CO Code § 30-28-103 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 30 - Government - County|Article 28 - County Planning and Building Codes|Part 1 - County Planning|§ 30-28-103. County Planning Commission

  Except as otherwise provided in this subsection (1), the board of county commissioners of any county within the state is authorized to appoint a commission of not less than three and not more than nine members, to be known as the county planning commission; except that, in counties of the state having a population of fifteen thousand or less desiring to establish a commission, the board of county commissioners may constitute the commission, or the board of county commissioners may appoint a separate body to serve as the commission. In counties of the state having a population of one hundred thousand or more, the board of county commissioners is authorized to appoint a commission of not less than three and not more than fifteen members.    Each of such members of the commission shall be a resident of the county. The term of appointed members of the commission shall be three years and until their respective successors have been appointed, but the terms of office shall be staggered by making the appointments so that approximately one-third of the members' terms expire each year. Members of the commission on July 1, 1977, shall serve the remainder of the terms for which they were appointed. Thereafter, members shall be appointed pursuant to this subsection (2).    The members of the commission shall receive such compensation as may be fixed by the board of county commissioners, and the board of county commissioners shall provide for reimbursement of the members of the commission for actual expenses incurred. The board of county commissioners shall provide for the filling of vacancies in the membership of the commission and for the removal of a member for nonperformance of duty or misconduct. The board of county commissioners may appoint associate members of such commission, each of whom shall be a resident of the county, and, in the event any regular member is temporarily unable to act owing to absence from the county, illness, interest in any matter before the commission, or any other cause, his place may be taken during such temporary disability by an associate member designated for that purpose.     History. Source: L. 39: P. 295, § 3. CSA: C. 45A, § 3. CRS 53: § 106-2-3. L. 56: P. 179, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 106-2-3. L. 77: Entire section amended, p. 1456, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2007: (1) amended, p. 32, § 1, effective August 3. History. Source: L. 39: P. 295, § 3. CSA: C. 45A, § 3. CRS 53: § 106-2-3. L. 56: P. 179, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 106-2-3. L. 77: Entire section amended, p. 1456, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2007: (1) amended, p. 32, § 1, effective August 3.    ANNOTATION   Commission authority. By this and § 30-28-102 the commissioners of the respective counties are authorized to provide for the zoning of all or any part of the unincorporated territory in their county, and they are authorized to appoint a planning commission. Gordon v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 152 Colo. 376 , 382 P.2d 545 (1963).   Adoption of master plan not mandated. The statutory scheme in Colorado does not mandate the adoption of a master plan by a county, but rather it authorizes the board of county commissioners to appoint a planning commission whose duty it is to make and adopt a master plan. Concerned Citizens v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 636 P.2d 1338 (Colo. App. 1981).   And is not prerequisite to zoning resolution. Absent a statutory requirement that a county adopt a master plan, a zoning resolution need not be preceded by the adoption of a formal written plan. Concerned Citizens v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 636 P.2d 1338 (Colo. App. 1981).   County cannot enforce provisions of master plan adopted solely by county planning commission when the county planning commission is not a legislative body that affords landowners due process. Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Conder, 927 P.2d 1339 (Colo. 1996).   Although master plans are generally advisory only, a county has the authority to require compliance with a master plan when the county includes compliance with the master plan in its legislatively adopted subdivision regulations so long as the master plan is drafted with sufficient exactitude that proponents of a subdivision are afforded due process, the county does not retain unfettered discretion, and the basis for a county's decision is clear for purposes of a reasoned judicial review. Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Conder, 927 P.2d 1339 (Colo. 1996).   Applied in Bd. of County Comm'rs v. City of Thornton, 629 P.2d 605 (Colo. 1981); Theobald v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 644 P.2d 942 (Colo. 1982).