Laserfiche WebLink
Appellant, Estella B. Leopold, by her attorney, Bradley D. Hill, hereby <br />submits the following Combined Reply Brief: <br />I. Argument <br />A. The MLRB erred in granting a reclamation permit in file M-2004- <br />067 when the Applicant failed to comply with applicable provisions of the <br />Reclamation Act, § 34-32.5-101, et seq., C.R.S. and its own Construction <br />Material Rules regarding local permits. <br />The Appellee, Clear Creek District Water Providers, LLC. ("CCDWP") <br />asserts that the MLRB did not abuse its discretion when it found, based solely on <br />the stipulation between CCDWP and Gilpin County to "... file for all necessary <br />county permits" (emphasis added), that CCDWP had identified the local permits it <br />will be seeking, and thus had complied with Section 34-32.5-115(4)(a) and (d) <br />C.R.S. and C.M.R. 6.4.13 in particular. This argument is not only erroneous based <br />upon the facts and law of this case, but misconstrues Dr. Leopold's issue and <br />argument presented on appeal. <br />CCDWP did not identify the land use permits it would seek from Gilpin <br />County. C.M.R. 6-4-13 is clear and unambiguous. It requires an affirmative list of <br />the permits that CCDWP will seek, not a conditional statement. Therefore, the <br />MLRB clearly misapplied C.M.R 6-4-13 and not only abused what little discretion <br />i <br />