(1) The general assembly hereby finds and declares that in order to provide for planned and orderly development within Colorado and a balancing of basic human needs of a changing population with legitimate environmental concerns, the policy of this state is to clarify and provide broad authority to local governments to plan for and regulate the use of land within their respective jurisdictions. Nothing in this article shall serve to diminish the planning functions of the state or the duties of the division of planning.
(2) The general assembly further finds and declares that local governments will be better able to properly plan for growth and serve new residents if they are authorized to impose impact fees as a condition of approval of development permits. However, impact fees and other development charges can affect growth and development patterns outside a local government's jurisdiction, and uniform impact fee authority among local governments will encourage proper growth management. Source: L. 74: Entire article added, p. 353, § 1, effective May 17. L. 2001, 2nd Ex. Sess.: Entire section amended, p. 27, § 1, effective November 6.
Notes of Decisions
Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, L.L.C., 3 P.3d 30 (Colo. 2000).
· cites it 7× “§ 29-20-102 (Legislative Declaration). To effectuate this policy, the General Assembly granted to the local governments the authority to plan for and regulate the use of land by: *46 .”
Colorado State Bd. of Land Commissioners v. Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Bd., 809 P.2d 974 (Colo. 1991).
· cites it 8× “Conda and the State Land Board rely initially on a statement in the Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act that “[n]othing in this article shall serve to diminish the planning functions of the state,” § 29-20-102, 12A C.R.S. (1986), and infer from this language a…”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Bowen/Edwards Assocs., Inc., 830 P.2d 1045 (Colo. 1992).
· cites it 2× “), states that “the policy of this state is to clarify and provide broad authority to local governments to plan for and regulate the use of land within their respective jurisdictions,” § 29-20-102, 12A C.R.S. (1986). The County Planning Code, §§ 30-28-101 to -137, 12A C.”
Pennobscot, Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 642 P.2d 915 (Colo. 1982).
· cites it 4× “The legislative intent to confer upon units of local government, such as counties, expansive powers of subdivision regulation is apparent from the legislative declaration in section 29-20-102 of the Land Use Act: "The general assembly hereby finds and declares that in order to…”
Oborne v. Cnty. Com'rs of Douglas Cty., 764 P.2d 397 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 5× “However, this statute also expressly provides that nothing in its terms is intended “to diminish the planning functions of the state,” § 29-20-102, C.R.S. (1986 RepLVol. 12A), and that, if there are “other procedural or substantive requirements for the .”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Conder, 927 P.2d 1339 (Colo. 1996).
· cites it 2× “"[E]ach local government within its respective jurisdiction has the authority to plan for and regulate the use of land" by "[r]egulating the location of activities and developments which may result in significant changes in population density," by "[r]egulating the use of land…”
Alpenhof, LLC v. City of Ouray, 297 P.3d 1052 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “1991) (quoting § 29-20-102, C.R.S.2012); accord Colorado Manufactured Hous.”
Save Park Cnty. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 990 P.2d 35 (Colo. 1999).
· cites it 4× “See § 29-20-102, 9 C.R.S. (1999). This case might appear to involve decisions having a de minimis impact: the subdivision is small36 lotsand the Planning Commission did reconsult with some of the reviewing agencies.”
City & Cnty. of Denver, Etc. v. Bergland, 517 F. Supp. 155 (D. Colo. 1981).
· cites it 2× “While the intent of the act was “to clarify and provide broad authority to local governments to plan for and regulate the use of the land within their respective jurisdictions,” Colo.Rev.Stat. § 29-20-102, there is some uncertainty as to the significance of the act with respect…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 29-20-102(1) — 6 cases
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 29-20-102(2) — 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.