Laserfiche WebLink
<br />statutory, regulatory, and due process notice requirements in <br />the administrative proceedings. Again, we disagree. <br />An administrative agency's decision will not be reversed on <br />review unless an asserted error is prejudicial and affects the <br />substantial rights of the party. Mattingly v. Charnes, 700 <br />P.2d 927 (Colo. App. 1985); Grams v. Environmental Quality <br />Council, 730 P.2d 784 (Wyo. 1986). <br />Here, regardless of any deficiencies in the notice provided <br />of the administrative proceedings in general, there has been no <br />showing of prejudice to these plaintiffs by any of the asserted <br />notice deficiencies. The record shows that these plaintiffs <br />had notice of the filing of Front Range's permit application, <br />and timely so; that these plaintiffs signed petitions. which <br />were filed with the Board, objecting to the permit application <br />on various grounds; that the Board mailed notice of tt~e hearing <br />to be held on the permit application to these plaintifs; that <br />plaintiff William Pehr appeared at the hearing and fu:.ly <br />participated in it; and that the Board considered the numerous <br />oral and written objections of these plaintiffs prior to <br />granting the permit application. Under these circumstances, we <br />perceive no prejudice affecting plaintiffs' substantial rights <br />by the asserted notice deficiencies. See Mattingly v. Charnes, <br />supra; Grams v. Environmental Quality Council, supra. <br />In addition, we note that plaintiffs, having themselves <br />received adequate notice, lack standing to raise the Cssue of <br />-3- <br />