(1)
(a) Whenever any county planning commission or, if there is none, any regional planning commission has adopted a master plan of the county or any part thereof, no road, park, or other public way, ground, or space, no public building or structure, or no public utility, whether publicly or privately owned, shall be constructed or authorized in the unincorporated territory of the county until and unless the proposed location and extent thereof has been submitted to and approved by such county or regional planning commission.
(b) In case of disapproval, the commission shall communicate its reasons to the board of county commissioners of the county in which the public way, ground, space, building, structure, or utility is proposed to be located. Such board has the power to overrule such disapproval by a vote of not less than a majority of its entire membership. Upon such overruling, said board or other official in charge of the proposed construction or authorization may proceed therewith.
(c) If the public way, ground, space, building, structure, or utility is one the authorization or financing of which does not, under the law governing the same, fall within the province of the board of county commissioners or other county officials or board, the submission to the commission shall be by the body or official having such jurisdiction, and the commission's disapproval may be overruled by said body by a vote of not less than a majority of its entire membership or by said official. In the case of a utility owned by an entity other than a political subdivision, the submission to the commission shall be by the utility and shall not be by the public utilities commission; however, the commission's disapproval may be overruled by the public utilities commission by a vote of not less than a majority of its entire membership.
(d) The acceptance, widening, removal, extension, relocation, narrowing, vacation, abandonment, change of use, or sale or lease of or acquisition of land for any road, park, or other public way, ground, place, property, or structure shall be subject to similar submission and approval, and the failure to approve may be similarly overruled.
(e) The failure of the commission to act within thirty days after the date of official submission to it shall be deemed approval, unless a longer period is granted by the submitting board, body, or official.
(2) (a) In any geographic area of common planning jurisdiction, which area consists of part or all of several counties for which a regional plan has been duly adopted, the district, county, or municipal planning commission shall refer to the regional planning commission for review any proposed new or changed land use plan, zoning amendments, subdivision proposals, housing codes, sign codes, urban renewal projects, proposed public facilities, or other planning functions which clearly affect another local governmental unit, or which affect the region as a whole, or which are the subject of primary responsibility of the regional planning commission.
(b) In any geographic area of common planning jurisdiction which involves part or all of only one county for which a regional plan has been duly adopted, the district, county, or municipal planning commission shall refer to the regional planning commission for review any proposed new or changed land use plan, zoning amendments, subdivision proposals, housing codes, sign codes, urban renewal projects, proposed public facilities, or other planning functions which clearly affect another local governmental unit, or which affect the region as a whole, or which are the subject of primary responsibility of the regional planning commission.
(c) The regional planning commission shall, within thirty days after the receipt of such referral, report to the district, county, or municipal planning commission on the effect of the referred matter on the regional plan. This time may be extended by mutual agreement. If, during the review time, a satisfactory adjustment in the referred matter cannot be worked out, the regional planning commission may report to the district, county, or municipal planning commission that this referred matter is inconsistent with the regional plan. In that case, if the district, county, or municipality has theretofore adopted the regional plan for the development of its area, the concurrent vote of two-thirds of the total membership of the district, county, or municipal planning commission shall be required to issue a different independent report on such matters. In all instances, the regional planning commission may also forward its report on the referred matter to the governing body of the governmental unit having authority to decide the matter.
(d) The failure of the regional planning commission to reply within thirty days after the receipt of the referral, or within the agreed extension of time, shall be deemed approval of the matter referred.
(e) A failure on the part of any district, county, or municipal planning commission to refer to the regional planning commission any plan or authorization provided for in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection (2) shall be deemed a determination by such district, county, or municipal planning commission that the matter is local in nature.
(f) The regional planning commission, on its own initiative, may initiate a review of any matter involving its regional planning functions, whether such matter has been referred to it or not, if the subject of the review affects two or more local jurisdictions and may make a report of the result of such review to the governing bodies of the jurisdictions involved.
(g) The provisions of this subsection (2) shall not apply to any proposed business or industrial zoning change of less than twenty acres nor to any proposed residential zoning change or subdivision of less than forty acres.
(3) (a) All plans of streets or highways for public use, and all plans, plats, plots, and replots of land laid out in subdivision or building lots and the streets, highways, alleys, or other portions of the same intended to be dedicated to a public use or the use of purchasers or owners of lots fronting thereon or adjacent thereto, shall be submitted to the board of county commissioners for review and subsequent approval, conditional approval, or disapproval. It is not lawful to record any such plan or plat in any public office unless the same bears thereon, by endorsement or otherwise, the approval of the board of county commissioners and after review by the appropriate planning commission.
