16 Jun Town of Telluride: Colorado Supreme Court Rules on Butcher Creek!
Colorado Supreme Court rules unanimously that Butcher Creek PUD cannot be amended or rezoned by ballot initiative.
Ruling preserves Town’s administrative authority over planned unit development agreements and protects open space in the 30-year Butcher Creek PUD.
The full opinion, Kavanaugh v. Telluride Locals Coalition Petitioners’ Committee et al., 2026 CO 47, is available from the Colorado Judicial Branch at coloradojudicial.gov.
Go here for more about the Town of Telluride.
The Colorado Supreme Court today issued a unanimous decision in Kavanaugh v. Telluride Locals Coalition Petitioners’ Committee et al. (2026 CO 47,
No. 24SC522), ruling in favor of the Town of Telluride and reversing the Colorado Court of Appeals. Writing for all seven justices, Justice Berkenkotter held that amendments to planned unit development (PUD) agreements are administrative, not legislative, acts and therefore are not a proper subject of the citizen initiative process under the Colorado Constitution.
The case arose from Brighton Properties, LLC’s effort to rezone Lot A, a roughly 37-acre parcel zoned as Open Space and designated as common open space in the Butcher Creek PUD since the Town and Brighton entered into the PUD Agreement in 1996. After the Town declined Brighton’s proposed eighth amendment to the Agreement in 2018 because Brighton had not obtained the consent of all lot owners, as the PUD Agreement requires, Brighton sought toachieve the rezoning and PUD Amendment through a public ballot initiative. The Town rejected that approach, and Brighton filed suit against Town Clerk Tiffany Kavanaugh.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Town. It held that while a municipality’s original adoption of a PUD enabling ordinance is a legislative act, the review of individual PUD applications and any subsequent amendments to PUD agreements are administrative in character, carrying out established legislative policy rather than creating new general rules. The Supreme Court foundthat Brighton’s proposed initiative sought to “circumvent a complex and multi-layered
administrative process” and “invade the Town’s administrative authority,” particularly given the site’s steep slopes, geologic hazard designations, and other factors requiring specialized municipal expertise.
The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the district court to consider the reasonableness of the Town’s request for attorney fees, which were previously awarded to the Town of Telluride.
“After over eight years of controversy on the issue, today’s ruling affirms what the Town has maintained throughout this litigation — that the Butcher Creek PUD Agreement is a carefully negotiated contract, and that amending it requires the deliberate, expert-driven process the law prescribes,” said Town Attorney Kevin Geiger. “The Supreme Court recognized that the citizen initiative power, as important as it is, cannot be used to bypass the procedural safeguards that protect all property owners within a planned unit development. We appreciate the Court’s unanimous decision and look forward to the district court’s consideration of the Town’s attorney fee request.”
The ruling has broad implications for municipalities and counties across Colorado. The Court confirmed that PUD agreements, negotiated contracts that account for site-specific factors such as geology, slope steepness, flood hazards, transportation, and view corridors, cannot be unilaterally modified through the ballot box. The decision preserves the integrity of the PUD process as a specialized, expertise-driven mechanism distinct from ordinary legislative zoning.With the ballot initiative avenue closed, Lot A remains designated as common open space under the Butcher Creek PUD Agreement and maintains its zoning designation as Open Space.Any future proposed amendment to that designation would require compliance with the PUD Act’s amendment procedures, including a public hearing and the consent of all parties to the Agreement.
No Comments