My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1979-04-25_ENFORCEMENT - M1978352
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Enforcement
>
Minerals
>
M1978352
>
1979-04-25_ENFORCEMENT - M1978352
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2022 2:33:37 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 12:29:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1978352
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
4/25/1979
Doc Name
MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
that the objections in the letter were very vague and noted that <br /> he-'had discussed the objections with Mr. Stemwedel , the author of <br /> the letter, during a recent inspection tour, but was unable to <br /> obtain any more specificity or information regarding the objec- <br /> tions. [Transcript of March 1, 1979 Board meeting ("Transcript" ) <br /> p. 5, attached to Barry Affidavit as Ex. 1. 1 Mr. Heifner also <br /> related to the Board the substance of a conversation which he had <br /> with Mr. William Goldstein, yet another attorney for the Trust. <br /> Mr . Goldstein was also unable to provide any additional detail <br /> with regard to the objections contained in the Trust' s February 16 <br /> letter of ob]ection; however, Mr. Goldstein did complain to Mr. <br /> Heifner that the Trust had not received proper notice of the <br /> permit application. [Heifner Affidavit, 4111. ] This conversation <br /> between Mr. Heifner and Mr. Goldstein occurred during the week <br /> prior to the March 1 hearing and was the first time that any <br /> representative of the Trust raised the question of notice. <br /> [Heifner Affidavit, 4111. ] <br /> Mr. Goldstein appeared at the Board meeting on behalf of the <br /> Trust and protested at some length that the Trust had not been <br /> properly notified in that the Trust was allegedly an adjacent land- <br /> owner but did not receive a copy of the newspaper notification, <br /> which was directed to the Brush Creek and Eagle River Company, an <br /> entity which has the same mailing address as the Trust. [Trans- <br /> cript at pp. 15, 18-19. 1 In response, representatives of Nottingham <br /> Sand and Gravel and Mr. Heifner pointed out that the Trust had in <br /> fact submitted a timely letter of objection more than two weeks <br /> before the March meeting and further that Mr. Heifner had discus- <br /> sions with representatives of the Trust well in advance of meeting, <br /> thereby clearly indicating that the Trust had actual notice. <br /> [Transcript at pp. 16-17, 20-21. ] <br /> It is undisputed and particularly significant for purposes <br /> of this Motion that at no time during the conversations prior to <br /> the March 1 Board meeting did Mr. Goldstein, Mr. Stemwedel , or any <br /> other representative of the Trust request a hearing with respect <br /> -4- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.