Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,~ <br /> <br />Uncompahgre Valley Hater Users <br />Association and Montrose Partners <br />Docket No. p-:-6423 et a!. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />capl tal into the development. Uncompahgre addressee those <br />points, but the Commission did not consider them. Had the <br />Montrose-ta-Uncompahgre transfer arisen after issuance of a <br />license or before the Favetteville decision, it seems at least <br />likely that the Commission would have appliec the Paterson <br />analysis. These circumstances give some weight to Uncompahgre's <br />claim that it is denied due process where the Comtllission uses a <br />dual set of standards but has not defined the boundary between <br />them. <br /> <br />\~hile the underlying policy and deterrent purposes of <br />this order are unimpeachable, the sanction imposed in this <br />case strains too haro and pummels fair procedure to reach <br />those enos. <br /> <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />l <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br />