My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2017-03-09_REVISION - C1981041
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981041
>
2017-03-09_REVISION - C1981041
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2017 12:40:21 PM
Creation date
3/29/2017 12:24:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981041
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
3/9/2017
Doc Name
Requests for Hearing before MLRB
From
Scott Schultz
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR69
Email Name
JHB
JRS
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
The two provisions conflict with each other. Surprisingly, Snowcap does not recognize <br />the conflict and, instead, asserts that the Board can somehow comply with both simultaneously. <br />Not so. <br />IV. THE RULE 2.08.4(6)(b)(iii) HEARING DEADLINE EXPIRED ON <br />FEBRUARY 23, 2017, WITHOUT OBJECTION BY SNOWCAP AND <br />SNOWCAP HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED ANY PREJUDICE BY <br />SCHEDULING THE HEARING IN JUNE, 2017. <br />Clearly, the Board has already exceeded the time period set in Rule 2.08.4(6)(b)(iii), <br />though not under C.R.S. 24-4-105. Fontanari, for one, is not, and will not, cite that as error. The <br />Board is caught (even by Snowcap's own admission) between the dictates of Section 24-4-105 <br />and the terms of its own Rule 2.08.4. The Board is trying to make the best of a difficult conflict <br />between statutes and rules. It is highly doubtful that any reviewing court would find fault with <br />the Board scheduling the hearing for June 28, 2017, particularly under Snowcap's own <br />procedural admissions contained in its Response. The deadline for the Rule 2.08.4 hearing <br />expired on February 23`d, without objection by anyone — including Snowcap! <br />Snowcap has not demonstrated any prejudice to be visited upon it by scheduling the <br />hearing on June 28`h. Though citing the need to begin reclamation activities — as well as to <br />obtain full release of its bond - Snowcap has not demonstrated any injury to itself (as opposed to <br />Fontanari the landowner) resulting from any delay. Excavating holes in Fontanari Tract #71, and <br />filling them with grout, can be performed at any time: there is nothing special about doing it in <br />April as opposed to August. Fontanari Tract #71 is vacant, unimproved, without agricultural <br />crops (because irrigation water disappears). The Proposed Decision does not recommend release <br />of the entire reclamation bond. Indeed, it recommends increasing the bond by $225,000 (thought <br />without specified reasons for the increase). <br />!0 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.