1979-02-28_PERMIT FILE - M1978352 (5)

Home Browse Search

i2 publication, which I believe in this case was Jan. 11 , which is something like 7 week sPrior to this date, which most individual sy+ho are adjacent landowners have to prepare their objection which we have not had. And, there may not be defects , there couple of things which I am concerned about , mistatementts of fact in the applciation, which we have become aware of in this short peirod of time which I could present to you, but I -don' t want to presuppose that we have fully analyzed the problem, as far as Mr. McCarthy;s suggestion here Mr. Goldman may have some attenuating relationship as a partner in an organization which has interest in Brush Creek and Eagle Creek and he is a trustee, one of the trustees, of Eagle River Trust , The Trust was not notified the trustees were not notified, the beneficiaries were not notified. in fact, . 4 notices required ???? is required under the C.R.S. it ' s required according to your reuglations , and the law is rather clear that when formal notice, statutory notice is required, it 's to be complied with. And there' s a reason that that statutotry notice is put in there, and it ' s to be complied with When it 's not complied with, thenwe have , you know, recour se , we would like to get this thing, dealt with before the Board , we 'd like to save the time. and we' re only asking for some time. but it 's clear that as the law stands that this kind of formal notice problem can' t be just be transcended very quickly MC: Just to respond, You know I think, that it 's fairly clear Mr. Goldstein has c onceded that Mr. Goldman was a trusteee of the EagleRiver Trust and. ]� without getting into legal technicalities a trustee has certain obligations to look after the interest s of his beneficiaries. I think Mr. Nottingham can tell you that he has been in almost daily or weekly contact with Chester Goldman over the past year involving this operation. Mr. Goldman who is a trustee of the Eagle River Trust this is known for well over a year, that a sand b g operation is going to go in here, the fact of the mater is that Eagle River Trust had actual notice . And, technical points can be raised but the fact of the matter is , that actual notice was given to the Trust. Whether or not there may be some sort of generalnotice that our operation was put in here, I am not in a position to concede. though even if I were to concede, that doesn' t answer the point. I understand that Mr. Goldman and Mr. Nottingham - it has been the indication that there was initial publication which I believe was made and there was a the application and Mr. Goldman I think spoke with Mr. Nottingham if I understandt correctly about this and Mr. Nottingham' s response was that initial publication was in error - he wasn' t aware of it or in error , whatever there was a misfiling, there was no subsequent communication or reference to that item and it may have been in error but the republxation was never noticedto our client so he may have been aware of it , he was not aware of the dates and when this thing was going to take place. I was only able to find out after some time that the hen+-- hearing indedd was going to occur on Thursday, the Goldmans live out of the state. we didn' t have an opportunity for them to review this nor needles to say for any landscape architect or engineers which they might want to employ to look this application over. Without objecting , we need thtlEime to take a look at this. MH: One thing I wanted to say there's two notices of adjacent landowners - that were sent outl to Rio Grande RR and theoother to Brush Creek , ANd Eagle River Company , both of them were received by the parties they were sent to on January 22, 1 of the parties the Brush Cr, and the Eagle Rvier Co.