Hudson delays decision on Sack annexation

HUDSON — An executive session of the Hudson Town Council focused on annexation strategies ended after an hour and 22 minutes Monday, with the council reconvening in public session and opting not to decide on a key annexation proposal.

The Hudson Town Council held a special meeting at 6:30 p.m. to consider the latest request for annexation by property owner Don Sack for 120 acres at the southwest corner of Weld County Roads 4 and 45.

Sack earlier had requested annexation of the same property to Hudson, which was using the right of way of Weld County Road 41 as a flagpole annexation to reach the parcel, known then as the Mountain States Line Constructors Apprenticeship & Training, or MSLCAT, annexation.

SPONSORED CONTENT

22nd Annual Vintage Affair: A Community Gathering to Support Pathways

The 22nd Annual A Vintage Affair event, presented by Wilbur’s Total Beverage, benefits Pathways’ mission of providing expert medical and comfort care for individuals navigating the last months of life.

But the Weld County Commissioners on May 7 approved a request from BNSF Railway Co. to vacate a portion of the right of way, effectively preventing the MSLCAT annexation from proceeding.

On Monday, the council continued discussion of Resolution No. 24-58 — the Sack annexation — to an undetermined date. The council will meet in executive session Wednesday to discuss annexation matters.

Hudson and Lochbuie have been battling over which community will reap the benefits of a massive BNSF intermodal facility and logistics park. Analysts have estimated that the project could generate billions of dollars in economic activity. BNSF envisions a massive development along BNSF tracks on the east side of Interstate 76, on land located in unincorporated Weld County.

Lochbuie meets on South Weld, BNSF annexations

The Lochbuie Town Board on Tuesday will hold a public hearing and consider its own annexations, including one by BNSF.

Lochbuie filed two petitions for annexation elections in Weld County District Court, May 7, arguing that Hudson’s Ranchos East Annexation No. 1 conflicts with two of the BNSF annexations.

In May 28 responses to the filings, Hudson questioned the validity of the BNSF annexations, arguing that Lochbuie did not provide required notice to Hudson of BNSF Annexation No. 1, thereby rendering BNSF Annexations 2 and 3 invalid.

“Portions of BNSF No. 1, specifically all those portions north of Weld County Road 8, are within the Hudson and Weld County coordinated planning area and within the identified Hudson Urban Growth Area,” the response stated. “Yet, Lochbuie failed to provide Hudson notice of its planned encroachment within the Hudson — Weld County coordinated planning area boundary.”

Hudson, in filings by attorneys Hilary Graham and Nicholas Hartman of the Denver law firm Hoffman, Parker, Wilson & Carberry PC, said mediation is required.

“Lochbuie must mediate with Hudson to resolve the matter of BNSF No. 1’s encroachment into the Hudson-Weld County CPA (Coordinated Planning Agreement) area and the identified Hudson Urban Growth Area before any annexation, or, in fact, any election for a conflicting annexation.”

Lochbuie has not yet responded to Hudson’s answer.

The cases are: Town of Lochbuie v. Town of Hudson, 2024CV030092, Weld County District Court. (Dismissed); Town of Lochbuie v. Town of Hudson, 2024CV030406, Weld County District Court; and Town of Lochbuie v. Town of Hudson, 2024CV030404, Weld County District Court.