HomeMy WebLinkAbout970809.tiff7050 Loma tiii0tl�
Longmont CO 80504
303 833 2992
April 8',.-1997'
George Baxter, Chairman
Board of Weld County Commissioners
Box 478
Greeley CO 80621
Subject: Firestone Annexations nos. 5 & 6, (WCR22)
V9
Dear Sir:
CRS31-12-108.5 requires an annexing municipality to file a copy of an
Annexation Impact Report with the Board of County Commissioners twenty five
days before the municipality's hearing for annexations of more than ten acres.
Based on the information available to me, Annexation Impact Reports have not
been filed on the subject annexations nor has the Board of County Commissioners
waived such filings. Perhaps this should be verified, so that these annexations
if approved by the Town will comply with the requirements of the statute.
Although some of the requirements of the statute, in the case of a road
annexation, do not seem to be appropriate, there are others that would suggest
that the reports should be required.
Very truly yours,
CC; C);C/91,4t)
970809
7050 Loma Linda Ct.
Longmont CO 80 504
303 87.3 2992
April 10, 1997
George Baxter, Chairman
Board of Weld County Commissioners
Box 758
Greeley CO 80632
Subject: Firestone annexations nos. 5 & 6 (WCR22)
Dear Sir:
-3
Certain sections of the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965 bring into question
the validity of Weld County's petition to annex to Firestone portions of WCR22
as Follows:
31-12-105(1)(a) states that in an annexation a parcel of land shall not be
divided into two parcels (one parcel annexed, the other not) without the
consent of the property owner_ There are parcels along WCR22 extending to
middle of WCR22 wherein this would occur (see survey map attached).
71-12-107(1)(a) states that landowners of more than 50 of the area to be
annexed are required to request annexation of said area. It should be confirmed
that. the County is a "landowner" of more than 507. of the land petitioned to be
annexed and not that 50% of the landowners are private parties whose land
boundaries reach to the middle or across the ROW.
f^r
`r.1
the1-
.112497(r' (I. I I) requires an allegation by more than 50% of the landowners
signS.ng the petition that they do own more than 50% of the .land to be annexed.
(see paragraph above).
31-12-3.07'1)(d)(rII) Petition map does not show individual ownerships
parcels extending to the center or across the ROW.
31-12-105(1)(g) Provides for "reasonable" access for landowners whose property
abuts the annexed ROW, but whose land has not been annexed. However, it does
not. provide ;dr hardships imposed on these landowners by the municipality's
different r-:,sti.c t'_ ono on weights, speeds, etc:. than those in effect before the
core.';•:ct•ti.oe of the FO,W.
A publii_ road is one held in fee or acquired by grant of dedication, easement eels s.
or adverse possession by, in this case, the County. Relevant to the status of'sZesa-ss-a-zi4s
private ownerships to the center or across the ROW:
1.. In the case of title in fee, County records should checked to affirm this.
2. If by easement, the County would not have the ownership necessary for the
petition.
3. If by dedication, the County records should be searched to confirm this.
4. If by adverse possession, since many citizens over the years have hostilly
traversed this land, it does not follow, necessarily, that ownership through
adverse possession falls to the County over the position of other hostile
r R r P f` 'I_ ��',.2 �/Y PGA �Z C2'Gsi. �CiZGL C.r 1t ""e L7 as2'e
_cap- ',F "-cy -p , u.. 61 _ ' eZe r
The above arguments f5r reconsidering the County's petition to annex this road
are based on the CRS as annotated. It does not take into consideration court
decision precedents which may either strengthen or weaken the case for the
petition, As a matter of prudence it would seem that they should be Shepar-di.zed
to resolve these questions of petition validity.
In addition to these there have hen other objections brought to the Board's
attention by leieLers and appearances before the members of the Board
questioning the political, economic, moral and ethical motivations and
purposes, and negative repercussions of the annexation that disserve the
residents of this area in particular and the County in general. I would hope
the Commissioners would see fit to withdraw these petitions until these
objections are given due consideration.
