Opinion ID: 204316
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Vested Property Rights Act

Text: Jordan-Arapahoe first contends it has a vested property right under the Vested Property Rights Act. COLO.REV.STAT. § 24-68-101, et seq. Specifically, it alleges the VPRA prevents Arapahoe County from changing zoning once it has already approved a preliminary development plan. We find that argument unpersuasive. Prior to the enactment of the VPRA, Colorado law relied primarily on the common law doctrine of vested rights to determine property owners' rights. But the uncertainties and complexities of the estoppel and due process analyses of vested rights often failed to provide a date certain for the vesting of rights, leaving both landowners and municipalities unsure of their rights. Michael M. Schultz, Vested Property Rights in Colorado: The Legislature Rushes in Where ...., 66 DEN. U.L.REV. 31, 43 (1988-89) (analyzing the history and reasoning behind the VPRA). Addressing this uncertainty that left many landowners and potential developers unsure as to when their property rights vested, in 1987 Colorado enacted the VPRA as a means to provide for a more explicit regulatory framework: It is necessary and desirable, as a matter of public policy, to provide for the establishment of vested property rights in order to ensure reasonable certainty, stability, and fairness in the land use planning process and in order to stimulate economic growth, secure the reasonable investment-backed expectations of landowners, and foster cooperation between the public and private sectors in the area of land use planning. COLO.REV.STAT. § 24-68-101(1)(a). To achieve that goal, the VPRA provides, A vested property right shall be deemed established with respect to any property upon the approval, or conditional approval, of a site specific development plan, following notice and public hearing, by the local government in which the property is situated. COLO.REV.STAT. § 24-68-103(1)(b). Regarding what qualifies as approval, or conditional approval, of a site specific development plan, the VPRA places an obligation on local governments to decide: Each local government must specifically identify, by ordinance or resolution, the types of site specific development plan approvals within the local government's jurisdiction that will cause property rights to vest. Id. at § 24-68-103(1)(a). To apply the VPRA, we thus turn to Arapahoe County's definition of a protected site specific development plan. In the Arapahoe County Land Development Code, the County, specifically referencing its VPRA obligation, provides, [A]n applicant may seek approval of a `vested property right' either [1] by approval of a `site specific development plan' or [2] by approval of a `development agreement' [1] relating to the proposed development. Aplt.App. at 89 (Code, § 1-4912.01). The Code then explains the following approvals shall be eligible for vesting as `site specific development plans': [1] Final Development Plans on property that has received final plat approval by the Board of County Commissioners, [2] qualifying Master Development Plans ..., [3] Administrative Site Plans, or [4] such other plans as the Board may designate in an agreement entered into by the County and the landowner. [2] Id. Under this provision, Arapahoe County's approval of a final development plan would establish a vested property right pursuant to the VPRA. To be eligible, a final development plan receives approval through the following procedure: In a standard [Planned Unit Development], the development standards are established after the completion of two steps: the Preliminary and Final Development Plans. The final document must achieve the County's nine stated goals for P.U.D. zoning, and must comply with all other applicable restrictions of the Regulations. The preliminary development plan (PDP) establishes general land uses and siting restrictions, including proposed site development criteria. Aplt.App. at 54 (Code, § 1-4901.09). The Code thus makes clear there is a two-step process before a final development plan receives approval. Subsection 1-4903.01 further clarifies that a preliminary development plan is the first step in establishing land uses and siting restrictions for a parcel of land, while the uses, minimums, and maximums provided in the PDP will be reviewed at the Final Development stage to further determine the appropriateness for the particular site and neighborhood. Aplt.App. at 58 (Code, § 1-4903.01). The same subsection then provides, Once a PDP has been approved, [a final development plan] which complies with the terms, conditions and requirements of the approved PDP must be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of building permits for improvements to any site or sites within the project covered by the PDP. Id. Under these provisions, Arapahoe County retains discretion to approve or reject zoning uses until it gives final approval of a final development plan. The Code emphasizes that Arapahoe County makes its final decision regarding zoning uses only during its review of a final development plan, and the plan must achieve the County's nine stated goals for P.U.D. zoning, and must comply with all other applicable restrictions of the Regulations. Id. Jordan-Arapahoe did not receive approval of a final development plan, and it does not argue otherwise. Confronting this, it contends the Code does not give Arapahoe County discretion to reject a final development plan if the plan is consistent with the already-approved PDP. See Reply Br. at 15-17. It bases this argument on § 1-4903.02 of the Code, which provides that if a final development plan proposes substantial criteria changes from a PDP, then applicants may need to amend the PDP before submitting a final development plan for approval. [3] Aplt.App. at 58. Jordan-Arapahoe contends § 1-4903.02 limits Arapahoe County's discretion to reject a final development plan if that plan is substantially in compliance with the already-approved PDP. But Jordan-Arapahoe misreads the Code. In no way does it limit Arapahoe County's discretion to reject a final development plan, even if that plan is identical to the already approved PDP and even if Arapahoe County has already approved a final plat. As explained above, a plain reading of the Code shows it does just the opposite: The Code explicitly and repeatedly requires that Arapahoe County must approve the final development plan as the second step in establishing approval of land uses and siting restrictions for a development. Aplt.App. at 58 (Code, § 1-1903.02). The Code cannot reasonably be construed to strip the County of its second-step authority to approve or reject a final development plan. Nor does the Code contain any limiting criteria flowing from the planning commission's preliminary approval that would undermine the County's discretion at step two. In short, Arapahoe County has discretion under its zoning code to reject or modify proposed developments until it approves a final development plan. At that time, the uses embodied in the plan are vested as contemplated by the VPRA. Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding the VPRA, in conjunction with the Code, does not provide Jordan-Arapahoe a vested property right.