Jordan-Arapahoe, LLP v. Board of County Commissioners
633 F.3d 1022
10th Cir.2011Background
- Jordan-Arapahoe, LLP and Mazin owned land in Arapahoe County planned for an automotive dealership.
- 1998 and 1999 PDPs rezoned the land to MU-PUD and allowed 'Automotive Sales and Repair' as a permitted use.
- Development costs of about $2.6 million were incurred in reliance on PDPs, including street work, drainage, and sewer improvements.
- In 2006, Arapahoe County imposed a development moratorium and later added an Overlay District with a 1,500-foot setback for vehicle uses, effectively blocking the dealership.
- Jordan-Arapahoe sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deprivation of a protected property interest without due process; the district court dismissed for lack of a vested property right under state law.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding no vested property right existed under VPRA or Colorado common law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does VPRA vest a property right when a site-specific plan is approved? | Jordan-Arapahoe contends VPRA vests upon PDP approval plus County action. | Arapahoe County argues vesting requires final development plan approval; discretionary steps remain. | VPRA does not vest until final development plan approval; no entitlement. |
| Does Colorado common law vesting via detrimental reliance exist here? | Jordan-Arapahoe relies on Eason to claim vested rights from zoning plus detrimental reliance. | County argues no affirmative action beyond PDP; Eason requires more than zoning alone. | No common-law vested property right; reliance on PDP alone is insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eason v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 70 P.3d 600 (Colo. App. 2003) (vested rights require affirmative government action beyond mere zoning)
- City of Aspen v. Marshall, 912 P.2d 56 (Colo. 1996) (building permit and reliance framework for vested rights)
- P-W Investments, Inc. v. City of Westminster, 655 P.2d 1365 (Colo. 1982) (protective effect of permits and reliance in vesting)
- Villa at Greeley, Inc. v. Hopper, 917 P.2d 350 (Colo. App. 1996) (permit-based vesting generally requires reliance)
- Cline v. City of Boulder, 450 P.2d 335 (Colo. 1969) (permit alone not enough to vest a use without reliance)
- Moreland Properties, LLC v. City of Thornton, 559 F.Supp.2d 1133 (D. Colo. 2008) (distinguishes published zoning from affirmative actions; persuasive but not controlling)
- Albuquerque Commons P'ship v. City Council, 212 P.3d 1122 (N.M. 2009) (discusses vesting in an analogous New Mexico context)