Daniels v BOCC

25CA1844 Daniels v BOCC 10-15-2026
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
Court of Appeals No. 25CA1844
Jefferson County District Court No. 24CV30042
Honorable Meegan A. Miloud, Judge
Daniels Welchester Neighborhood Association, a Colorado non-profit
corporation; Jessica Kendell; and Jane Alvarado,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Jefferson, Colorado, a
political subdivision of the State of Colorado; Tamara L. Hannaway; Jessica C.
Wynn; and Keith Michael Wynn,
Defendants-Appellees.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
Division VI
Opinion by JUDGE WELLING
Kuhn and Meirink, JJ., concur
NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e)
Announced October 15, 2026
Pat Mellen Law, LLC, Patricia Ann Mellen, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiffs-
Appellants
Kimberly S. Sorrells, County Attorney, Eric T. Butler, Deputy County Attorney,
Jason W. Soronson, Assistant County Attorney, Golden, Colorado, for
Defendant-Appellee Board of County Commissioners of the County of Jefferson
Otten, Johnson, Robinson, Neff and Ragonetti, P.C., Andrew L.W. Peters,
Robert F. Sherman, Denver, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellees Tamara L.
Hannaway, Jessica C. Wynn, and Keith Michael Wynn

1
¶ 1 Plaintiffs, Daniels Welchester Neighborbood Association,
Jessica Kendell, and Jane Alvarado, appeal the district court’s
judgment affirming the decision of defendant, the Board of County
Commissioners of Jefferson County (BOCC), to approve the
rezoning application of defendants, Tamara L. Hannaway, Jessica
C. Wynn, and Keith Michael Wynn (landowner-defendants), to
rezone a parcel of land to build townhomes. We affirm.
I. Background
¶ 2 Landowner-defendants own a 3.56-acre parcel of land in
unincorporated Jefferson County. Developer, redT Homes,
submitted a rezoning application on behalf of landowner-defendants
to allow redT Homes to build seventy-five townhomes on the parcel.
The parcel was, at the time of the application, zoned for Residential-
One (R-1), allowing for single-family homes, and Residential-Two (R-
2), allowing for two-family or duplex homes. The developer
prepared and submitted a plan, called the GreenVista Official
Development Plan (GVODP), pursuant to Section 6 of the Jefferson
County Zoning Resolution (JCZR) (effective Dec. 6, 2022), in which
the developer sought to rezone the parcel from R-1 and R-2 to a
Planned Development (PD). The GVODP included lot and building

2
standards, minimum building setbacks and separations, maximum
building height, parking space requirements, and fences and wall
requirements for the proposed townhome development.
¶ 3 Below is an aerial view of the parcel and the surrounding area,
with north at the top of the image.
(Aerial View of the Parcel and the Surrounding Area)
¶ 4 The parcel, highlighted in red, is located immediately above
the portion of the map marked “Existing Curling Center.” There are
single-family homes to the north and east of the parcel. Further

3
north of it is the Colorado Mills shopping center. Southwest of the
parcel is a proposed commercial development of car dealerships
that was approved by the City of Lakewood.
¶ 5 Jefferson County Planning Commission staff reviewed the
application, which included the GVODP, and after the developer
resubmitted the application to address potential questions and
concerns, prepared a staff report. The staff report concluded that
the proposed rezoning complied with all county requirements and
recommended that the application be approved. The staff then
presented these findings at a hearing before the Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission ultimately recommended
that the BOCC deny the application due to the proposed density of
the townhomes.
¶ 6 Following the hearing, the staff drafted a revised report to
address concerns remaining after the Planning Commission
meeting, explaining in particular how the proposed rezoning
conformed with the intended uses for the area. The BOCC then
held a public hearing on the application. At the hearing, the BOCC
heard from the Planning Commission staff, who continued to
recommend approval, and members of the public, both for and

4
against the rezoning. After considering the applicable master plans,
recommendations from the Planning Commission staff, comments
from public officials and agencies, and testimony from members of
the public, the BOCC voted two to one to approve the rezoning
application. It issued a written resolution memorializing its
approval, making the following findings:
The proposed rezoning to allow single-family
attached dwellings on the subject property is
compatible with the existing and allowable
single family and commercial land uses in the
surrounding area. The proposed residential
density provides a buffer and serves as a
transitional use between existing and
allowable residential and commercial uses in
the surrounding area.
The proposal is in general conformance with
the Comprehensive Master Plan [(CMP)]. The
proposed residential land use meets the
[CMP]’s mixed use recommendation, which
recommends residential land uses on the
subject property to serve as a transition from
the abutting low density residential land uses
east of Eldridge Street and the recommended
mixed land uses west of Fig Street. The
proposal conforms with all other applicable
sections of the [CMP] goals and policies.
The negative impacts of the proposed land use
upon the surrounding area have been
considered and found to be minimal or
mitigated by the provisions in the proposed
Official Development Plan (ODP). The ODP

