GENERAL33107 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

imposed by C.R.S. § 24-4-105(8) (2001] and introducing its own evidence rather evaluating the evidence the parties presented to tit. By presenting its own evidence to conform the record to its pre-determined decision to grant the application, instead of evaluating evidence presented by the parties, the board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, denied the objecting parties their statutory rights, acted contrary to the constitutional rights of the objecting parties, acted in excess of its statutory jurisdiction, authority, purposes, and limitations, acted with abuse and clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion, and acted in a manner that was unsupported by the admissible evidence on the record when considered as a whole. 3. The board's findings under finding # 9 aze not supported by the evidence on the record as a whole. Therefore, the board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, denied the objecting parties their statutory rights, acted contrary to the constitutional rights of the objecting parties, acted in excess of its statutory jurisdiction, authority, purposes, and limitations, acted with abuse and cleazly unwarranted exercise of discretion, and acted in a manner that was unsupported by the admissible evidence on the record when considered as a whole. 4. With regard to the boazd's finding (conclusion of law) #10, the boazd's citation of case law and statutes is abstracted from context and contravenes the empowering statute. The board argues that the declaration of legislative intent does not impose police powers upon them, therefore, they have no grant of police power. It's citation to case law is inapposite. The board has ignored C.R.S. § 34-32.5-104 (2001] which empowers the board to enforce the legislative declaration and intent articulated in C.R.S. § 34-32.5-102 (2001] with the following language: 34-32.5-104. Administration. In addition to the duties and powers prescribed by the provisions of article 4 of title 24, C.R.S., the office and the board have the full power and authority to carry out and administer the provisions of this article. Therefore, the board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, denied the objecting parties their statutory rights, acted contrary to the constitutional rights of the objecting parties, acted in excess of its statutory jurisdiction, authority, purposes, and limitations, acted with abuse and clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion, and acted in a manner that was unsupported by the admissible evidence on the record when considered as a whole. 4