Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Therefore, the only competent evidence before t' <br />Counr_;,. Commissioners in regard to the impact o` t'. <br />project on proper*_:~ values is that it wi11 be devast <br />Cpponenr_s would submit that the °oard is recuired t <br />application. <br />T ~J <br />' Board of <br />a proposed <br />t'.r.g . The <br />den;, the <br />The Cnc~onents hn-~e beet denied due rOCeSS , and uch deni a1 <br />reeuires either a rlenial or t'.ia_ nro'ect or t?:e irao _'_on o" a <br />nora*_cr_ur., pursuzr.t to 3ectier. 38-23-'21 <br />At the Planning Ccr^s^_'ss ior. ?tooting on Februzry ''_ '_9u. , .ir. <br />?'nowltor_ advised the Coruni:>s'_on that he fe'_t tl.at he had a cor.- <br />fiict o= interest due to l:is close personal fri_erdship and :>e~*eral <br />continuing 'nisiness rata*_ionships ca~.t_'.i the D_lion. ?le .ur`her <br />sta*_ed that he had previousl;~ adv'_sed the 3oard o` Ceu .=_; Cosmis- <br />sinners of the existence o_° this conflict of interest _d that the <br />Board o= Count~~ Commissioner had directed him to n oceed wi*_h <br />presentation of staf` reports. <br />A review or the County Cotuaissioner:> Minutes ror Tanuar;~ 27, <br />.'.937, shows that t-?r. Knowlton's discussion with the 3oard *_ool: <br />substanti_all;~ di_irerent _`orm, and the 3oard did not di ect him to <br />prepare the staf{ reports as alleged. [dhile ""r. i:nowltor.'s <br />friendship does not establish a legal conflict o` nterest as <br />defined in Ser_tior. 18-8-308, C.Z.S. Mr. Y.no~alton's statements, <br />together wi*_h his subsequent actions, do however est bush bias <br />inpermissable ir_ a public hearing. See, e.g., Soon 7 e Scott v. <br />Cit*~ of F.n.glewood, 572 1'.2d 225 (Co'_o. App. 1983). In t11at case, <br />a City Councilman disoualified himself from an;~ participation in <br />-5- <br />