5
requires a maximum of 67 dwelling units
(DUs), a minimum lot size, building setbacks,
including a forty-foot (40 ft) setback from the
east ODP boundary, maximum building
heights of 28 ft (for easternmost DUs) and 32 ft
(for all other DUs), and prohibits rooftop patios
on the eastern most dwelling units.
. . . .
The proposed land use will not result in
significant impacts to the health, safety, and
welfare of the residents and landowners in the
surrounding area.
The proposed land use is consistent with the
purpose statement in the [JCZR] and state law.
¶ 7 In the same resolution, the BOCC imposed several conditions
on its approval, finding that the developer must
1. Reduce the Maximum Residential [DUs]
from 75 DUs to 67 DUs[;]
2. Reduce Maximum Building Height of
easternmost DUs from 35 ft to 28 ft, including
any roof access or accessory structure on
roof[;]
3. Reduce Maximum Building Height of all
other DUs from 35 ft to 32 ft, including any
roof access or accessory structure on roof[;]
[and]
4. Prohibit rooftop patios on easternmost DUs.
¶ 8 Plaintiffs appealed the BOCC’s decision to the district court
pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4), contending that the BOCC had

6
abused its discretion or exceeded its jurisdiction by approving the
application. In a detailed written order, the district court denied
plaintiffs’ C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) petition, finding that the BOCC didn’t
abuse its discretion or exceed its jurisdiction by approving the
rezoning application.
II. Analysis
¶ 9 Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred by affirming the
BOCC’s decision because the BOCC abused its discretion in
approving the GVODP (1) by misapplying and misinterpreting the
law and (2) by relying on evidence they contend was not competent.
Plaintiffs also argue that the GVODP constitutes impermissible spot
zoning. After discussing the applicable standard of review, we
address each contention, in turn, below.
A. Standard of Review
¶ 10 C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) allows for judicial review “[w]here . . . any
governmental body or officer or any lower judicial body exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial functions has exceeded its jurisdiction or
abused its discretion, and there is no plain, speedy and adequate
remedy otherwise provided by law.” Such review is limited,
however, “to a determination of whether the body or officer has

7
exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, based on the
evidence in the record before the defendant body or officer.”
C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4)(I). When reviewing an appeal from a
C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) action, we stand “in the same position as the
district court” and “review the decision of the governmental body
itself rather than the district court’s decision regarding the
governmental body’s decision.” Friends of the Black Forest Pres.
Plan, Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 2016 COA 54, ¶ 13.
¶ 11 Our task isn’t to evaluate the wisdom of the BOCC’s decision
or to second-guess its determinations. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs v.
O’Dell, 920 P.2d 48, 50 (Colo. 1996). Instead, our task is to
determine whether the BOCC abused its considerable discretion.
Id. A governmental body abuses its discretion when it “issues a
decision that is not reasonably supported by any competent
evidence in the record.” Canyon Area Residents for the Env’t v. Bd.
of Cnty. Comm’rs, 172 P.3d 905, 907 (Colo. App. 2006). There is no
competent evidence if a “governmental body’s decision is ‘so devoid
of evidentiary support that it can only be explained as an arbitrary
and capricious exercise of authority.’” Id. (quoting O’Dell, 920 P.2d
at 50).

8
B. The BOCC Didn’t Abuse Its Discretion
¶ 12 We first address whether the BOCC abused its discretion by
granting landowner-defendants’ application for rezoning.
1. Jefferson County Land Use Documents
¶ 13 To begin, we briefly describe the three Jefferson County land
use documents relevant to this appeal.
¶ 14 First, the CMP provided development guidelines for
unincorporated areas of Jefferson County. The CMP was adopted
by the Planning Commission in 2010 and overhauled on April 8,
2026.1 According to the CMP itself, it was to be used to evaluate
proposals for a change in land use, such as rezonings.
¶ 15 Second, the still-effective Central Plains Area Plan (CPAP)
provides more specific guidance for east-central areas of Jefferson
County, which is where the parcel is located. The CPAP was used
in conjunction with the CMP to evaluate landowner-defendants’
rezoning application.
1 We refer to the version of the Comprehensive Master Plan in the
record on appeal, which was in effect at the time this application
was pending.

