My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2022-03-16_PERMIT FILE - M2017036
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2017036
>
2022-03-16_PERMIT FILE - M2017036
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/14/2025 5:45:08 AM
Creation date
3/17/2022 8:51:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2017036
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
3/16/2022
Doc Name
County Special Use Permit
From
Loveland Ready-Mix Concrete
To
DRMS
Email Name
BFB
MAC
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
91
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
violated its due process rights. They cited in their complaint <br /> Commissioner Donnelly's failure to recuse himself from the <br /> administrative proceedings despite recently receiving campaign <br /> contributions from Ready-Mix. NLGC also requested that the <br /> district court declare the provision facially unconstitutional. <br /> 4' 16 In its second claim, NLGC sought review of the Board's <br /> Findings under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). It argued that the Board abused <br /> its discretion because, among other things, it misapplied several of <br /> the special review criteria in Land Use Code section 4.5.3 and <br /> competent record evidence did not support its findings on those <br /> criteria. As relevant here, NLGC's argument rested, in part, on a <br /> contention that the concrete batch plant was not an allowable <br /> "accessory use" to the mining operation under the Land Use Code. <br /> 17 The Board and Ready-Mix filed a joint motion to dismiss <br /> NLGC's claims under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5). The <br /> court granted the motion in part and denied it in part on April 10, <br /> 2019. As to NLGC's first claim, it dismissed with prejudice NLGC's <br /> facial constitutional challenge to Larimer County Code section <br /> 2-67(10), but it found the as-applied challenge plausible enough to <br /> 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.