Laserfiche WebLink
<br />permit is that the application is incomplete. Section <br />34-32-115(4)(a), C.R.S. (1984 Repl. Vol. 14). However, nothing <br />in this statutory scheme indicates that an imperfect <br />application deprives the Board of jurisdiction over the matter, <br />and we reject this conention. The issue here involves the <br />propriety of the Board's action on the merits rather than the <br />Board's jurisdiction to act. <br />II. <br />Plaintiffs also contend that the Board's action in granting <br />the permit application was arbitrary and capricious ar~d an <br />abuse of discretion in that the application was incomplete and <br />otherwise deficient. We disagree. <br />Contrary to plaintiffs' argument, in our view the record <br />here shows that Front Range's permit application was in <br />substantial compliance with the requirements of the Reclamation <br />Act and the Board's regulations. See §34-32-112, C.R.S. (1984 <br />Repl. Vol. 14); Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board Rules 1 ~ <br />2, 2 Code Colo. <br />district court, <br />application was <br />as a whole, and <br />! review. See §2 <br />Reg. 407-1. Thus, we conclude, as dic the <br />that the Board's approval of the permit <br />supported by substantial evidence in t:he record <br />the Board's action will not be disturt~ed on <br />4-4-106(7), C.R.S. (1988 Repl. Vol. l0A). <br />III. <br />Plaintiffs also contend that the Board's action must be set <br />aside because Front Range and the Board failed to comFely with <br />-2- <br /> <br />