Colorado § 31-12-704 - Hearing - decree - proviso.

§ 31-12-704. Hearing - decree - proviso.

(1) Upon the filing of such petition in the district court, the judge shall set a date for a hearing, not less than forty days nor more than sixty days thereafter. The clerk of the court shall serve a copy of the petition and a notice of the date and the time set for such hearing upon the mayor of the town at least thirty days prior to the hearing on such petition. Upon the hearing and proof of the facts set forth in such petition, the court shall determine whether the tracts of land should be disconnected from the town, and the judge shall enter an order or decree accordingly.

(2) The petitioners are not entitled to disconnect the land under the provisions of this part 7 when:

(a) A town has improved any of the highways passing through or adjoining said tracts of land by the construction and maintenance by the town of any special improvements along, under, or over the same for a period of more than two years prior to the presentation of the petition; or

(b) The tracts of land are included within the boundaries of:

(I) An urban renewal area described in an urban renewal plan approved pursuant to part 1 of article 25 of this title 31; or

(II) A special district that, by its service plan or pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement, is or will be expected to provide service to the tract of land.

(3) Any disconnected land shall be made subject to the applicable county's zoning resolution and map and other land development regulations within ninety days after the effective date of the disconnection as described in section 31-12-501 (5).

Source: L. 75: Entire title R&RE, p. 1103, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2020: Entire section amended, (HB 20-1133), ch. 99, p. 385, § 3, effective September 14. L. 2026: Entire section amended, (HB 26-1253), ch. 100, p. 400, § 7, effective August 12.

Editor's note: (1) This section is similar to former § 31-8-504 as it existed prior to 1975.

(2) Section 8(2) of chapter 100 (HB 26-1253), Session Laws of Colorado 2026, provides that the act changing this section applies to applications for disconnection from a municipality and petitions for disconnection from a city or town commenced on or after August 12, 2026.

ANNOTATION

Annotator's note. Since § 31-12-704 is similar to former § 31-8-504 prior to the 1975 repeal and reenactment of this title, and laws antecedent thereto, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.

Rule not of symmetry but of contiguity. Although the supreme court has held that no disconnection of land can be upheld which divides a town into two areas wholly isolated from each other, where the creation of a "corridor" has the effect of making the town's boundaries somewhat irregular, but, the area concerned remains contiguous to the rest of the town with the same access to all parts of the town as existed before the disconnection, it is not wholly isolated, the rule is not one of symmetry, but of contiguity. Town of Greenwood Vill. v. Savage, 172 Colo. 217, 471 P.2d 606 (1970).

"Special improvements" as used in this section are limited to such improvements as are generally paid for by special assessments, or those which confer special benefit upon the property affected. Burton v. Town of Sheridan, 80 Colo. 361, 251 P. 725 (1926).

Limited to highways. This section limits these improvements to highways, it restricts them to special improvements on the highway "along, under or over the save", etc. Reichelt v. Town of Julesburg, 90 Colo. 258, 8 P.2d 708 (1932).

Actions held not to be special improvements. Construction and maintenance of highways, electrical transmission lines, and water mains were held not to constitute "special improvements" as those words are used in this section. Reichelt v. Town of Julesburg, 90 Colo. 258, 8 P.2d 708 (1932); Counce v. Town of Julesburg, 108 Colo. 317, 116 P.2d 917 (1941).

In an action for disconnecting land from an incorporated town, improvements on a highway in the nature of culverts, a bridge and a slight alteration in the course of the street, are not "special improvements", as that phrase is used in this section. Burton v. Town of Sheridan, 80 Colo. 361, 251 P. 725 (1926).

This section uses the words "construction and maintenance", conjointly, as against the word "maintained" in § 31-12-603. Reichelt v. Town of Julesburg, 90 Colo. 258, 8 P.2d 708 (1932).

Burden of proof. In a proceeding under this section, the burden of proof, as to defensive matter, rests upon the town. Reichelt v. Town of Julesburg, 90 Colo. 258, 8 P.2d 708 (1932).