9
¶ 16 Third, the then-effective JCZR established “land use
regulations, procedures and restrictions for the promotion of the
health, safety and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of
Jefferson County.” JCZR § 1.A. The JCZR was originally adopted
by the BOCC in 1946, and the edition at issue here was adopted by
the BOCC in 2022 and amended effective July 1, 2026. As relevant
here, Section 6.D of the JCZR provides five criteria that the
Planning Commission and the BOCC may consider when evaluating
rezoning applications:
1. The compatibility [of the proposed rezoning]
with existing and allowable land uses in the
surrounding area.
2. The degree of [the proposed rezoning’s]
conformance with applicable land use plans.
3. The ability to mitigate negative impacts [of
the proposed rezoning] []on the surrounding
area.
4. The availability of infrastructure and
services [to accommodate the proposed
rezoning].
5. The effect [of the proposed rezoning] []on the
health, safety, and welfare of the residents and
landowners in the surrounding area.

10
2. The CMP and the CPAP Aren’t Binding
¶ 17 Contending that the CMP and CPAP are binding on the BOCC,
plaintiffs argue that the BOCC abused its discretion by misapplying
and misinterpreting these documents in approving the GVODP.
We, however, reject the premise of plaintiffs’ argument, concluding
instead that the CMP and CPAP aren’t binding on the BOCC. We
reach this conclusion based on the express language in both
documents. In a section entitled “How to Use this Plan,” the CMP
says it’s “advisory in nature.” (Emphasis added.) And when
describing the area plans, including the CPAP, the CMP explains
that “the Area Plans section contains additional advisory policies
and land use recommendations that are also to be used when
reviewing a proposed rezoning.” (Emphasis added.)
¶ 18 The cases plaintiffs rely on don’t persuade us otherwise. In
Board of County Commissioners v. Conder, 927 P.2d 1339, 1346
(Colo. 1996), the Colorado Supreme Court explained
that master plans are purely advisory
documents, absent (1) formal inclusion of
sufficiently specific master plan provisions in a
duly-adopted land use regulation by a board of
county commissioners or (2) a statutory
directive from the General Assembly that
landowners must comply with master plan

11
provisions in pursuing land use development
proposals.
¶ 19 Furthermore, under Colorado law,
[t]he master plan of a county or region is an
advisory document to guide land development
decisions; however, the master plan or any
part thereof may be made binding by inclusion
in the county’s or region’s adopted subdivision,
zoning, platting, planned unit development, or
other similar land development regulations
after satisfying notice, due process, and
hearing requirements for legislative or quasi-
judicial processes, as appropriate.
§ 30-28-106(3)(a), C.R.S. 2026. Here, however, there are no
provisions in the BOCC’s regulations that demonstrate an intent to
abandon the advisory nature of the CMP and CPAP. Indeed,
“[b]ecause master plans are generally advisory, a board of county
commissioners, by majority vote, is specifically empowered to
overrule a recommendation of the planning commission.” Friends
of the Black Forest Pres. Plan, Inc., ¶ 19.
¶ 20 We also aren’t persuaded otherwise by plaintiffs’ argument,
relying on Canyon Area Residents for the Environment, 172 P.3d at
911, that master plans aren’t advisory. The division in Canyon
explained that in Conder, “the supreme court clarified that master
plans are advisory unless the General Assembly enacts a statute

12
that requires landowners to comply with master plan provisions in
pursuing land use development proposals.” Id. The division then
concluded that the Planned Unit Development Act of 1972 (PUD
Act), §§ 24-67-101 to -108, C.R.S. 2026, “is such a statute,” so
“master plans are not advisory in the PUD context.” Canyon Area
Residents for the Env’t, 172 P.3d at 911 (emphasis added). Based
on this, plaintiffs argue that, under Canyon, master plans aren’t
advisory for the BOCC.
¶ 21 But Canyon is distinguishable in two regards. First, Canyon
didn’t consider section 24-67-107(2), C.R.S. 2026, of the PUD Act,
which states that “[a]ny county or municipality which has enacted,
prior to May 21, 1972, a resolution or ordinance providing for
planned unit developments may continue to follow the provisions
established therein, and any amendments thereto[,] in lieu of
electing to follow the provisions of [the PUD Act].” In other words, if
a resolution was enacted before 1972, the BOCC doesn’t have to
follow the PUD Act, which the Canyon division concluded made
master plans not advisory. Canyon Area Residents for the Env’t,
172 P.3d at 911. Section 24-67-107(2) of the PUD Act applies here
because the applicable provision of the JCZR — Section 29 –

