Laserfiche WebLink
Proposed Decision/ Permit C-1981-041, TR -69 /January 30, 2017 <br />BEFORE THE MINED LAND RECLAMATION BOARD <br />IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF SNOWCAP COAL COMPANY FOR A <br />TECHNICAL REVISION OF PERMIT C-1981-041 <br />REPLY TO RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION <br />OF SCOPE OF REVIEW OF HEARING OR, ALTERNATVELY, <br />RESPONSE TO SNOWCAP MOTION TO SET HEARING' <br />COME NOW Rudy and Carol Fontanari, Trustees of the Fontanari Family Revocable <br />Trust ("Fontanari", collectively), by and through counsel of record, and for their Reply to the <br />Response to the Fontanari Request for Clarification of Scope of Review of Hearing OR, <br />alternatively, their Response to Snowcap's Motion to Set Hearing, state and aver as follows: <br />REPLY <br />I. THE PARTIES AGREE(!): RULE 2.08.4(6)(b)(iii) GOVERNS THE <br />HEARING TO BE CONDUCTED ON THE DIVISIONS PROPOSED <br />DECISION. <br />Reading Fontanari's Request for Clarification and Snowcap's Response results in one <br />undeniable conclusion. Rule 2.08.4(6)(b)(iii) governs the procedures — and presumably the <br />scope of review — to be applied to the hearing on the subject Proposed Decision. Contrary to <br />Snowcap's Response, Fontanari has never suggested otherwise. Indeed, in its Request, Fontanari <br />explicating states: "the specific (rule/statute) controls over the general (rule/statute). This <br />proceeding involves a Technical Revision, and only C.R.S. 34-33-116 and Rule 2.08.4(6)(b)(iii) <br />set forth the procedures governing Technical Revisions. <br />It is not clear what Snowcap is seeking by its "Response". Snowcap objects to setting the hearing <br />beyond March 22-23, 2017: which relief is clearly beyond any issue or relief sought by Fontanari in its <br />Request for Clarificaiton. Snowcap's Response could thus be a motion as opposed to a response. <br />1 <br />