(b) The approval of said plan or plat by such commission shall not be deemed an acceptance of the proposed dedication by the public. Such acceptance, if any, shall be given by action of the governing body of the municipality or by the board of county commissioners. The owners and purchasers of such lots shall be presumed to have notice of public plans, maps, and reports of such commission affecting such property within its jurisdiction.
(4) (a) Any subdivider, or agent of a subdivider, who transfers legal or equitable title or sells any subdivided land before a final plat for such subdivided land has been approved by the board of county commissioners and recorded or filed in the office of the county clerk and recorder is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars nor less than five hundred dollars for each parcel of or interest in subdivided land which is sold. All fines collected under this paragraph (a) shall be credited to the general fund of the county. No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished under this paragraph (a) unless the indictment, information, complaint, or action for the same is instituted prior to the expiration of eighteen months after the recordation or filing in the office of the county clerk and recorder of the instrument transferring or selling such subdivided land. The board of county commissioners may provide for the enforcement of subdivision regulations by means of withholding building permits. No plat for subdivided land shall be approved by the board of county commissioners unless at the time of the approval of platting the subdivider provides the certification of the county treasurer's office that all ad valorem taxes applicable to such subdivided land, for years prior to that year in which approval is granted, have been paid.
(b) The board of county commissioners of the county in which the subdivided land is located has the power to bring an action to enjoin any subdivider from selling subdivided land before a final plat for such subdivided land has been approved by the board of county commissioners.
(c) The board of county commissioners shall distribute, or cause to be distributed, the sets of plans or plats submitted to the agencies as referred to in section 30-28-136 (1).
(d) Any violation of paragraph (a) of this subsection (4) is prima facie evidence of a fraudulent land transaction and shall be grounds for the purchaser to void the transfer or sale.
(e) This subsection (4) applies only with respect to parcels of land less than thirty-five acres in area.
(5) (a) Notice of the filing of preliminary plans of any type required by this section to be submitted to a district, regional, or county planning commission or to the board of county commissioners, if the situs of these plans lies wholly or partially within two miles of the corporate limits of a municipality but not within the corporate limits of another municipality, shall be referred to the town or city clerk of such municipality by the county planning commission or, if there be none, by the board of county commissioners. Within fourteen days of the receipt of such plans, the municipality, by action of its city council or town board, or, if one exists, by action of its planning commission, may make its recommendations to the board of county commissioners, which shall forward the same to the district, regional, or county planning commission, if any. Failure of the town board, city council, or agents designated by them to make any recommendation within fourteen days of the receipt of such plans shall constitute waiver of its right to make such recommendation.
(b) If such recommendation is made by the municipality, it shall be taken into consideration by the board of county commissioners and district, regional, or county planning commission, if any, before action is taken upon the plans. The board of county commissioners and district, regional, or county planning commission, if any, shall take no action on such plans until the recommendation of the municipality is received or until fifteen days after receipt of the preliminary plans, whichever is sooner.
Source: L. 39: p. 298, § 9. CSA: C. 45A, § 9. CRS 53: § 106-2-9. L. 59: p. 619, § 4. L. 61: p. 592, § 3. C.R.S. 1963: § 106-2-9. L. 72: pp. 498, 499, §§ 2, 3. L. 79: (4)(a) amended, p. 1166, § 1, effective June 15. L. 83: (1)(c) amended, p. 1252, § 1, effective June 3; (4)(a) and
(4)(b) amended and (4)(d) and (4)(e) added, p. 1250, § 2, effective July 1.
Cross references: For required monumentation within a subdivision before sales contract is executed, see § 38-51-105 (3) and (4).
Notes of Decisions
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist., 221 P.3d 1063 (Colo. 2009).
· cites it 70× “2008), to review the court of appeals' decision that a statutory county may not refuse to process the location and extent review application of a fire protection district pursuant to section 30-28-110(1), C.R.S. (2009), of the County Planning Act ("Planning Act") because the…”
Bd. of Cnty. Com'rs of Pitkin Cnty. v. Pfeifer, 546 P.2d 946 (Colo. 1976).
· cites it 57× “Section 30-28-110(4), C.R.S. 1973. The district court granted Capital's motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the court had no jurisdiction to set aside a conveyance of land.”
Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 205 P.3d 487 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 66× “The District informed the Land Use Department that it believed the only approval process that it was required to complete was a Location and Extent Review, pursuant to section 30-28-110, C.R.S.2008. The Land Use Department, however, disagreed, maintaining that in addition to…”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. City of Thornton, 629 P.2d 605 (Colo. 1981).
· cites it 12× “[6] The amendment to the master plan is challenged for reasons including failure to refer it to the regional planning commission, see section 30-28-110(2), C.R.S. 1973 (1977 Repl.”
Mountain View Elec. Ass'n v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 686 P.2d 1336 (Colo. 1984).
· cites it 11× “Section 30-28-110 authorizes county control of the location of utility lines, limited by the PUC’s exercise of its police power to regulate lines in the interest of public safety.”
Land Corp. v. Langer, 2020 CO 30 (Colo. 2020).
· cites it 7× “Moreover, this provision of the Code is included to comply with section 30-28-110, C.R.S. (2019), which, as we have explained, “functions as part of a legislative design to coordinate the zoning authority of counties and the authority of other political subdivisions to carry out…”
Hopkins v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 564 P.2d 415 (Colo. 1977).
· cites it 18× “” Section 30-28-107, C.R.S. 1973. Upon adoption of the master plan, all proposed subdivisions must be submitted for review and approval by the board of county commissioners before recordation.”
3 Bar J Homeowners Ass's v. Mcmurry, 967 P.2d 633 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 10× “106(a)(4), a county's final decision in the subdivision approval process takes place when the Board of County Commissioners votes at a public meeting to approve the subdivisions at issue, even though such approval may be subject to certain conditions.”
Hopkins v. Bd. of Cty. Com'rs of Cty. of Gilpin, 564 P.2d 415 (Colo. 1977).
· cites it 18× “Section 30-28-110(3)(a). Without official approval of the subdivision, the transfer or sale of the subdivided tracts may result in penal sanctions.”
Wibby v. Boulder Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 2016 COA 104 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 3× “See §§ 30-28-110(3)(a), -137, C.R.S. 2015. Once constructed, the developer can request that the county accept the subdivision roads for the public’s use.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 30-28-110(1) — 2 cases
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist., 221 P.3d 1063 (Colo. 2009).
“2008), to review the court of appeals' decision that a statutory county may not refuse to process the location and extent review application of a fire protection district pursuant to section 30-28-110(1), C.R.S. (2009), of the County Planning Act ("Planning Act") because the…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 30-28-110(1)(a) — 3 cases
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist., 221 P.3d 1063 (Colo. 2009).
“2008), to review the court of appeals' decision that a statutory county may not refuse to process the location and extent review application of a fire protection district pursuant to section 30-28-110(1), C.R.S. (2009), of the County Planning Act ("Planning Act") because the…”
Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 205 P.3d 487 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
“The District informed the Land Use Department that it believed the only approval process that it was required to complete was a Location and Extent Review, pursuant to section 30-28-110, C.R.S.2008. The Land Use Department, however, disagreed, maintaining that in addition to…”
Land Corp. v. Langer, 2020 CO 30 (Colo. 2020).
“Moreover, this provision of the Code is included to comply with section 30-28-110, C.R.S. (2019), which, as we have explained, “functions as part of a legislative design to coordinate the zoning authority of counties and the authority of other political subdivisions to carry out…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 30-28-110(1)(b) — 4 cases
Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 205 P.3d 487 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
“The District informed the Land Use Department that it believed the only approval process that it was required to complete was a Location and Extent Review, pursuant to section 30-28-110, C.R.S.2008. The Land Use Department, however, disagreed, maintaining that in addition to…”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist., 221 P.3d 1063 (Colo. 2009).
“2008), to review the court of appeals' decision that a statutory county may not refuse to process the location and extent review application of a fire protection district pursuant to section 30-28-110(1), C.R.S. (2009), of the County Planning Act ("Planning Act") because the…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 30-28-110(1)(c) — 3 cases
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist., 221 P.3d 1063 (Colo. 2009).
“2008), to review the court of appeals' decision that a statutory county may not refuse to process the location and extent review application of a fire protection district pursuant to section 30-28-110(1), C.R.S. (2009), of the County Planning Act ("Planning Act") because the…”
Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 205 P.3d 487 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
“The District informed the Land Use Department that it believed the only approval process that it was required to complete was a Location and Extent Review, pursuant to section 30-28-110, C.R.S.2008. The Land Use Department, however, disagreed, maintaining that in addition to…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 30-28-110(1)(e) — 1 case
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist., 221 P.3d 1063 (Colo. 2009).
