shall be permitted except upon a [specified]…”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-106(3)(b) — 6 cases

Bd. of Assessment Appeals v. Colorado Arlberg Club, 762 P.2d 146 (Colo. 1988). “§ 24-67-106(3)(b), 10 C.R.S. (1982). Because no evidence was presented that a change in the plan had been requested, that a public hearing had been held, or that water and sewer facilities were or could be made available, the record does not establish definitively that an…”

Tiffany Kavanaugh in her Off. capacity as Telluride Town Clerk v. Telluride Locals Coalition Petitioners' Comm.; Matthew Hintermeister; Ian Wilson; Daniel Aurand; & Brighton Props., LLC, a Colorado Ltd. Liab. Co.., 2026 CO 47 (Colo. 2026). “In doing so, it pointed to section 24-67-106(3)(b), C.R.S. (2025), which requires a locality to first provide notice and a public hearing before amending a PUD agreement.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-106(8) — 2 cases

Whatley v. Summit Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 77 P.3d 793 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “In contrast, § 24-67-106, C.R.8.2002, titled "Enforcement and modification of provisions of the plan," provides, in part: No substantial modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan by the county or municipality shall be permitted except upon a [specified]…”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-106(8)(b) — 3 cases

Wolf Creek Ski Corp. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 170 P.3d 821 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). “Plaintiffs, Wolf Creek Ski Corporation (Wolf Creek), Colorado Wild, and the San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council, cross-appeal the portion of the order holding that the developer did not violate a scenic easement or a water decree, and that the board did not violate section…”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-67-106(b) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.