Laserfiche WebLink
that the Board erred by verbally approving the pemrit immediately following the hearing. <br />Essentially, they believe that this permitting decision had been made before the hearing. <br />The Plaintiffs rely on nothing more than speculation to conclude that the Board prejudged <br />this case. The record reflects the fact that the Boazd listened to the Plaintiffs' entire cases, and <br />ruled in favor of Four States. <br />Much of the Plaintiffs' bias allegations seem to be derived from the Division's role in this <br />process. They azgue that the Division acts as advocate for Four States essentially because the <br />Division recommended that Four States' application be approved. The Division is obligated to <br />make a recommendation. Construction Materials Rule 1.4.5(5). The Board considers this <br />recommendation, the applicant's arguments, and the arguments of all aggrieved persons to <br />determines if there is any basis to deny the application pursuant to the grounds set forth in § 34- <br />32.5-115(4), C.R.S. The Boazd's discretion is expressly limited: "The Board or Office shall not <br />deny a permit except on one or more of the following grounds...."(emphasis added). In this <br />instance, Four States' met its burden to prove that it satisfied all pemritting requirements. <br />The Division recommended approval after a lengthy process of review and <br />correspondence with Four States. Vol. 1-2, pp. 86, 99, 109, 113, 246, 509, 515, 651,672, 748. <br />The Division recommended approval because its staff of professional reclamation specialists <br />were satisfied that Four States had satisfied all requirements for a permit. <br />The Boazd is well awaze that the burden of proof on applications for mining permits lies <br />with the applicant. § 24-4-105(7), C.R.S. The Board decided that Four States met its burden of <br />proof. <br />16 <br />