1979-06-06_ENFORCEMENT - M1978352 (13)

Home Browse Search

to Nottingham, the Trust having no such relationship to Notting- ham and with a current substantial property interest had a totally different interest in protecting itself from the gravel operation. While Eagle Trust shared a post office box in Eagle with Brush Creek, notice was never mailed to the Eagle Trust . at that post office box or anywhere (Goldman Affidavit, ref. P+ar .o p. 2) . Attorney Stemwedel was clearly under no obligation to inform Eagle Trust of the notice given to Brush Creek. There was no direct evidence supporting the Board ' s finding of actual notice for the Trust, and in fact Trustee Chester Goldman' s Affidavit demonstrates that no such actual or statu- torny notice was ever provided to Plaintiff Trust by Nottingham (Goldman Affidavit) . Notice is to be given immediately after first publication 34-32-112 (10) (c) C.R.S. 1973 , which in the instant case was January 11th. Thus the adjacent landowners were entitled to receive, by statute, seven (7) weeks advance notice to prepare for the March 1 meeting. The failure to provide what the legislature has deemed a fair amount of time to prepare for a complex mining application review not only violates the statute, but is fundamentally unfair and a denial of due process. For: "The essence of procedural due process is funda- mental fairness . This embodies adequate advance notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to state action resulting in deprivation of a signi- ficant property interest. Fuentes vs . Shevin , 407 U. S . 67 , 92 S . Ct . 1983 , 32 L.Ed . 2d 556 (1974 ) ; Bell vs. Burson, 402 U . S . 535, 91 S .Ct. 1586, 29 L.Ed . 2d 90 (1971 ) ; Wisconsin vs . Constantineau, 400 U. S . 433 , 91 S . Ct. 507 , 27 L.Ed . 2d 515 (1971) ; Goldberg vs. Kelly , 397 U. S . 254 , 90 S .Ct . 1011 , 25 L.Ed . 2d 287 (1970) ; Sniadach vs . ramily Finance Corp. 395 U. S. 334 , 23 L. Ed. 2d 349 (1969) . " -12-