Laserfiche WebLink
Inc., 185 P.3d 174, 178 (Colo. 2008) (We review de novo an agency's <br /> construction of "a code, ordinance, or statutory provisions that <br /> governs its actions."); Shupe v. Boulder Cnty., 230 P.3d 1269, 1272 <br /> (Colo. App. 2010) ("Land use codes and ordinances `are subject to <br /> the general canons of statutory interpretation."' (quoting City of <br /> Colo. Springs v. Securcare Self Storage, Inc., 10 P.3d 1244, 1248-49 <br /> (Colo. 2000))). "When construing a land use code, courts look first <br /> to the plain language, being mindful of the principle that courts <br /> presume that the governing body enacting the code meant what it <br /> clearly said." Shupe, 230 P.3d at 1272. "If the code's language is <br /> ambiguous, we give deference to the board's interpretation of the <br /> code it is charged with enforcing . . . if it has a reasonable basis in <br /> law and is warranted by the record." Id. "However, if the board's <br /> interpretation is inconsistent with the governing relevant articles, <br /> then that interpretation is not entitled to deference." Id. <br /> III. NLGC's As-Applied Due Process Claim <br /> ?� We first address NLGC's as-applied due process claim. NLGC <br /> maintains that Commissioner Donnelly's failure to recuse himself <br /> violated its due process rights, and thus the district court erred by <br /> granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Applying <br /> 13 <br />