13
Planned Development District — was originally enacted in 1965, so
the BOCC may follow the JCZR instead of the PUD Act.
¶ 22 Second — even assuming that the PUD Act applied — under
the PUD Act, a resolution must “require[] a finding by the county or
municipality that such plan is in general conformity with any
master plan or comprehensive plan for the county or municipality.”
§ 24-67-104(1)(f), C.R.S. 2026. In Canyon, the BOCC didn’t make
any findings about the proposed development’s conformance with
the master plan, so the division had to remand for further findings.
172 P.3d at 911. Here, however, the BOCC found that — and
specifically explained why — the “proposal [was] in general
conformance with the [CMP].” So Canyon is distinguishable.
¶ 23 Accordingly, we conclude that the CMP and CPAP aren’t
binding on the BOCC. And because the CMP and CPAP aren’t
binding, the BOCC wasn’t required to adhere to the guidance
provided by those documents. It necessarily follows that the
BOCC’s approval of the rezoning application wasn’t infirm based on
a supposed misinterpretation or misapplication of either document.
See Theobald v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 644 P.2d 942, 949 (Colo.
1982) (“[T]he master plan itself is only one source of comprehensive

14
planning, and is generally held to be advisory only,” and so the
BOCC can “disregard the recommendations of the planning
commission as set forth in the master plan.”).
¶ 24 This conclusion also leads us to reject plaintiffs’ argument that
the BOCC misapplied the CPAP because not all property owners
agreed with the rezoning change. To be sure, the CPAP states that
“[t]ransition from residential uses to the mixed use development
should start on the west side or when all property owners in the
area agree with the change.” Again, because the CPAP isn’t
binding, this requirement is merely advisory, not mandatory, so the
BOCC didn’t misapply the law by failing to ensure that all property
owners in the surrounding area agreed to the rezoning proposal
before approving the application.
3. There Was Competent Evidence to Support the BOCC’s
Approval
¶ 25 Plaintiffs next argue that there wasn’t competent evidence to
support the BOCC’s finding that the JCZR rezoning criteria were
satisfied. We disagree.
¶ 26 As a threshold matter, we note that although the JCZR is
binding on the BOCC, the JCZR doesn’t require the BOCC to

15
consider the criteria it lays out. Section 6.D of the JCZR states that
when the BOCC reviews proposed rezoning applications, it “may
consider the following criteria.” (Emphasis added.) Even so, there
was competent evidence to support the BOCC’s finding that each of
the enumerated criteria were considered. That is where we turn
next.
¶ 27 In their opening brief, plaintiffs don’t dispute that there was
competent evidence to support that the BOCC adequately
considered the third, fourth, and fifth criteria. So we address only
whether there was competent evidence to support that the BOCC
considered the first two criteria. Again, we must uphold the
BOCC’s decision unless there is no competent evidence in the
record to support it. Canyon Area Residents for the Env’t, 172 P.3d
at 907.
¶ 28 The first criterion instructs the BOCC to consider the
proposal’s “compatibility with existing and allowable land uses in
the surrounding area.” JCZR § 6.D.1. Related to this criterion, the
BOCC found that
[t]he proposed rezoning to allow single-family
attached dwellings on the subject property is
compatible with the existing and allowable

16
single family and commercial land uses in the
surrounding area. The proposed residential
density provides a buffer and serves as a
transitional use between existing and
allowable residential and commercial uses in
the surrounding area.
¶ 29 The record reflects that this finding was based on competent
evidence. The BOCC received a wide array of evidence at the
hearing, including the staff report, which found that although the
surrounding area was primarily residential, the parcel bordered a
commercial area, too. The staff report explained that increases in
density are generally appropriate when transitioning from single-
family residential uses to commercial uses. The staff concluded
that, given the building heights and setback requirements in the
proposal, the townhomes were compatible with existing and
allowable surrounding land uses. Zoning maps in the record also
support the staff’s conclusion. There are multiple PD zones in the
parcel’s surrounding area, including the Curling Center to the
south.
¶ 30 Given these findings, which are in the record, we can’t say
that the BOCC’s decision agreeing with the staff report was so
devoid of evidentiary support that it can only be explained as an

