Laserfiche WebLink
statute, is in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, purposes, or limitations <br />delegated to the agency in § 34-32.5-101 et seq., C.R.S.; and is not in accord with <br />the procedures or procedural limitations required by law. This court should hold <br />unlawful and set aside the agency action and compel the agency action to be taken <br />which has been unlawfully withheld or unduly delayed, remand the case for further <br />proceedings, and afford such other relief as it may deem appropriate. See, §24-4- <br />106(9), C.R.S. <br />E. THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY AFFIRMED THE <br />ISSUANCE OF A RECLAMATION PERMIT DESPITE THE FACT <br />THAT THE APPLICANT FAILED TO PREPARE AN ADEQUATE <br />ENGINEERING EVALUATION TO SATISFY § 34-32.5-115(4)(e), <br />C.R.S. <br />Section 34-32.5-115(4)(e), C.R.S. requires the Applicant to demonstrate that <br />the mining operation will not adversely affect the stability of any significant, <br />valuable, and permanent manmade structures located within two hundred feet of <br />the affected land. The "permit shall not be denied on this basis where ... the <br />applicant provides an appropriate engineering evaluation that demonstrates that <br />such structures shall not be damaged by proposed construction materials <br />excavation operations." Id. <br />As previously noted, the Sanitation District's plant structures are not detailed <br />on the revised maps referenced by the MLRB. Likewise, they are not detailed in <br />the Lyman Henn, Inc. report. R. 906-917. Section 34-32.5-115(1)(e), C.R.S. <br />io <br />