PERMFILE121939 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

cant. T1>is finding is based in part, upon "e~ other residential properties located within the near other extractive operations have not appear a loss in their market value because of their such operations." Upon information and belief, to which such Finding refers is the Affidavi Vandenberg, a copy of which is attached hereto a and incorporated herein by reference. While the rules of evidence in an Administr, are relaxed, the Board must still rely upon cc dence. Plr. Vandenberg was neither an affec owner, competent to testify as to iris own est value of his land, Board of Directors v. Calvare 877 (1964), nor taas he qualified as an expert Banking Board, 510 P.2d 466 {Colo. App. 1973). ] conclusory statements contained in Mr. Vandenberg are not supported by the appraisal document att~ and constitute naked heresay, without any showi tence or foundation therefore. Such evidence i tent to support the Finding of the Defendant Bot to impact on property values. c. The Defendant Board, in its Resolution imposed substantial conditions upon the operati dant Dillon and found that such conditions would impact of the proposed operation on adjoining The Land Use Regulations of La Plata County authority for the adoption of such conditions including but not limited to hours of operat limits, dust control, visual impacts, and noise. tions on which the County relies as a basis for are unenforceable. Colorado case law is clear tl even though it has the police power to do so, m~ a condition upon the developer when there is no ~ support it. See Beaver ileadows v. Board of Co sinners, 709 P.2d 9~8 (Colo. 9 5). In par' Defendant Board is collaterally estopped to der forceability of conditions regarding hours of decision in Martinson v. Board of County Commis No. 84CV488, District Court for La Plata County. ~idence that limas Valley ~d to suffer rroximity to :he evidence of George Exhibit "A" tive Hearing npetent evi- ed property mate of the ;i, 397 P.2d [•Iithers v. oreove- r, 's Affidavit :lied thereto ~g of compe- not compe- -d in regard of Approval, ~n of Defen- mitigate the properties. contain no if approval, .on, tonnage The condi- uch approval at a County, y not impose egulation to inty Commis- ty the unen- work by the loners, Case 5. No security, or nominal security, should b required of Plaintiffs for the issuance of such Temporary Restrai ing Order or Preliminary Injunction for the following reasons: a. Damages may not be awarded to any Def t~dant Herein against the Plaintiffs for their exercise of he constitu- tionally protected right to judicial review. An Nor~a~e Joint Venture v. Anchors e Condominium Association, 670 P.2d 1249 (Co o. App. 9 3). -3-