Laserfiche WebLink
period within which the formal hearing shall be held expired on October 28, 1990 and <br />along with it the appellate jurisdiction of the Board. <br />ISSUE <br />L HAS TREND FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE <br />STATUTORII.Y MANDATED PROCEDURE FOR THE <br />FII.ING OF OBJECI7ONS AND REQUEST FOR FORMAL <br />HEARING? <br />STATUTE <br />C.R.S. §34-33-119, Permit application decisions of the division-appeals, of the <br />Colorado Surface Coal Mining Reclamation Act, C.R.S. §34-33-101, et seq, and specifically <br />C.R.S. §34-33-119(4) delineates the specific procedural requirements for initiating and <br />processing an appeal of a proposed decision of the Division and formal hearing regarding <br />the same. In particular it is stated: <br />...Any person with an interest which may be adversely affected by the <br />proposed decision may request a formal hearing before the board on the <br />proposed decision. Such request must be made within thirty days of <br />first publication of the proposed decision of the division, be in writing, <br />and state with reasonable specificity the reasons for the request and <br />the objections to the proposed decision. <br />C.R.S. §34-33-119(4)(emphasis added) <br />ARGUMENT <br />Trend has failed to comply with the statutorily prescribed procedure for initiating <br />and/or requesting an appeal of the proposed decision of the Division. The undated letter <br />of Mr. Granberg (See Exhibit "C") which precipitated this appeal and resulted in the <br />formal hearing set for November 14 and 15, 1990, failed to comply with the explicit <br />statutory requirement of C.R.S. §34-33-119(4), wherein the legislature has mandated that <br />there must be a written request for a formal hearing and any objections to the proposed <br />decision must be submitted in writing and must be stated with reasonable specificity. Mr. <br />Granberg's letter (See Exhibit "C") includes no request for a formal hearing and fails to <br />state any objection to the proposed decision of the Division. Instead, Mr. Granberg's <br />letter attempts to convey a litany of vague concerns and questions alleged by Mr. <br />3 <br />