Laserfiche WebLink
C PLAINTIFF DID NOT RECEIVE THE NOTICE OF <br /> DEFENDANT NOTTINGHAM' S APPLICATION THAT <br /> IT IS ENTITLED TO BY STATUTE, FEDERAL <br /> A14D STATE CONSTITUTIONS, AND JUDICIAL <br /> PRECEDENTS . <br /> The Constitutional and Statutory Notice Requirement <br /> The Plaintiff has not been provided with the notice <br /> it is entitled to by statute and by federal and state constitu- <br /> tion. Section 34-32-112 (10) (c) C. R. S. 1973 reads : <br /> (c) In addition, the applicant shall mail a copy <br /> of such notice immediately after first publication <br /> to all owners of the surface rights of the affected <br /> land, to the owners of record of immediately <br /> adjacent lands, and to any other persons who are <br /> owners of record that may be designated by the <br /> board which might be affected by the proposed <br /> mining operation . Proof of such notice and <br /> mailing, such as certified mail with return <br /> receipt requested where possible, shall be <br /> provided the board and become part of the appli- <br /> cation. <br /> It is not disputed that Plaintiff is the "owner of <br /> record of immediately adjacent lands . " (Page 27-28, 33 transcript) <br /> It is further undisputed that the required notice by mail was <br /> never sent tO the Eagle Trust nor proven as required by §34-32-112 <br /> (10) (c) , (Page 2, 12 of Defendant' s Memo and Coldman affidavit ) . <br /> Apparently, an outdated plat or maD was used to determine the <br /> adjacent landowner for notice purposes (transcript, p. 16) . Notice wa <br /> apparently sent by mail to the Brush Creek and Eagle River Company <br /> (hereafter "Brush Creek" ) . Brush Creek and the Eagle River <br /> Trust are totally different entities . (Goldman Affidavit, Transcript <br /> raga 13. ) . Brush Creek, conveyed adjacent lands in question <br /> to the Eagle River Trust in October of 1978 . (Goldman Affidavit, Transcript <br /> page 33 l.. Not only are the entities separate, but clearly <br /> their interests are different, as was pointed out to the Board <br /> (Transcript, page 22) . While Brush Creek may not have wished <br /> to object to Nottingham' s application after havin4 received <br /> notice, as it was the very party which had conveyed the Eaqle Pit land <br /> -11- <br />