HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 - Court Order Deannexing parts of West Vail4 3os ooa
J
COLQRADO COURT OF APPEALS
No 84CA0737
FRANK CAROSELLI
PlaintiffAppellant
v
THE TOWrd OF VAIL AND THE TOWN
COUNCIL THEREOF and RAYMA J
POSE KATHERINE A DAVIS and
RUSSELL A MOTTA as
Commissioners of the SpecialElectiontuAnnexWestVazlaka41ESTVAILANNEXATION
ELECTIOPd COMMISSIONERS
DefendantsAppellees
Appeal from the Dzstrzct Court of Eagle County
Hunorable Richard Hart Judge
DIVISION I JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CAUSEOpinionbyJUDGEVANCISEREMA1VDED6JITHDIRECTIONSSternbergandBabcockJJconcur
Hugh R Warder
Glenwood Springs Colurado
Attorney for PlaintiffAppellant
Mehaffy Rader Windholz Wzlson
Lawrence C Rider
Buulder Colorado
COtPRT QF AppElsiS
Attorneys for DefendantsAppellees STATF OF COLOAD0
npI nioti rilsc a
t srk of Ccur
e
In 1980 the town of Vail passed an ordinance ostensibly
annexing an area known as West Vail following an lection in
which the majurity of those voting both landowners and
nonproperty owning residents of West Vail voted in favor of
annexatiun Plaintiff Frank Caroselli a resident landowner
in West Vail who had opposed annexation at all of the
preliminary proceedings and at the election filad this action
as an aggrieved person under 3112116 CRS 1977 Repl
Vol 12 attacking the annexation on several brounds After
a hearing the trial court dismissedthe complaint nolding
the annexation not invalid Plaintiff appeals We reverse
Section 31121041 CRS 1977 Repl Vul 12 provides
in pertinent part
An area is eligible for annexation if the
governing body at a hearing as provided in
section 3112109 finds and dztermines
a That not less than onesixth of the
perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed
zs contiguous with the annexzng
municipality
Section 31121051a CRS 1977 Repl Vul 12
states
The following limitations shall apply toallannexations
a In establishing the boundaries of anyterritorytobeannexednolandheldinidenticalownershipwhetherconsistinguf one
tract or parcel of real estate ur twu or more
contiguous tracts or parcels of real estateshallbedividedintoseparatepartsor
parcels without the written consent of the
1
landownersthereofunlesssuchtractsorparcelsareseparatedbyadedicatedstreetroadorotherpublicwayThepurportedlyannexedpropertyWestVailconsistsoftwolargeareasconnectedbyasmallerrectangulartractofsome300feetby1585feetTheeasterlyareaofWestVailislargelycontiguoustotheboundariesofVailtheratioofsuchcontiguitytunoncontiguitybeing2to1ThewesterlyareaisslightlycontiguoustotheboundariesofVailtheratioofcontiguitytunoncontiguztybeingontheorderof1to8ThesetwoareasarenotcontiguousatanypointexceptthattheyareconnectedbytherectangulartractwhichisownedbytheUnitedStatesandisadministeredbytheBureauufLandManagementtheBLMtractTheBLMtractisborderedonthewestandnorthbyalargeareauffederallandandpartiallyuntheeastbyVailItisnotseparatedfromtheadjoiningfederallandbyanykindofstreetroadorpublicwayItzsundisputedthatwiththeBLMtractincludednotlessthanonesixthoftheperimeteroftheentirepurportedlyannexedlandiscontiguoustoVailWithoutitthenecessarycontiguityislackingAlsoitisnotdisputedthatVaildidnotobtainfromtheBureauofLandManagenentoranyagencyoftheUnitedStatesanyconsenttothedividingoftheBLMtractfromtherestofthefederallandThereforetheBLMtractwasimproperlyincludedintheareaproposedtobeannexed2
JandwithoutitthepurportedannexationisinvalidforlackofthenecessaryunesixthcontiguityThetrialcourtalthoughadmittingthatonitsfacethepurportedannexationappearstoviolatethestatuteheldasamatteroflawthatplaintiffhadnostandingtoobjecttothedefectoflackofconsentonthepartoftheUnitedStatesPlaintiffcontendsthisrulingwaserroneousWeagreeUnder3112116CRS1977ReplVol12ifanylandowneroranyqualifiedelectorintheareaproposedtobeannexedbelievesitselftobeaggrievedbytheactsofthegoverningbodyoftheannexingmunicipalityinannexingsaidareatosaidmunicipalitysuchactsorfindingsofthegoverningbodymaybereviewedbycertiurariinaccordancewiththeColoradorulesofcivilprocedurePlaintiffqualifiesunderthestatuteandinthereviewisentitledtohaveacourtdeterminewhethertheannexationproceedingswereinconformztywiththestatutoryrequirementsGavendvCityufThornton165Culo182437P2d7781968ThisincludeswhethertheUnitedStatesconsentedtothedivisionofitslandSeeGavendsupraSincethefindingsofthetowncouncilwithregardtothenecessarycontiguityandthedivisionoflandwithoutconsentsetforthinitsadoptionresolutionresultingintheelectionactionwereincorrectandnotsupportedbytheevidenceVailthroughztstowncouncilexceededitsjurisdictionandabused3
itsdiscretioninproceedingwiththeannexationThaannexationwasandisinvalidSeeSlackvCityofColoradoSprings655P2d376Colo1982SincewehavedeterminedthattheannexationwasinvaliditisunnecessarytoaddressplaintiffsothercontentionsforreversalThejudgmentisreversedandthecauseisremandedwthdirectionstoenterjudgmentdeclaringtheannexationproceedingsnullandvoidJUDGESTERNBERGandJUDGEBABCOCKcuncur4