Laserfiche WebLink
Having requested a hearing regarding the Proposed Decision pursuant to 2 CCR 407- <br />2:2.08.4(6)(b)(iii)("Rule 2.08.4(6)(b)(iii)"), Fontanari, through his counsel, now attempts to <br />postpone that hearing, contrary to clear statutory and regulatory requirements, by asserting <br />confusion over the relevant procedural requirements and attempting to introduce inapplicable <br />procedural provisions. For the reasons set forth below, the Mined Land Reclamation Board <br />("MLRB") should (1) deny Fontanari's request to suspend setting the hearing date for this matter <br />and (2) hold the hearing on March 22 or 23, 2017, under the procedures set forth in Rule <br />2.08.4(6)(b)(iii) and, where applicable and not in conflict with the controlling statute and rules, <br />C.R.S. §24-4-105. <br />II. ARGUMENT <br />A. The hearing on DRMS's Proposed Decision regarding TR -69 must be held before <br />the MLRB on March 22 or 23, 2017. <br />Despite his hearing request on the Proposed Decision, Fontanari now aims to avoid the <br />procedural protection to an expedient hearing afforded to SCC in C.R.S. §34-33-116(4) and Rule <br />2.08.4(6)(b)(iii) by incorrectly arguing that a specific hearing date has not been scheduled, and <br />that one should not be scheduled until June 2017. However, regulations promulgated pursuant to <br />C.R.S. §34-33-116(4), which itself provides that hearings regarding proposed decisions on <br />technical revisions shall be "expeditious," mandate that "[i]f properly requested under the <br />provisions of this subsection, a hearing shall be held at the next regularly scheduled board <br />meeting..." Rule 2.08.4(6)(b)(iii)(emphasis added). Which in this case is March 22, 2017 and <br />March 23, 2017. This regulation does not grant MLRB any discretion to schedule the hearing at <br />a different time. As such, the hearing requested by Fontanari must be held at the MLRB's next <br />0a <br />