Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Rangeview, LLC v. City of Aurora

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided July 14, 2016No. Court of Appeals 15CA0239Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

JUDGE TAUBMAN,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

¶ 32 This case involves the Aurora City Council’s (City Council) approval of a rezoning application allowing the development of a convenience store/gas station and the challenge to that approval by Rangeview Estates and two neighbors, Pamela Eades and John Sellery (collectively Rangeview plaintiffs). Rangeview raised two issues on appeal, arguing that the City Council abused its discretion by rezoning the property without it meeting the requirements of an “infill development parcel” as defined in the municipal code and by approving the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Ainscough v. OwensSupreme Court of Colorado · 2004
  2. Board of County Commissioners v. Bowen/Edwards Associates, Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1992
  3. Valcourt v. Zoning Board of AppealsMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1999
  4. Shelter Island Ass'n v. Zoning Board of AppealsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
  5. Wells v. Lodge Properties, Inc.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1998

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API