PERMFILE44354

• Permit No: M1986165
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 2/27/1987
• Doc Name: WILLOW BEND SANDPIT APPLICATION
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

16. I•iotwithstanding the e:;istence of such bias ~ the Defen-
dant Board of County Cotrs:issioner.s atttltor.ized aTtd in tructed Pir.
Knowlton to continue leis discretionary role with re pect to the
land use application of Defendant John Dillon.
17. Such continued participation by 11r. Knotaltonjconstitutes
a violation of the due process rights of Plaintiffs.
TlIIP.D CLAIrI FOR RELiF.F UNDEP. C. P.. C.P. 57
18. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 17 a~e incorpor-
ated herein by reference.
19. Flaintiffs Deaderick and Simmons made bo It oral and
written requests to accompany the Defendant Boar of County
Commissioners on a proposed site visit. Plaintiffs D adericlc and
Simmons further made written reRttest to be advised o and to be
allowed to participate itt, any and all meetings, wlteth r formal or
informal, of the Board of Comity Commissiottcrs or any ounty staff
regarding discussion and review of the Application ~{ttich is tite
subject of this action. I,
20.
the time
Defendant
Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs Deaderick and Sitsmorts
of the County Conunissioners'
Board of County Commissioners
Deaderick and Simmons therefrom.
were not notified of
site visi and the
deliberately excluded
21. Upon information and belief, between Febru
and February 17, 1987, the Defendant Board of County
and/or its employees lie}_rl certain meetings and disc
respect to the project which is the subject of thi
which meetings and discussions Plaintiffs Deaderick
were give no notice and in witiclt Deaderick and Simm
allowed to participate.
22. 1'lte site visit,
as alleged, were public
§29-9-101, C.R.S., from
e:ccluded.
and the other meetings and
meetings pursuant to the p'
which Plaintiffs could not
23. Upon information and belief, in Otte or m
private meetings, the Defendant- L'oard of County C
reached a decision with respect to the land use proj~
the subject of t}tis action, which decision was t
stamped" by vote at a public meetit:g on or about March
embodied in the written decision in Kesolution 1987-23
24. Stich denial
meetings COtlS tltllteS a
tiffs, and the making
decision to be "rubber
the action taken by t
1987-23 null and void
of §29-9-101(2).
of opportunity to participate
denial of the due process righ
of a derision in private meetin
stamped" at a later public u:eet
ae County and the provisions o
!n their entirety pursuant to th
ry 6, 1987,
ntunissioners
scions with
action, of
and Siuunons
ns were not
discussions
ovisions of
lawfully be
re of said
mml5szoners
~t which is
en "rubber
3, 1987, as
in public
of Plain-
witlt said
g, renders
Itesolutiort
provisions