Laserfiche WebLink
Whether the MLRB's policy is an erroneous interpretation of its statutory <br />authority is a question of law subject to de novo review by this Court. C Bar H, <br />Inc. v. Board of Health in and for Jefferson County, 56 P.3d 1189, 1192 (Colo. <br />App. 1992). The Colorado Supreme Court has held that while an agency's <br />interpretation should be given appropriate deference, it is not binding on the court. <br />El Paso County Bd. of Equalization v. Craddock, 850 P.2d 702 (Colo. 1993). <br />This Court should reverse the MLRB's grant of a permit that is based upon <br />its erroneous interpretation of its own governing statute that allowed the Applicant <br />to obtain a permit that does not include the required mapping of the Sanitation <br />District's treatment facility. <br />D. THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY AFFIRMED THE <br />ISSUANCE OF A RECLAMATION PERMIT WHEN THE MLRB <br />FAILED TO REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO PROYH)E MAPS IN <br />COMPLIANCE WITH §§ 34-32.5-112(3), C.R.S. <br />Despite the statutory mapping requirement, the MLRB, in its final Order, <br />concluded: <br />As stated in the Division's "Rationale for <br />Recommendation of Approval" ("Rationale"), the <br />Applicant provided revised maps C-1, C-2A, C-2B and <br />C-2C, which accurately show the location of the quarry <br />entrance and the location of all permanent man-made <br />structures within 200 feet of the quarry entrance. <br />R. 2676. The referenced maps maybe found in the Agency Record at 1143, 1145, <br />1144 and 1148 respectively. <br />6 <br />