Laserfiche WebLink
regularly scheduled meeting, which will occur on March 22 and 23, 2017. If Fontanari does not <br />take the opportunity to present his arguments regarding the alleged adverse effect of the <br />Proposed Decision on his property, he will have waived its right to do so under the applicable <br />statutory and regulatory scheme. <br />The reason for the rule is obvious. Just as in other examples where an "expeditious" <br />hearing is required, the balance of justice affords the requester a right to be heard, but without <br />undue delay which would otherwise prejudice the permittee. Just as in this case, where <br />Fontanari has suggested in conferral a long delay of three months or more, granting such a <br />request would prejudice SCC as the permittee in both its ability to address the issues and <br />complete the remediation actions that are the subject of TR -69, and its ability to complete certain <br />steps necessary to obtain release of reclamation bond funds. <br />B. The hearing on DRMS's Proposed Decision regarding TR -69 should follow the <br />procedures in Rule 2.08.4(6)(b)(iii) and, where applicable, C.R.S. §24-4-105. <br />In its Request for Clarification, Fontanari correctly notes that Rule 2.08.4(6)(b)(iii) deals <br />specifically with hearings regarding technical revision applications and, as such, its procedural <br />requirements are controlling. However, Fontanari's Request for Clarification goes on to <br />complicate the issue by suggesting that 2 CCR 407-2:2.07.4 ("Rule 2.07.4") may also apply in <br />some manner, since it lists specific hearing requirements and references C.R.S. §24-4-105, while <br />Rule 2.08.4(6)(b)(iii) does not. Despite these acrobatics, the hearing on this technical revision <br />matter must follow the procedures set forth in its specific governing regulations and, where not <br />in conflict with those provisions, C.R.S. §24-4-105. <br />ki <br />