Laserfiche WebLink
Assistant Attorney General Frank Johnson argued during <br />the March 22, 1989 hearing that "the Board has the discretion to <br />deny an application based on an incomplete application, It's <br />grounds for denying the application." (Vol. 3, p. 559.) It was <br />his opinion that the Board is not mandated to deny an _.ncomplete <br />application. <br />However, that position is contrary to law. MI,RD's rules <br />and the Colorado statutes must establish standards or criteria to <br />guide the Board's discretion. The MLRD has not enactecl any rule <br />which states what information may be omitted and still have an <br />application approved. Nor are there any standards which would <br />guide or require the Hoard to act uniformly with respect to <br />incomplete applications if it did indeed have the discretion <br />suggested by Mr. Johnson. Such unbridled discretion is <br />unsupported in the law. <br />In the field of land use regulation, the Colorado <br />Supreme Court has required that regulations contain sufficient <br />"detail necessary to implement [the intent of the county] and to <br />support" the county's action. Moreover, county regulations must <br />contain "sufficient standards and procedural safeguards involved <br />in the delegation and subsequent implementation to insure that <br />any action thereon by a county in response to a land use proposal <br />will be rational and consistent and that judicial review of that <br />-16- <br />