Court Opinion

ID: 9848133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:13:23.285655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:03.325021
License: Public Domain

*612HODGES, Chief Justice,
dissents.
The majority today holds that a home-rule city has standing to challenge by court action a county’s regulation of unincorporated territory adjacent to city owned property within the municipal boundaries. I respectfully dissent.
Applying the two-prong test to determine whether a party has standing as set forth by this court in Wimberly v. Ettenberg, 194 Colo. 163, 570 P.2d 535 (1977), and affirmed in City of Colorado Springs v. State of Colorado, Colo., 626 P.2d 1122; Denver Urban Renewal Authority v. Byrne, Colo., 618 P.2d 1374 (1980); and Dodge v. Department of Social Services, 198 Colo. 379, 600 P.2d 70 (1979), the majority concludes that the City of Thornton (the City) in this case has complained of an injury in fact to a legally protected interest. In my view, the City has not set forth a legally protected interest.1 A general allegation in the complaint that the value of adjacent city ownéd property will diminish because of the county’s master plan does not constitute a legally protected interest.
Under the test for standing adopted by this court, a complaining party must assert an injury to a “legally protected interest as contemplated by statutory or constitutional provisions. The General Assembly has given the power to control the physical development of unincorporated territory to the respective counties where such land is located. Section 30-28-102, C.R.S. 1973 (now in 1977 Repl.Vol. 12). The board of county commissioners is permitted to appoint a county planning commission which can adopt and modify master plans for the physical development of the unincorporated territory of the county. Sections 30-28-103, 106(1), 108, C.R.S. 1973 (now in 1977 Repl.Vol. 12). A county planning commission is also empowered to adopt a zoning plan for the county’s unincorporated territory, subject to the approval of the board of county commissioners. Sections 30-28-111 and 112, C.R.S. 1973 (now in 1977 Repl.Vol. 12). Such a zoning plan would reflect the present permissible uses of property within the territory although it could be amended by the board of county commissioners subject to a proposal by or approval of the amendment by the county planning commission. Section 30-28-116, C.R.S. 1973 (now in 1977 Repl.Vol. 12).
Municipalities have statutory authority to develop their own master and zoning plans. Sections 31-23-206 and 211, C.R.S. 1973 (now in 1977 Repl.Vol. 12). Although the zoning power is limited to the territorial boundaries of the municipality, section 31-23-206 permits the adoption of a master plan to include “any areas outside its boundaries, subject to the approval of the governmental body having jurisdiction thereof.” This superiority of control by the county regarding unincorporated territory is strengthened by limiting the power of a municipal planning commission to adopt the county’s master plan only to the extent that it “falls within the territory of the municipality.” Section 30-28-109, C.R.S. 1973 (now in 1977 Repl.Vol. 12).
From this statutory scheme, it is readily apparent that the General Assembly intended to place the ultimate control over plan*613ning and zoning of the county’s unincorporated territory exclusively in the county government. This legislative intent was recognized by this court in Robinson v. City of Boulder, 190 Colo. 357, 547 P.2d. 228 (1976) wherein we stated:
“In our view, sections 31-23-106(1) [now section 31-23-206(1)] and 31-23-109 [now section 31-23-209] place the ultimate governmental authority in matters pertaining to land use in unincorporated areas in the county. In effect, a city is given only an advisory role.”
Nor is the City conferred a legally protected interest as contemplated by constitutional grant. Colo.Const. Art. XX, Sec. 1 confers upon a home rule city the power to “purchase, receive, hold and enjoy, or sell and dispose of, real and personal property ... . ” See also Colo.Const. Art. XX, Sec. 6. This constitutional provision confers a legally protected interest upon a home rule city with regard to its local or municipal interests in the acquisition, use, and enjoyment of real property. Regulation of the land use of territory within the municipality boundary of the home rule city clearly implicates a local or municipal concern. The regulation of unincorporated territory outside the municipal boundary by another political subdivision of the state which may adversely affect the value of municipal property within the city’s boundary may also be of concern to the city. This concern, however, does not rise to the level of implicating a legally protected interest to challenge the manner in which a neighboring political subdivision regulates the use of territory within its zone of regulatory control. In such instances, the matter goes beyond the concern of the local municipality and becomes a matter of statewide concern. In matters of statewide concern, home rule cities are subject to the will of the General Assembly. See Davis v. City and County of Denver, 140 Colo. 30, 342 P.2d 674 (1959). See generally City of Aurora v. Martin, 181 Colo. 72, 507 P.2d 868 (1973); Bennion v. City and County of Denver, 180 Colo. 213, 504 P.2d 350 (1972); Vela v. People, 174 Colo. 465, 484 P.2d 1204 (1971). In this case, as discussed above, the General Assembly has given the County the power to regulate the use of its unincorporated territory.
The majority today unnecessarily opens the doors to time-consuming litigation between political entities of the state. The regulation of unincorporated territory within the state of Colorado has been specifically conferred upon the county in which the land is situated. A neighboring city, home-rule or statutory, ought not be permitted to intrude upon the orderly and effective means of land use regulation as envisioned by the statutory scheme adopted by our General Assembly.
I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals, and hold that the trial court properly dismissed the city’s complaints for lack of standing.
I am authorized to say that Justice LEE and Justice ROVIRA join me in the dissent.

. The City also asserted as a ground for establishing its standing in this case that its municipal boundary was adjacent to the rezoned property in the county, and that the rezoning would diminish the value of private property within the municipality thereby reducing the tax base, and accordingly the tax revenues of the City. The majority does not address this issue. It is clear, however, that the City does not have standing based on these allegations, as an injury in fact has not been shown.
To constitute injury in fact with reference to private property, there must be an injury directly resulting from the action complained of. Wimberly v. Ettenberg, supra; Dodge v. Department of Social Services, supra. An injury which is incidental to the action complained of or an indirect result of the action cannot constitute injury in fact. The pecuniary injury the City complains of is indirect and incidental. Although tax revenues may decrease as a result of the depreciated value of the property within the municipal boundaries and adjacent to the rezoned property, it is the landowners themselves who are directly and adversely affected. The injury the City complains of is too remote to confer standing upon the City. Accord, City and County of Denver v. Board of Commissioners, 113 Colo. 150, 156 P.2d 101 (1945).