Very truly yours,
'.J
aIohn S. Folsom
Weld County Attorney
ac /q7
Gc ; PLC LHj ���
1
Ac...
�YV
A tract of lard k,99 acres =orb or less, ';# ttodir, tho Scut,h 1
1/4
of Section 12, T`.2 I It 68 W.:, of the 6th, P'.2m., Weld Cea: , Co:.(;...
L5 at the Smith La:.t *armor 'o.; -aid L
described as folicS+�sr begi�sl.n
t,.t,.s a 1;4494.0 feet along the East line of said Seer,' 121 t ; az
ns
3gc'15' 30 `+' 440,0 rest ra^,�Ol to the Sc '4a line of 33.`.C. 3oc.„ 1
Ve • aLtel to then ast .1.1r.-4 of said. Eec, -`. W'
1c 1
tiro of 2ecF l2 ' trance 8:89°1.7' 3G` . al -S „ouch l4 i- - aa'
a distance of b 0. feet to the point of boisirnirgo
•
All bearings used herein tavw acuvvel of an t ur000rded' `plat of
of the East -312 of said. Sao?. 3.2 the East linoutatdd as North.'
..969
1221
7050 Loma Linda, Ct.
Longmont CO 80504
303 833 2992
"larch 9, 1997
Board of Weld County Commissioners
F.O.Box 758
Greeley CO 80632
Subject: Town of Firestone Annexation of WCR22
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Public notice has been given by the Town of Firestone that the Board of County
Commissioners has petitioned the Town to annex WCR22 between WCR15 and the
frontage road of I-25. The assumption can be made that this is another effort
to prevent the Town of Frederick from annexing into territory claimed by the
Town of Firestone in its comprehensive plan, as was its previous annexation of
portions of WCR's 20, 11 and 13. However, two considerations make this petition
by the County seem inconsi.stant.
1. A portion of WCR 22 to be annexed is in the M.U.D. district. in which
development was to be controlled on unincorporated land. It would seem prudent
for the County to control the roads abutting this land, especially since common
standards have not been agreed on with the surrounding municpaiities as to road
engineering standards, accessing, traffic control, etc.
2. The County is currently processing the zoning changes and platting of a
subdivision on both sides of WCR22 between WCR11 and the 1-25 frontage road in
the unincorporated M.U.D. distict. One would think the County would be better
off retaining control of the road from which this development will be accessed
so that designs will be to County standards. This would avoid the possibility
of the necessity of future negotiations with the Town wherein the County
unec.essar:iiy would be dealing from a position of weakness resulting in
concessions. This concern is more timely since the Town of Firestone is
presently considering an ordinance to adopt an amended version of the State
Highway Access Code for application to the streets of the Town.
As was stated in a previous letter, this petitioning away of County land for
political purposes can result in unexpected consequences costly to the County
and its residents.
Very tri_r.J.y yours,
John S. Folsom
7050 Loma Linda Ct.
Longmont CO 80504
303 833 2992
April 7, 1997
Rick Patterson, Mayor °< Board of Trustees
Town of Firestone
Box 100
Firestone CO 80530
Subject: (annexation of WCR 22 between WCR 3 &. I--25 frontage road
Ladies R' gentlemen:
I have been attempting to find out why the Weld County commissioners have
petitioned the Town to annex the above section of road. In questioning the
commissioners and county planners there was no reason given. Therefor one must
assume either.. because in reality there is no reason besides complying with a
request from the Town out of a spirit of cooperation or they are reluctant to
pmak:e public the actual reason for the petition.
I submit the following as being reasons for not approving the petition;
1. Annexing this road, as was done (in part) with WCR2O previously, will not
prevent the Town of Frederick from annexing in this area as shown by the
current annexation petition for the annexation of the Hamilton property across
WCR20 from the Frederick town limits. The CRS31--12-104(1)(a) statute makes
clear that annexing across an intervening ROW under another jurisdiction does
not defeat contiguity requirements.
2. The annexation of WCR'2O at least had in its favor the desire of the Town to
control "The Gateway to Firesnne"; the WCR 22 annexation does nat.