“2008), to review the court of appeals' decision that a statutory county may not refuse to process the location and extent review application of a fire protection district pursuant to section 30-28-110(1), C.R.S. (2009), of the County Planning Act ("Planning Act") because the…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 30-28-110(2) — 1 case
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. City of Thornton, 629 P.2d 605 (Colo. 1981).
“[6] The amendment to the master plan is challenged for reasons including failure to refer it to the regional planning commission, see section 30-28-110(2), C.R.S. 1973 (1977 Repl.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 30-28-110(3) — 2 cases
3 Bar J Homeowners Ass's v. Mcmurry, 967 P.2d 633 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).
“106(a)(4), a county's final decision in the subdivision approval process takes place when the Board of County Commissioners votes at a public meeting to approve the subdivisions at issue, even though such approval may be subject to certain conditions.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 30-28-110(3)(a) — 6 cases
3 Bar J Homeowners Ass's v. Mcmurry, 967 P.2d 633 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).
“106(a)(4), a county's final decision in the subdivision approval process takes place when the Board of County Commissioners votes at a public meeting to approve the subdivisions at issue, even though such approval may be subject to certain conditions.”
Hopkins v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 564 P.2d 415 (Colo. 1977).
“” Section 30-28-107, C.R.S. 1973. Upon adoption of the master plan, all proposed subdivisions must be submitted for review and approval by the board of county commissioners before recordation.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 30-28-110(3)(b) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 30-28-110(4) — 3 cases
Bd. of Cnty. Com'rs of Pitkin Cnty. v. Pfeifer, 546 P.2d 946 (Colo. 1976).
“Section 30-28-110(4), C.R.S. 1973. The district court granted Capital's motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the court had no jurisdiction to set aside a conveyance of land.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 30-28-110(4)(a) — 6 cases
Bd. of Cnty. Com'rs of Pitkin Cnty. v. Pfeifer, 546 P.2d 946 (Colo. 1976).
“Section 30-28-110(4), C.R.S. 1973. The district court granted Capital's motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the court had no jurisdiction to set aside a conveyance of land.”
Hopkins v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 564 P.2d 415 (Colo. 1977).
“” Section 30-28-107, C.R.S. 1973. Upon adoption of the master plan, all proposed subdivisions must be submitted for review and approval by the board of county commissioners before recordation.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 30-28-110(4)(b) — 3 cases
Bd. of Cnty. Com'rs of Pitkin Cnty. v. Pfeifer, 546 P.2d 946 (Colo. 1976).
“Section 30-28-110(4), C.R.S. 1973. The district court granted Capital's motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the court had no jurisdiction to set aside a conveyance of land.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 30-28-110(l)(a) — 2 cases
Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 205 P.3d 487 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
“The District informed the Land Use Department that it believed the only approval process that it was required to complete was a Location and Extent Review, pursuant to section 30-28-110, C.R.S.2008. The Land Use Department, however, disagreed, maintaining that in addition to…”
Mountain View Elec. Ass'n v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 686 P.2d 1336 (Colo. 1984).
“Section 30-28-110 authorizes county control of the location of utility lines, limited by the PUC’s exercise of its police power to regulate lines in the interest of public safety.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 30-28-110(l)(b) — 1 case
Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 205 P.3d 487 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
“The District informed the Land Use Department that it believed the only approval process that it was required to complete was a Location and Extent Review, pursuant to section 30-28-110, C.R.S.2008. The Land Use Department, however, disagreed, maintaining that in addition to…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 30-28-110(l)(c) — 4 cases
Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 205 P.3d 487 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
“The District informed the Land Use Department that it believed the only approval process that it was required to complete was a Location and Extent Review, pursuant to section 30-28-110, C.R.S.2008. The Land Use Department, however, disagreed, maintaining that in addition to…”
Mountain View Elec. Ass'n v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 686 P.2d 1336 (Colo. 1984).
“Section 30-28-110 authorizes county control of the location of utility lines, limited by the PUC’s exercise of its police power to regulate lines in the interest of public safety.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 30-28-110(l)(e) — 2 cases
Hygiene Fire Prot. Dist. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 205 P.3d 487 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
“The District informed the Land Use Department that it believed the only approval process that it was required to complete was a Location and Extent Review, pursuant to section 30-28-110, C.R.S.2008. The Land Use Department, however, disagreed, maintaining that in addition to…”
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.