1979-07-02_ENFORCEMENT - M1978352

Home Browse Search

participate in adjudicatory hearings upon request. (See Defendant ' s Reply Brief, page 7) . Most importantly however, Defendant is again seeking to use failure to proceed with an adjudicatory hearing under Section 24-4-105, C.R. S. 1973 as the basis for precluding Plaintiffs' judicial review. This cannot be permitted for the reasons stated earlier (supra pages 4-5) . Defendant attempts to use the failure to comply with §24-4-105 (2) ' s party requirements as a means for denying Plaintiff judicial review. There is absolutely no reason why Plaintiff should ever have sought to qualify for status in the adjudicatory hearings of 924-4-105 as it was proceeding in a §24-4-104 proceeding, which does not require the filing of papers to qualify as a party. In summary, it is simply to be stated that it would be not only contrary to statute, but unconstitutional, to deprive Plaintiff of it' s opportunity to be heard in a court of law for reviewing an agency decision which adversely affected or aggrieved it' s constitutional and statutory rights simply because one form of final agency review was chosen over another. III . THE PLAINTIFFS DID NOT RECEIVE THE NOTICE THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO; THE BOARD' S FINDING IS UNSUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; AND PLAINTIFFS AFFIDAVITS DEMONSTRATE THAT NOTICE REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH. Section 34-32-112 (10) (c) , C. R. S. 1973 requires the mailing of notice, to the owners of record of immediately adjacent lands to the proposed operation, plus proof of such notice which contains the following information: the identity of the applicant, the location of the proposed mining operation, the proposed dates of commencement and completion of the operation, the proposed future use of the effected land, the location we additional information about the operation may be obtained, and -7-