17
arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority. See O’Dell, 920 P.2d
at 50. We also reject plaintiffs’ contention that the BOCC couldn’t
consider land uses in the City of Lakewood, which has commercial
uses, as uses in the “surrounding area.” They cite no authority,
and we have found none, to support its argument that the
“surrounding area” can’t include nearby land uses in a different city
or jurisdiction as the parcel under consideration.
¶ 31 The second criterion urges the BOCC to consider the “degree
of conformance with applicable land use plans.” JCZR § 6.D.2. In
connection with this criterion, the BOCC found that
[t]he proposal is in general conformance with
the [CMP]. The proposed residential land use
meets the [CMP]’s mixed use recommendation,
which recommends residential land uses on
the subject property to serve as a transition
from the abutting low-density residential land
uses east of Eldridge Street and the
recommended mixed land uses west of Fig
Street. The proposal conforms with all other
applicable sections of the [CMP] goals and
policies.
¶ 32 Again, there is competent evidence in the record — specifically
the staff report — to support the BOCC’s conclusion that this
criterion was satisfied. In a detailed explanation, the staff report
found that the application conformed with the CMP and CPAP. The

18
staff found that the proposal conformed with land use guidelines
because the area will still be residential; there were no physical
constraints (such as geologic hazards) that would impact the parcel;
no community resources (such as natural features and air quality)
would be negatively impacted; and the infrastructure, water, and
service goals of the CMP would be met because various providers,
such as Consolidated Mutual Water Company, had agreed to serve
the proposed development. Given this, the record isn’t so devoid of
evidentiary support that the BOCC’s decision can only be explained
as an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority. See O’Dell,
920 P.2d at 50.
¶ 33 Lastly, we reject plaintiffs’ contention that the BOCC
improperly delegated its decision-making duties to the Planning
Commission staff. The BOCC heard evidence not only from the
staff, but also from the Planning Commission members, which
recommended denying the proposal, and members of the public,
both in support of and against the proposal. There is nothing in the
record to indicate that by approving the application — which was in
line with the staff’s recommendation — the BOCC improperly
delegated its decision-making duties to the staff. Instead, the

19
record shows that the BOCC considered all the evidence from the
hearing, which included the staff’s report, to conclude that the
application should be approved.
C. Spot Zoning
¶ 34 Finally, plaintiffs contend that the rezoning constituted
impermissible spot zoning. We disagree.
¶ 35 When considering whether a zoning change constitutes spot
zoning, a reviewing tribunal examines “whether the [zoning] change
in question was made with the purpose of furthering a
comprehensive zoning plan or designed merely to relieve a
particular property from the restrictions of the zoning regulations.”
Clark v. City of Boulder, 362 P.2d 160, 162 (Colo. 1961). “If the
rezoning is for the purpose of furthering a comprehensive zoning
plan or based on changed conditions, the rezoning is not spot
zoning.” Whitelaw v. Denv. City Council, 2017 COA 47, ¶ 63.
¶ 36 Plaintiffs argue that the application created an isolated high-
density residential zone in the middle of a low-density residential
area without furthering the CMP. We disagree with plaintiffs that
the rezoning constitutes impermissible spot zoning because

20
competent evidence in the record supports the BOCC’s finding that
the proposed development complies with the CMP and CPAP.
¶ 37 Although the BOCC isn’t bound by the CMP and CPAP, the
record shows that the BOCC considered the goals of the CMP and
CPAP when evaluating the application. For example, as the BOCC
noted in its written resolution, the rezoning met the CMP’s mixed
use recommendation and provided a buffer between existing
residential and commercial uses in the area. Also, one of the goals
in the CMP was to create “[a] collection of healthy, energy-efficient
communities with a range of housing types for all income levels that
address the needs of those who work and live here.” (Emphasis
added.) And the BOCC, with record support, found that the
proposed rezoning — going from single-family and duplexes to more
affordable townhomes — advanced this goal. Accordingly, the
rezoning wasn’t impermissible spot zoning.
III. Disposition
¶ 38 The judgment is affirmed.
JUDGE KUHN and JUDGE MEIRINK concur.