## Facts

- Peter and Bruce Droste owned about 925 acres in Pitkin County, Colorado, zoned to allow certain single-family residential development as of 1974.
- The County purchased conservation easements over roughly 600 acres in 1996 and 1999 to preserve wildlife habitat.
- The Drostes submitted three development proposals in 2000 and 2002; the County denied the applications.
- Colorado law required Pitkin County to adopt a master plan for unincorporated areas by January 8, 2004.
- On April 9, 2003, after a public hearing, the Board adopted a temporary moratorium barring county entities from processing land-use applications in the Owl Creek Planning Area and lower Brush Creek Valley, with limited exceptions, pending the master plan.
- On May 14, 2003, after another public hearing, the Board extended the moratorium through completion of the master planning process; the moratorium lasted about ten months.
- The Drostes’ property was within the affected area, and they sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the County lacked authority to impose a moratorium of that duration.

## Issues

1. Whether a county’s authority to impose a development moratorium is limited to § 30-28-121, which permits temporary zoning regulations for no more than six months while a zoning plan is under consideration.
2. Whether the Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act, §§ 29-20-101 to -107, authorizes a county to impose a temporary, planning-related moratorium lasting about ten months while preparing a master plan.
3. Whether the moratorium was inconsistent with, and therefore preempted by, state land-use statutes.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the judgment upholding the moratorium.
- The Court held the County had statutory authority under the Land Use Enabling Act (§§ 29-20-101 to -107) to adopt a temporary moratorium tied to the master planning process.
- The Court concluded § 30-28-121’s six-month limit did not control because it addresses interim measures pending adoption or amendment of a zoning plan, not a master plan moratorium adopted under broader land-use authority.
- The Court determined the moratorium did not conflict with state law and was a valid exercise of delegated county authority.

## Legal Principles

- Counties may use temporary moratoria as interim land-use controls when authorized by the Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act and linked to legitimate planning objectives.
- Section 30-28-121’s six-month limit applies to temporary regulations adopted in connection with adoption or amendment of a zoning plan; it is not an exclusive source of authority for all interim land-use controls.
- A county moratorium is not invalid merely because it exceeds six months if it is adopted under separate statutory authority, is tied to a defined planning process, and is temporary in duration.
- In assessing statutory conflict, a moratorium adopted under broad delegated land-use powers is valid absent a direct conflict with an explicit statutory prohibition.

## Conclusion

The Colorado Supreme Court upheld Pitkin County’s roughly ten-month moratorium on processing land-use applications in a specified area because the County acted within its broad statutory authority under the Land Use Enabling Act, and § 30-28-121’s six-month limitation for interim zoning-plan measures did not preempt or restrict this master plan-related moratorium.


Droste v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Cnty. of Pitkin, 159 P.3d 601 (Colo. 2007)