HomeMy WebLinkAbout950607exk
.., 1,No.495CA...Rn. 3.87. SUMMONS IN CIVIL ACTION
Bradford Publishing. 1743 Waaee St., Denver. CO 80202 - 130312_92_2500- II -90
le PGA HGtn/tV4; Pcoqst2Cusa 1031); cif (nit)
DISTRICT COURT, W nLD COUNTY COLORADO
,
CASE NO 7s-cv f// Div/CtRm
SUMMONS
LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS, INC., BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
v.
OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO,
Plaintiff Defendant
The People of the State of Colorado
To the Defendant(s) named above:
You are summoned and required to file with the clerk of this court an answer or other response to the attached
complaint within twenty (20) days after this summons is served on you in the State of Colorado, or within thirty
(30) days after this summons is served on you outside the State of Colorado.
If you fail to file your answer or other response to the complaint in writing within the applicable time period,
judgment by default may be entered against you by the court for the relief demanded in the complaint, without
any further notice to you.
The following documents are also served with this summons:
March 10, 1995 LE 'Ht
Date:
Signature of Attorney for Plaintiff or Clerk/Deputy Clerk of Court
If signed by attorney, type: Name, address. tel. N. mg. N below.
J H. PRUSSE, #18959
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER (303) 298-5
1801 Calif. St., #4100, Denver, CO
This summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4, CRCP, as amended.
A copy of the complaint must be served with this summons.
RETURN OF SERVICE
State of
County of
I declare under oath that I served this summons and a copy of the complaint in this case on
in County
on at at the following location:
Time
■ by -handing it to a person identified to me as the defendant.
• by leaving it with the defendant who refused service.
❑ by leaving it with designated to receive service for the defendant.
❑ I am over the age of 18 years and am not interested in nor a party to this case.
❑ I attempted to serve the defendant on occasions but have not been able to locate the defendant.
Return to the plaintiff is made on
Date
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19
,
in County, State of
Notary Public* Date
❑ Private process server
• Sheriff, County
Service $
/�/f'�7' Mileage $
�`��PWtary should include address and expiration date of commission.
li
950607
7
00
0202
DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF WELD, COLORADO
Case No. qSC(71(/
COMPLAINT
LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO,
Defendant.
Plaintiff Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc., for its
Complaint against Defendant, filed pursuant to Rule 106(a)(4) of
the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, states as follows:
NATURE OF THE CASE
1. This action arises out of the actions and
decisions of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County,
Colorado ("Commissioners") in the decision of the Commissioners
to approve a Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review
Permit # 1031, submitted to the Commissioners by the Green Mill
Sportsmans Club, Inc. ("Green Mill") for a recreational
facility/shooting range in the A (Agricultural) Zone District on
property in Weld County described below. The Plaintiff seeks a
review of the Commissioners' approval, and a determination that
the action by the Commissioners either exceeded that body's
jurisdiction or constituted an abuse of discretion.
PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. is a
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware.
3. Defendant Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County, Colorado is a governmental body having authority pursuant
to the Colorado Statutes and the Weld County Home Rule Charter.
950607
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. Jurisdiction and venue are appropriate under Rule
106 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure.
5. Jurisdiction and venue are also appropriate since
the acts complained of occurred in Weld County in the State of
Colorado and the Defendant is a governmental body located within,
and having authority to administer certain affairs of, Weld
County, Colorado.
PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS
6. On or about February 8, 1995, Defendant held a
public hearing at 10:00 a.m. in the Defendant's Chambers for the
purpose of hearing the application of Green Mill for a Site
Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit #1031 for a
recreational facility shooting range in the A (Agricultural Zone
District ("Permit").
7. The Permit applied to real estate described as
follows: N i of the SW ; of Section 20, Township 1 North, Range
68 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado ("Green Mill
Property").
8. Plaintiff owns the property located immediately
adjacent to the Green Mill Property in the S Z of the SW : of
Section 20, Township 1 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Weld
County, Colorado ("Laidlaw Property"), on which Plaintiff
operates a solid waste disposal facility.
