Hudson, Lochbuie trade legal barbs ahead of mediation

WELD COUNTY  — Days before entering another round of court-ordered mediation, the towns of Hudson and Lochbuie have filed competing actions in Weld County District Court over annexations around the planned BNSF Railway Co. intermodal facility and logistics park.

Lochbuie, in a motion filed July 30 in one of its annexation lawsuits against Hudson, asked the court to void certain annexations and zoning undertaken by Hudson, arguing that they violate a court-ordered stay.

Hudson, on Aug. 1, filed its own petition for a review of an annexation by Lochbuie, South Weld Annexation No. 3, arguing that the June 4 annexation was undertaken without proper public notice.

The two Weld County communities have been embroiled in repeated conflicts over annexations, with each seeking to annex land around the BNSF project, which is located east of BNSF tracks along Interstate 76.

BNSF in May applied to Lochbuie for annexation of about 2,400 acres. BNSF plans an intermodal facility that would allow for transfer of freight between trucks and railroad cars, as well as an adjacent logistics park that could accommodate 20 million square feet of development.

Lochbuie filed three lawsuits against Hudson in an effort to force annexation elections due to overlapping rights of way. 

The first such action — over conflicts between Lochbuie’s South Weld Annexation Nos. 2 and 3 and Hudson’s MSLCAT annexation — was dismissed after Weld County vacated a portion of Weld County Road 41 at BNSF’s request. That right of way was used as a flagpole annexation by Hudson to reach property south of the BNSF project. Vacation of the right of way rendered Hudson’s annexation null and void.

But two other actions remain open, with Lochbuie claiming that Hudson’s Ranchos East annexation overlaps with portions of its BNSF Annexation Nos. 2 and 3. 

District Court Judge Kimberly Baird Schutt on June 24 ordered the municipalities into mediation. That mediation is scheduled for Aug. 8.

‘Welcome to Hudson’

Lochbuie’s July 30 motion centers on Hudson’s Ranchos East annexation, which overlaps portions of Lochbuie’s BNSF annexations along Weld County Road 45. Lochbuie claims that the annexation — and subsequent zoning of the property — violate the court-ordered stay on annexation proceedings.

Hudson also installed a “Welcome to Hudson” sign on northbound Weld County Road 45, just north of Weld County Road 4 — part of an area that overlaps with Lochbuie’s annexations — and approved an additional annexation, the Sack Annexation, attaining contiguity for that annexation because of Ranchos East.

“Based on the presumption that Hudson’s annexation of the area contemplated by the Ranchos East Petition for Annexation is valid and complete, Hudson accepted and approved the Sack Petition for Annexation,” Lochbuie’s court filing states.

“Here, by continuing to take annexation actions in violation of the automatic stay and this Court’s June 24, 2024 Order, Hudson undermines the electorate’s ability to decide through an election ‘the respective rights of the several municipalities’ and determine, for themselves, whether to annex into Hudson or Lochbuie,” Lochbuie’s court filing said.

Lochbuie asked the court to void the Ranchos East annexation and zoning and the Sack annexation. The town also asked the court to order Hudson to remove the “Welcome to Hudson” sign on Weld County Road 45 and sought an order granting its request for an annexation election.

Hudson alleges notice violation

Hudson, in its legal action against Lochbuie, alleges that Lochbuie’s June 4 annexation of South Weld Annexation No. 3 violated state law.

“Annexation in Colorado is governed by the Annexation Act. Before any area of land petitioned for annexation by a landowner … may be completed, the governing body of a municipality must set a date for a public hearing, notice that public hearing, hold the public hearing, pass a resolution finding that the proposed annexation meet a set of criteria laid out by statute, and then finally pass an ordinance formally annexing the petitioned-for area into the municipality,” according to Hudson’s petition.

Hudson claims that because Lochbuie continued public hearings repeatedly, the actual public hearing occurred past the statutory deadline. Hudson also claims that the hearing was not noticed the required number of times, and that a special meeting conducted by Lochbuie did not provide enough time for public comment.

“Lochbuie’s public hearing of South Weld Annexation No. 3 was therefore improperly noticed for a variety of reasons and must be re-noticed and re-heard to be a valid annexation,” the petition claims.

Hudson further claims that Lochbuie violated the Colorado Open Meetings Law.

Neither party has yet responded to the other’s latest filings.

Hudson and Lochbuie previously engaged in mediation on June 10, with Judge Thomas Moorhead as mediator. The towns discussed land-use and development disputes, as well as competing annexations and comprehensive land-use plans, according to Lochbuie’s court filing, but the mediation did not end in a settlement agreement.

The Hudson Town Council on Wednesday is scheduled to consider furthering the Ranchos West and Sack annexations.

The cases are Town of Hudson v. Town of Lochbuie, Case No. 2024CV30663, and Town of Lochbuie v. Town of Hudson, Case Nos. 2024CV30404 and 2024CV30406, Weld County District Court.