Court Opinion

ID: 9790580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:55:24.629368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:30.365331
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Sutton
specially concurring:
Though I agree with Mr. Justice McWilliams’ dissent *382insofar as it points out that the disposition of this matter is made on a point not urged, argued or briefed, I do not agree that in this type of case the Court should not so act, for reasons which hereafter appear.
Here the record fully discloses that the action taken by the Board of County Commissioners was by motion instead of by resolution. If, as the majority of this Court believes, the approval required action by resolutions, then all other matters involved are nugatory and it would avail nothing to either consider other matters or to require a presentation of this point at another oral argument after new briefs were filed.
I must limit my concurrence in the majority opinion, however, to the part which states that the action taken must be by resolutions and to the reversal which results from a failure to have so acted.
Though C.R.S. ’53, 106-2-7 sets forth the requirements for the adoption of a master plan and 106-2-15 authorizes the amendment of the zoning resolution, which resolution includes perforce the master plan, I believe the two sections must be construed together insofar as possible. In Holly, Inc., v. Board of County Commissioners, 140 Colo. 95, 342 P. (2d) 1032, we discussed the manner in which amendments may be made to a plan adopted by virtue of 106-2-7. No question arose there as to the need to act by resolution which is the point now determined. It was shown there, however, that simple amendments under 106-2-15 do not require new maps to accompany them, but that the existing zoning maps should be later revised to conform with new zoning changes. Evidently the majority of this Court feels that our decision in Holly is not affected by this opinion and to that view I certainly subscribe. For I do not believe that new maps need be prepared for simple amendments before they can be considered.
In conclusion, I point out that this record discloses what to me is a proper form of notice for a proposed *383zoning amendment. The difficulty arises from the fact that neither the Planning Commission recommended nor the Board of County Commissioners approved what was in the notice by resolutions as 106-2-7 requires, nor are there any resolutions referring to the maps and descriptive matter affected. Merely copying the notice into the minutes by motion is not sufficient as we now interpret this statute.