Laserfiche WebLink
This inconsistency alone demonstrates that the MLRB action is arbitrary and <br />capricious and should be set aside because the MLRB approved a deficient <br />application. <br />II. CONCLUSION <br />The MLRB has erred as a matter of law in that it did not follow the statutory <br />requirements regarding the application permit process. It misinterpreted the <br />statutory definition of "affected land," did not require the Applicant to provide an <br />adequate blasting vibration analysis and did not require the Applicant to <br />demonstrate that the Sanitation District's structures would "not be damaged." <br />Because the MLRB's decision is erroneous as a matter of law, the Sanitation <br />District respectfully requests this Court "hold unlawful and set aside the agency <br />action," and grant the Sanitation District any other appropriate relief in this matter <br />pursuant to § 24-4-106(7), C.R.S. <br />Alternatively, the District Court's review of these matters was based upon an <br />erroneous standard and this matter should be remanded for further consideration at <br />the District Court level under the proper standard of review. <br />iz <br />