Citizens for Responsible Growth v. RCI Development Partners, Inc.
2011 WL 2139135
| Colo. | 2011Background
- RCI Development Partners sought a large PUD in Elbert County in Sept. 2006, including three related applications (PUD rezoning, 1041 state-interest review, and a preliminary subdivision plat).
- The Elbert County Board of County Commissioners held hearings in Jan. 2007 and orally approved all three applications; a written resolution memorializing the approvals was later recorded on Jan. 17, 2007.
- Citizens for Responsible Growth filed a C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) challenge within 30 days, arguing the Board’s action was final earlier and without proper notice.
- The district court ruled that the challenge was timely and that the Board exceeded authority on several grounds; the court remanded for further Board proceedings.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding that final agency action occurred when the Board adopted a written resolution, and that Citizens failed to prove the timely filing requirement.
- The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, held that due process requires notice of a final written decision, and remanded for resolution of remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When is the final decision for Rule 106(a)(4) review? | Citizens: finality occurs upon written resolution. | RCI: finality occurs at oral board approval. | Written resolution governs finality for 1041 decisions. |
| Is notice necessary to trigger judicial review under due process? | Citizens: timely notice required before final action. | RCI: notice not required if action is final orally. | Due process requires timely notice of final written decision. |
| Did the 1041 regulations create a written-finality requirement separate from Rule 106? | Citizens: 1041 regs require written findings; finality tied to that. | RCI: finality tied to Board’s action, regardless of writing. | The Board’s finalization required a written findings-and-conclusions final decision. |
| Can the Board reconsider its final decision without depriving review rights? | Citizens: reconsideration may preserve review timelines. | RCI: Board can reopen; earlier decision may be superseded. | If reconsideration occurs, the earlier final decision ceases to be final. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Dep't of Labor & Emp't, 520 P.2d 586 (Colo. 1974) (due process requires timely notice of adjudicated interests)
- People v. Guatney, 214 P.3d 1049 (Colo. 2009) (finality and review of adjudicatory decisions)
- Keystone v. Flynn, 769 P.2d 484 (Colo. 1989) (finality depends on context and statutory rules)
- Jones v. Galbasini, 299 P.2d 503 (Colo. 1956) (finality and form of judgment in statutory contexts)
- Trujillo v. General Electric Co., 621 F.2d 1084 (2d Cir. 1980) (power to reconsider provides path to final resolution)