3. The ongoing rezoning and platting by the County of the Olson -Green property
along WCR22 is going to be complicated if Firestone controls the road from
which this property must be accessed. This is particularly true since there are
differing standards between the County and Town waiting to be resolved by an
IGA, and negotiations between the County and the developer do not necessarily
have to be honored by the Town. Based on what information I have been able to
elicit from the County, the platting by the County of this development will
soon be finalized.
4. If the motive of the Town is to extend the Town limits further in
anticipation of being being able to meet the contiguity requirements to annex
another three miles west and north in one year, is the risk of positively
having imposed on the Town the burden of having to police and maintain this
road offset by the possibility that more land further from the Town nucleus
would be elible to he annexed in the future?
5. The annexation of this road by the Town will result in increased expenses to
the Town for police protection and road maintenance without realizing any
offsetting tax income to defray it. As a taxpayer to the Town, I am concerned
with the burden of these additional Town expenses provoked by what appears to
be political rather than economic motives.
I hope the Town officials will accept these as positive comments and reconsider
approving the petition. Please make this letter part of the public record of
the WCR22 annexation proposal.
Very truly yours,
?ohn S. Folsom
7050 € oma Linda Ct.
Longmont CO 80504
303833 2992
April 10, 1997
George Baxter, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners, Weld County
Box 758
Greeley CO 80632
Subject: Annexations nos.. 5 & 6 to thje Town of Firestone, (WCR22)
Dear sire.
11.7
This evening the Board of Trustees of the Town of Firesstone approved by
resolution and ordinance the annexation of those parts of WCR.2 included in the
subject annexation petitions from the Weld County Board of Commi•__i;_noes„
This was done with the knowledge, read into the record; that there was a
substantial defect in complying with the requirements of the Mttnicioal
Annexation Act of 1965 in the annexation process.
Spec i f *. caO l y. 3i-12-•108.'•5 of the Colorado Revised Statutes requires an
annexation impact report filed with County Commissioners or waiver of same as
follows (io ;part):
"Annexation impact report •- requirements. (1) The municipality shall prepare an
:ipact report concerning the proposed annexation at least twenty five days
before the date of the hearing established pursuant to section 31-12-108 and
shall file a copy with board of county commissioners governing the area
proposed to be annexed within five days thereafter. Such report shall not be
eequi r•ed for annexations of ten acres or less in total area or when the
mutn.i ci pa.i i t j and the board of county commissioners governing the area proposed
to be annexed agree that the report may be waived. ..... u
At the time the vote was taken by the Town of Firestone board of trustees:
1. no annexation impact report had been filed with the Board of County
Commissioners twenty or more days before the town hearing on the annexation, as
required. In fact., no annexation impact report had been filed at all.
2. No letter from the Board of County Commissioners had been filed twenty days
or more before the hearing., waiving the annexation impact report. In fact, no
waiver had been filed at all.
7. To the best of my knowledge, the municipality has not, itself, filed a
waiver of the annexation impact report before the hearing.
4. The alleged promise of one of the staff of the Weld County attorney's office
to issue or have issued a waiver has no affect as he had no authority to make
to make such a promise.
5. Each of the ROWs in the sub Fect annexations petition were in excess of the
ten acre requirement.
6. The statute makes no exceptions for the annexation of public R0Ws not being
required to have filed an annexation impact: report.
7. The submissions of waivers, if they were to he filed, after the Town Board
approval would not correct the deficiency in meeting the requirements of the
statute eet-uactively.
Q_ The vote was taken by the town board in spite of the cautionary letter of
March 4, 1996 from the Board of County Commissioners regarding deficiencies in
a previous annexation impact report filed with submitted by the Town in another
annexation (copy enclosed'•.
