Laserfiche WebLink
P.2d 974 (Colo. 1991). In the case at bar, the county approved Four States' proposed operation. <br />Pol. 3, p. 1026. <br />The Board is obligated to exclude from its hearings on gravel mine permit applications <br />matters that have been reserved to the counties. Plaintiffs wanted the Boazd to deny Four States' <br />application based on cumulative impacts to the area and nuisance problems. These aze land use <br />issues properly addressed by their county commissioners. "The Board, an administrative agency, <br />may act only within the authorization of its organic legislation." O'Connor v. Rolfes, 899 P.2d <br />227, 229 (Colo. App. 1994), citing Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Barnes, 552 P.2d 300 (1976). <br />CONCLUSION <br />Four States' application was approved because the Boazd weighed the evidence and <br />found overwhelming evidence in support of approval. All parties had a full and fair opportunity <br />to prove their cases. <br />For these reasons, the Board respectfully requests that the Court affirm the order of the <br />Mined Land Reclamation Boazd. <br />Respectfully submitted this~~Z day of~-p~~-up,_-~, , 2003. <br />24 <br />