Laserfiche WebLink
adjudicatory hearing be made within thirty days—except it effectively creates an operative <br /> definition for "issuance of the proposed decision of the office" (left undefined and unexplained <br /> by the Act) as"first publication of the proposed decision by the Division."This does not change, <br /> modify, or conflict with the Act in any way resembling how those regulations held to be <br /> unlawful changed, modified, or conflicted with the enabling statutes in the main case relied on <br /> by Snowcap for this argument. <br /> This argument therefore fails. <br /> C. Fontanari Relied On and Complied With a Regulation In Effect For Nearly <br /> Thirty Years. <br /> As Snowcap concedes,Rule 3.03.2(6)(a)has been in effect since 1980. (Mot. at 4.)And <br /> it is fundamental that agencies are required to follow their own regulations.Rags Over the <br /> Arkansas River, Inc. v. Colo. Parks& Wildlife Bd.,2015 COA 11 M,¶26("[R]equiring an <br /> agency to follow its own regulations comports with principles of due process;that is,the public <br /> is entitled to know the manner in which an agency will render a decision and the factors the <br /> agency will consider."). <br /> Fontanari acted in accordance with a long-standing regulation.He also acted in reliance <br /> on a basic tenet of Colorado law: that an agency will follow its own regulations.To grant <br /> Snowcap's motion would be to effectively punish Fontanari and deprive him of a chance to be <br /> heard on a matter directly impacting land he owns because he complied with an agency <br /> regulation that has been in effect for nearly thirty years. Snowcap's motion should be denied. <br /> CONCLUSION <br /> For the reasons stated above, Fontanari respectfully requests that Snowcap Coal <br /> Company's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction be denied. <br /> 5 <br />