CPS31 12-].16 provides for a review process for challenging in the court having
jurisdiction these annexations. If the Firestone town board does not
voluntarily rescind the annexations ordinance in order to repeat the process
correctly, I urge- :the Board of County Commissioners, in performance of its
duties, to -follow the procedures specified in 3i-12-.16 in the court having
3urisdict!.on to review these annexations. 'Ells snoulo oe oone witnin the time
parameters stated in the statute. As an alternative, if it can be done in time
as not to jeopardize the county's filing for a review, perhaps the Colorado
attorney general may convince the Town to rescind and follow proper procedure,
thus eliminating the necessity of taking action in the courts.
It might be circumspect for the County to take the review action for this
if per reason than, having knowledge of he defect in the
A `'A�� anrea₹ inn for n�� ot; :: `.
tD'& IV> anne; +t; o, , i. m:i,ght. considered a party �o an. improper ?rnress b not
challenging it.
All the above is correct to the best of my knowledge, and is presented to you
for your confirmation and appropriate subsequent action. It considers the
annotated CRS as amended but not any precedential case decisions or rulings
that may exist. Parenthetically, if and when the annexations ordinance is
rescinded, I urge the Board of County Commissioners to reevaluate petitioning
the annexation of this road (except between WCR13 and WCR15) as I have found no
adequate r•eeason for the petitioning from the statements and correspondence
originating from the Town or the County.
Very truly yours:
ohr: C. Folsom
PC: Weld County Attorney
Enclosure
COLORADO
4
OFFICE OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PHONE (303) 356-4000, EXT. 4200
FAX (303) 352-0242
P.O. BOX 758
GREELEY, COLORADO 80632
March 4, 1996
Rick Patterson, Mayor
Board of Trustees
Town of Firestone, Colorado
150 Buchanan
P.O. Box 100
Firestone, CO 80520-3291
RE: Proposed Dollaghan Annexation
Dear Mayor Patterson and Board Members:
Weld County has received copies of the Annexation Impact Report and the Annexation
Agreement for the proposed Dollaghan annexation to the Town of Firestone (a portion of Section
7, 17, and 18 of Township 2 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado).
County staff commented December 7, 1995. The comments in this letter are in addition to those
comments.
We reiterate that it is difficult to adequately address and comment on the annexation because of
the lack of details of the proposed development for the annexation. Mr. John Folsom, a resident
in an adjacent unincorporated subdivision, has argued that the Impact Report and Agreement do
not comply with the requirements for annexation impact reports set forth in §31-12-108.5, C.R.S.
Although the statute allows the Board of County Commissioners to affirmatively waive its right
to receive such reports, we have found that impact reports are useful not only to the municipality
but also to county planners who have the responsibility to review annexations to determine if
they conflict with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan and other regional comprehensive plans
(currently being negotiated as intergovernmental agreements between the county and
municipalities). Weld County is concerned that the proposed Dollaghan Annexation has
occurred in the absence of any specific development proposal and believes that the time period
before annexation provides the optimum opportunity to obtain assurance of a quality
development.
Mayor Patterson and Board of Trustees
March 4, 1996
Page 2.
Mr. Folsom has requested the Board of County Commissioners file a motion for reconsideration
of the proposed Dollaghan Annexation with the Town of Firestone, pursuant to Section 31-12-
105, C.R.S. His request is based upon the lack of information set forth in the Annexation Impact
Report and Annexation Agreement and asserted technical inadequacies in the Annexation
Petition. The Board of County Commissioners does not believe a motion for reconsideration is
necessary in this instance; however, the Board may consider such a motion for future
annexations by the Town of Firestone if the impact report requirements set forth in Section 31-
12-108.5, C.R.S., are not fully addressed.
If you should have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to call either Monica
Daniels -Mika, Director, Weld County Department of Planning Services, at (970) 353-6100,
extension 3520, or Lee D. Morrison, Assistant Weld County Attorney, at (970) 356-4000,
extension 4391.
•
Sincerely,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
/2
Barbara J. Kirkmeyer, Chair
BTB\BJK: DB\LET\FIRESTONE
pc: Bruce Barker
Lee Morrison
Monica Daniels -Mika
Don Warden
Jack Folsom
Tami Tanoue
ti
Hello