PERMFILE121939

• Permit No: M1986165
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 5/27/1987
• Doc Name: SANDCO APPLICATION FOR WILLOW BEND SAND PIT M-86-165
• From: DUNCAN DICKINSON & MERSON PC
• To: MLRB
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

~~
of Adjustment v. DeVilbiss, 729 P.2d 353 (Colo. 1'
)86).
3. The issuance of such Temporary Restrainin Order and
Preliminary Injunction will protect Plaintiffs fro sustaining
irreparable injury and will preserve the power of he District
Court to render a meaningful decision following a t ial on the
merits, Rathke v. tlcFarlane, 648 P.2d 648 (Colo. 1982)
4. C.R.C.P. 65 and the cases annotated thereto
Plaintiffs demonstrate a reasonable probability of su
merits before issuance of a Temporary Restraining Or de
inary Injunction. See Macleod v. Miller, 44 Colo. A
P.2d 1158 (1980). Inasmuch as the majority of this
based upon a review of the record not yet before the
showing is difficult or impossible at this time. P1
demonstrate such probability with respect to the fo
tern:
a. The Answer of llefendant Board of Cot
sinners, at paragraphs 14, 15, and 16 thereof,
the Defendant Board held certain meetings ir+ whit
were not allowed to participate but denies that s
were public meetings or that Plaintiffs were enti
participation. Such assertion is in clear con t;
the plain language of §29-9-101, as follows i
part:
•equire that
cess on the
• or Prelim-
p. 313, 612.
ase will be
Court, such
intiffs can
lowing mat-
my Commis-
admits that
~ Plaintiffs
ich meetings
:led to such
avention of
1 pertinent
Sion Committee or authority of a
political su division of the sta e
supported by law and its activities n
whole or part with public funds a e
declared to be public meetings and o n
to the public at all times....[emphas's
supplied)
The statute further provides that any ction taken
contrary to the provisions skull be null and void and without
force or effect. The Defendant Board could not "rubber
stamp" a previously decided issue, nor have Plaintiffs
participated in a public meeting if they witn ss only the
final recorded vote. Bagley v. School District No. 1, 186
Colo. 428, 528 P.2d 1299 (197+). The actions tak n in closed
session are void, Gra v. Cit of Pianitou S rin s, 43 Colo.
App. 60, 598 P.2d 527 ( 979).
b. The Board of County Commissioners gr nted condi-
tional land use approval for the Willoca Bend Sand Pit by
Resolution 1987-23. At paragraph 4 of the Fittd ngs of such
Resolution the Board found that the actual imp ct and pro-
perty values of the proposed operation should no be signifi-
-2-