1979-04-25_ENFORCEMENT - M1978352

Home Browse Search

to the- Nottingham Sand and Gravel application. [Heifner Affida- vit, 1110, 13. ] Furthermore, the February 16 letter from Mr. Stemwedel was the only correspondence or other written document of any kind received by the Board or Division from any of the Plain- tiffs or their representatives with regard to the Nottingham application. [Heifner Affidavit, 118. ] That letter, on its face, contains no .request for a hearing. Based on the facts presented during the course of the meet- ing, together with the recommendation for approval by the Division and discussion by representatives of Nottingham Sand and Gravel and certain other participants, including the Trust, the Board unanimously approved the Nottingham Sand and Gravel application. [Transcript at p. 35. 1 In response to the complaints of the Trust with regard to notice, the Board made an express finding that the Trust had received adequate actual notice of the permit applica- tion, and further that any failure to delay the effective date of the permit application would not result in any irreparable harm. [Ibid. ] Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed this action contending that they had not received proper notice and that the Board actions in approving the permit application and finding the Trust had actual notice were improper. Defendants Nottingham Sand and Gravel Company and William E. Nottingham, Jr. have moved to dismiss the Complaint or for summary judgment on three grounds which will be set forth in greater detail below. II. ARGUMENT. A. Plaintiffs' Complaint Fails to State a Claim for Relief Against William E. Nottingham, Individually. Plaintiffs' Complaint is concerned entirely with the ad- ministrative action of the Board in approving an application for an extraction and development permit submitted by Nottingham Sand and Gravel Company, a Colorado corporation. Mr. William E. Not- -5-