GENERAL50980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ '-L n inconsistent. Four States submitted a revised and amended application on or around Mazch 21, 2001. This application differed from the original. The DMG sent out notice of this amendment to all persons listed as parties, but no new notice was published in.the newspaper to alert the public and no other informal conference was held. The DMG then reset the date for the Pre-Hearing Conference and the Formal Hearing. c. The Pre-Hearing conference was held on May 15, 2001 in Dolores. The hearing officer who conducted the Pre-Hearing Conference made substantive and procedural decisions such as disposing of some of the objections submitted by the Plaintiff and other objectors and by deciding these objections would not be heard by the MLRB at the Formal Heazing. In so doing he decided what parties would have the opportunity to testify at the Formal Hearing. The Pre-Trial Conference was not recorded although the capability existed. d. On May 23, 2001, the Formal Hearing regarding the Four States' application was held before the MLRB. The Plaintiff was not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses who testified on behalf of the Respondent. At the conclusion of this Hearing the MLRB Chairman announced the decision of the MLRB to grant Four States' application after no deliberation. 2. Plaintiff requests the District Court to reverse the MLRB's decision. Plaintiff argues that there was a concerted effort to deny due process to the Plaintiff's through repeated procedural and substantive due process errors during the judicial process by which the application was reviewed. Plaintiff's also azgue that the MLRB acted arbitrarily and capriciously, erroneously interpreted and misapplied the law, by granting Four States a Reclamation permit when Four States failed to comply with the rules and statutes governing the issuance of reclamation permits for gravel pits. `~~ a. Final state agency action is subject to judicial review under the Colorado APA. C.R.S. §§ 24-4-102(1), (3), (4) and 24-4-106. Thus, this Court has jurisdiction to review this decision. b. The Plaintiff claims that the MLRB committed an error pease by not recording the pre-hearing conference as required by the cleaz and unequivocal guidelines set forth in the Colorado APA. They azgue that the Pre-Heating order decided the Rights of the Parties and even was an "order" pursuant to the APA, and thus was an "adjudicatory hearing." The Court agrees. See Weiss v. Department of Public Safety, 847 P.2d 197 and Zamaarripa v. O&T Food Stores, INC, 929 P.2d 1332. c. The Court finds that the Colorado APA requires all adjudicatary heazings be recorded. C.R.S. § 24-4-105(13). The definition of adjudicatory hearings under the Colorado APA is "the procedure used by an agency for the formulation, amendment, or repeal of an order and includes licensing."