9. Plaintiff is required by the Hazardous Materials
Waste Management Division of the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment ("State of Colorado") to perform certain
actions including the monitoring of certain wells which are
located on the Green Mill Property. As such, Plaintiff requires
safe access to the Green Mill Property.
10. The present owner of the Green Mill Property,
Union Pacific Land Resources Corporation, has permitted Plaintiff
open and safe access to the Green Mill Property, in order for
Plaintiff to comply with the requirements of the State of
Colorado.
11. The Defendant's decision regarding the Permit
application and hearing was to approve the application, and to
grant the Permit requested by Green Mill, subject to certain
conditions. This decision was rendered by a Resolution of the
Defendant ("Resolution"), a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
2
950607
12. The Resolution states that "Use by Special Review
Development Standards and Conditions of Approval will ensure
compliance with Section 45.3 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance
and will provide adequate protection of the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood and County." (Resolution, Section
2.f.)
13. The conditions contained within the Resolution do
not address the safe access to the Green Mill Property required
by Plaintiff.
14. The Development Standards attached to the
Resolution do not address the safe access to the Green Mill
Property required by Plaintiff.
15. The Development Standards attached to the
Resolution do address the safe access to the Green Mill Property
by the Weld County Health Department and Weld County Department
of Planning Services but do not explicitly extend to the
Plaintiff.
16. The Weld County Zoning Ordinance ("Ordinance")
requires the Defendant to ensure, with respect to making a
decision on a proposed use by special review, "That there is
adequate provision for the protection of the health, safety and
welfare of the inhabitants of the NEIGHBORHOOD and the COUNTY."
(Ordinance, Section 24.4.2.7.)
17. Plaintiff and Green Mill have engaged in
negotiations aimed at securing an agreement entitled "Access and
Cooperation Agreement" (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit
B). The proposed Access and Cooperation Agreement would ensure
safe access to the Green Mill Property by Plaintiff. Despite
extensive efforts by Plaintiff's counsel over the past several
weeks to finalize the agreement with Green Mill, Green Mill has
not yet signed the proposed Agreement.
18. Plaintiff was not provided written notice of the
hearing pertaining to review of the Green Mill Permit application
held by Defendant on February 8, 1995.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
19. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1
through 18 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
20. Plaintiff requires safe access to the Green Mill
Property in order to adhere to the monitoring requirements
imposed by the State of Colorado. In light of the proposal to
operate the property as a shooting range, Plaintiff is extremely
concerned about safe access to the property.
3
950607
21. Because Plaintiff did not receive notice of the
Defendant's February 8, 1995 hearing on Green Mill's Permit
application, Plaintiff was unable to present its requirements to
the Defendant at or before such hearing.
22. The actions of the Defendant as represented by the
Resolution have failed to ensure adequate provision for the
protection of the health, safety and welfare of Plaintiff and its
representatives in performing the obligations imposed by the
State of Colorado. Plaintiff is concerned that it will be unable
to perform these obligations in the absence of a specific
provision ensuring safe access.
23. Defendant's actions in passing the Resolution are
therefore either in excess of the jurisdiction of Defendant or an
abuse of discretion as set forth in C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4).
Plaintiff requests that the Resolution be remanded to the
Defendant for consideration and incorporation of the concerns of
the Plaintiff.
24. There is no plain, speedy or adequate remedy
otherwise provided to Plaintiff by law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court (1) review
the actions of the Defendant which resulted in the Resolution,
and that this Court enter its judgment that the Defendant has
either exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, in
failing to ensure adequate provisions in the Resolution for the
protection of the health, safety and welfare of Plaintiff, (2)
remand the Resolution back to the Defendant for further
consideration and incorporation of the concerns of the Plaintiff,
and (3) for such other and further relief as the Court may deem
proper.
Dated: March 10, 1995.
Respectfully submitted,
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
By:/ /'110.4, (1
Joan H. Prusse, #18959
1801``Oalifornia Street /4100
Denver, Colorado 80202-2694
(303) 298-5700
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc.
4
950607
Address of the Plaintiff:
Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc.
6015 E. 58th Avenue
Commerce City, CO 80222-3994
EA950690.036
5
950607
Hello