Friends of Black Forest Preservation Plan, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners

Full Case Name
FRIENDS OF THE BLACK FOREST PRESERVATION PLAN, INC., a Colorado non-profit corporation; Richard Babcock; Jennifer Babcock; Brenda S. Baldry; Karen R. Coppeak; Remi Y. Gagne; Charlotte R. Gagne; Leif Garrison; James C. Kesser; Sharon Kesser; James A. Orban; Patricia E. Orban; Laura N. Spear; Timothy J. Spear; Wallace J. Stenhaug; Sandra A. Stenhaug; and Margaret J. Whitley, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF EL PASO COUNTY, Colorado; and Black Forest Mission, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, Defendants-Appellees
Description

The Board of County Commissioners granted a special use permit to a company to build a greenhouse in a preservation area. There were initial concerns by residents about light pollution and other effects from the construction. However, the company re-submitted a plan that addressed these concerns. The Board made findings that the re-submitted plan was consistent with the Master Plan for the preservation area, and the Court concluded the Board was allowed to make this finding.

Date
04-07-2016
Court
Colorado Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction
Colorado
Defendants
Incident Location
El Paso County, CO
Disputed Act

The Board of County Commissioners approved a special use permit for Black Forest Mission, LLC (BFM) to build a greenhouse or set of them in the Black Forest preservation area. Some residents initially objected to BFM's plan for the building of the greenhouse because of concerns related to light pollution, obstruction of views, and traffic congestion, however, BFM revised its plan to address these concerns and resubmitted its plan to the Board of County Comissioners. The plaintiff, Friends of Black Forest Preservation Plan, Inc., objected to the Board of County Comissioners approving BFM's updated plan by arguing it was inconsistent with the Master Plan for the preservation area.

Holding
The Court concluded that the Board of County Commissioners' finding that BFM’s special use application was “consistent with the applicable Master Plan” was supported by competent evidence. Moreover, the Court found that the Master Plan for the preservation area was advisory so the Board of County Commissioners was allowed to exercise its discretion in its findings.
Disposition