Laserfiche WebLink
far back as October 18, 1971," (Joint Answer Brief at 23 n.6) is equally disingenuous and <br />unavailing. Certainly, Defendants do not contend Cotter violated every provision of its permit, <br />so Defendants were only required to admit into evidence the specific permit provisions they <br />contend were violated. Yet, Defendants did not submit a single provision of the permit into <br />evidence, and did not even cite to any provision of the permit during the Hearing. <br />Even now, more than nine months after the Hearing was concluded and the <br />administrative record closed, Defendants try to fill this gaping hole in their case by asking the <br />Court to consider additional evidence that was never submitted during the Hearing. In their Joint <br />Answer Brief, Defendants point to a blank, undated "permit application form" from an Internet <br />website. (Joint Answer Brief at 21.) The Court should reject Defendants' improper submission <br />of evidence after the administrative record has closed. It is axiomatic that "agency actions are to <br />be reviewed based solely upon the record made before the agency." Studor, Inc. v. Examining <br />Board of Plumbers, 929 P.2d 46, 50 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). "We are not aware of any authority <br />in which an appellate court has permitted an agency to supplement the record with inadmissible <br />evidence as a means of justifying an earlier ruting." Id. at 49. <br />In any event, the unsigned form provides no support for Defendants' position. <br />Defendants do not even assert that the form existed when Cotter's permit was issued, and make <br />no suggestion that Cotter signed the statement or that the statement is part of Cotter's permit. <br />Based on the Division's failure to allege or prove a permit violation, the December 2010 <br />Order exceeds the Board's statutory authority and must be set aside. <br />5 Incredibly, Defendants further state "that an examination of the permit itself would <br />provide little probative value." (Joint Answer Brief at 23.) With this admission, Defendants <br />effectively concede they can point to no specific provision of the permit that Cotter violated. <br />8 <br />