Carroll Partners LLC v. Board of Commissioners.
2026 COA 34. No. 25CA0186. Local Government Regulation of Land Use—Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act of 1974—Impact Fees.
April 30, 2026
Carroll Partners LLC (Carroll) purchased a lot in a Pitkin County subdivision. The lot included a 14,807-square-foot house built in 1983. Carroll applied for a development permit to demolish the house and replace it with a new single-family residence. Pitkin County’s development office conditionally approved Carroll’s application as a replacement of the existing structure and stated that Carroll would have to pay applicable impact fees at the building permit stage. Carroll applied for a building permit and was told that it would have to pay an employee housing impact fee (EHIF) of $948,544.18 before the permit could be issued. Carroll requested an exemption, but the request was denied. Carroll appealed Pitkin County’s decision to the district court and sought a declaratory judgment that Pitkin County could not assess an EHIF on the project and requested a permanent injunction prohibiting the county from imposing the EHIF as a condition of issuing the building permit. While the lawsuit was pending, Pitkin County agreed to issue the building permit once Carroll placed the EHIF in escrow, which Carroll did. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the district court granted Pitkin County’s motion.
On appeal, Carroll argued that Pitkin County’s imposition of an EHIF on its project exceeds its authority under the impact fee statute because the statute only authorizes local governments to assess an impact fee on raw parcels of land for a specific or different use. And because its project involves the demolition and reconstruction of an existing house without a material change in use, the EHIF contravenes state law. Under the Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act of 1974 (the Act), local governments may regulate land use within their jurisdictions based on the use’s impact on the community or surrounding areas. Local governments may exercise this authority by charging fees to offset the projected impacts of development on certain categories of infrastructure. The court of appeals concluded that, under the Act, a local government may impose impact fees as a condition of the issuance of a development permit and the imposition of such fees is not limited to projects that develop a raw parcel of land or substantially change the use of previously developed land. Accordingly, the demolition and reconstruction of a house may be subject to an impact fee, and Pitkin County properly imposed the EHIF.
Carroll also appeared to assert that even if Pitkin County acted within its authority under the Act, it violated Carroll’s substantive due process rights by imposing the EHIF. However, Pitkin County’s assessment of the EHIF on Carroll’s project satisfies the rational basis test, and Pitkin County’s land use code is reasonably tailored to quantify the impacts associated with development.
The judgment was affirmed.