Citizens for Resp. Growth v. Rci Dev't Ptr.
252 P.3d 1104
| Colo. | 2011Background
- RCI sought approval for a large Planned Urban Development in Elbert County in September 2006, including a PUD rezoning, a 1041 state-interest permit, and a preliminary subdivision plat.
- The Elbert County Board of Commissioners held hearings January 3–4, 2007 and orally approved all three applications; a written resolution memorializing the approvals was recorded January 17, 2007.
- Citizens for Responsible Growth filed a C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) petition within 30 days of the written resolution, challenging the Board’s action as excessive or unlawful.
- RCI moved to dismiss, contending final agency action occurred at the January 4 hearing; Citizens contended final action occurred with the written resolution.
- The district court rejected the dismissal, ruled in Citizens’ favor on the merits, and the court of appeals reversed, holding finality hinged on the written resolution yet dismissing for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding that due process and timely notice required notice of the written resolution and remanded for resolution of remaining issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When is final agency action for 106(a)(4) review? | Citizens: final action occurs upon written resolution adoption. | RCI: final action occurred at the oral hearing. | Finality depends on written findings when required; written resolution can finalize action. |
| Does 1041 regulation finality require written findings and notice? | Citizens: written findings finalize 1041 action and trigger review. | RCI: oral approvals suffice; written resolution not required for finality. | 1041 finality requires written findings; written resolution may finalize and trigger review where required. |
| Was Citizens deprived of due process without notice of the written resolution? | Citizens lacked timely notice of the written resolution. | RCI: no notice issue since notice existed through standard process. | Due process requires timely notice of final decision; absence of notice invalidates dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Guatney, 214 P.3d 1049 (Colo. 2009) (finality and due process principles in review of decisions)
- Keystone v. Flynn, 769 P.2d 484 (Colo. 1989) (finality depends on the scope of the proceeding and rights at issue)
- Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Dep't of Labor & Emp't, 520 P.2d 586 (Colo. 1974) (due process requires timely notice of decisions affecting property interests)
- Trujillo v. General Electric Co., 621 F.2d 1084 (10th Cir. 1980) (power to decide in the first instance includes power to reconsider)
- Dike v. People, 30 P.3d 197 (Colo. 2001) (reinstatement of charges upon correction of legal error; affects finality)