Keep Airport Road Environmental & Safe v. Boulder County Board of County Commissioners.
2026 COA 5. No. 24CA2203. Court Jurisdiction—Standing—Conservation Easements—Termination—Legally Protected Interest—Land Use Decision.
January 29, 2026
The Kanemoto Estates Subdivision (Kanemoto Estates) consists of two residential parcels and an agricultural parcel, “Outlot A.” The original Kanemoto Estates owners granted Boulder County (the county) a conservation easement encumbering Outlot A for the preservation of open land for agricultural purposes (the easement). The easement prohibited Kanemoto Estates owners and their successors from constructing certain structures, including pavement, on Outlot A that were not necessary for an existing principal agricultural use. The owners were also required to manage Outlot A as a single agricultural unit. In addition, the easement allowed the county to terminate the easement if the Boulder County Planning Commission (planning commission) and the Boulder County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) determined that a proposed development or land use was “consistent with the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan and Boulder County Land Use Regulations.”
Lefthand Ranch, LLC, the current owner of Kanemoto Estates, requested termination of the easement so the area encompassing the subdivision could be annexed into the City of Longmont for proposed development as a mixed residential housing community. Neighbors, a community conservation entity, and other county residents submitted public comments and testified in opposition to the easement’s termination. Following hearings, the planning commission unanimously voted to terminate the easement, concluding that the termination was consistent with the Boulder County Land Use Code (BCLUC) and the county’s comprehensive plan. The BOCC also voted to terminate the easement after a hearing. Keep Airport Road Environmental & Safe, Eric and Gwen Scherer, Petrosky, and Romeo (collectively, the neighbors) sought judicial review of the BOCC’s decision under CRCP 106(a)(4). The BOCC moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that the neighbors lacked standing because they hadn’t suffered an injury in fact and that the BOCC’s decision was administrative and thus not subject to review under Rule 106(a)(4). The district court denied the motion. On the merits, the court determined that the county didn’t abuse its discretion by terminating the easement and thus upheld the BOCC’s decision.
On the neighbors’ appeal, the BOCC again argued that the neighbors lacked standing to challenge its decision because they didn’t have a legally protected interest affected by the easement’s termination—they were neither parties to the agreement that created the easement nor owners of the land subject to the easement. The neighbors didn’t respond to this argument in their reply brief, but they argued below that the BOCC’s easement termination was a “land use decision” and that Colorado case law recognizes a legally protected interest when a land use decision could subject nearby property owners to the risk of diminishment of their property values. First, the BOCC’s action of terminating the easement was not a “land use decision” because the BOCC’s easement termination by itself did not authorize the proposed development; rather, at most, it removed a barrier to a developer’s ability to seek a permit to construct the proposed community. Second, the neighbors didn’t have a legally recognized interest that allowed them to enforce the easement because they were neither parties to nor third-party beneficiaries of the subdivision agreement. Further, under CRS § 38-30.5-107 (1982)—the statute applicable when the easement was created that predates the cases on which the neighbors rely—a conservation easement can be terminated by any lawful means, including by the parties’ agreement. And under the currently applicable statute, only Lefthand Ranch or the county is entitled to initiate a proceeding to enforce the easement’s terms. Lastly, courts in other states have concluded that third parties lack standing to enforce a conservation easement encumbering privately owned land unless they are expressly authorized to do so by the governing documents. The neighbors thus lacked standing to challenge the easement’s termination.
The neighbors also argued below that BCLUC § 3-205(C)(5)(b)’s notice requirement gave them a legally protected interest. They contended that this BCLUC section allowed them a right of participation similar to that recognized in Reeves v. City of Fort Collins, 170 P.3d 850, 852 (Colo.App. 2007). BCLUC § 3-205(C)(5)(b) states that “adjacent and/or nearby property owners” must be given at least 14 days’ notice of public hearings concerning “vacations.” However, § 3-205(C)(5)(b) applies to requests to vacate certain land use actions, and only a property owner’s request to vacate a utility easement requires 14 days’ advance notice to adjacent landowners, so this notice requirement does not apply to conservation easement terminations. And Reeves is distinguishable.
The appeal was dismissed and the case was remanded with directions to dismiss the neighbors’ claim for judicial review under Rule 106(a)(4).