Laserfiche WebLink
~i~lation of the Colorado State program, OSM pointed out in its <br />Petition that, under the State regulations cited by the Board, a <br />violation only exists if there is a failure to repair or <br />compensate the owner of the damaged structure. Because the <br />Board's statement of the law appears to be in error, the Board's <br />decision is unclear and the Board should grant reconsideration in <br />order to clarify the governing law in this matter. <br />Third, OSM pointed out in its Petition that, because the <br />Appellants have been compensated in response to the State court <br />decision, no violation exists. Because of this, under the <br />Board's current ruling, it is likely that OSM will not be able to <br />cite or enforce a violation of the State program as part of <br />appropriate action in this matter. This inability of OSM to <br />comply with the Board's order in a meaningful way justifies <br />reconsideration of the Board's decision. <br />Regarding this third point, OSM is aware that the Appellants <br />have argued in their Opposition that a "failure to compensate" <br />violation did exist, in 1995, because the Appellants had not been <br />compensated for the damage to their home at the time the Regional <br />Director made his decision. See Opposition at 5-7. The <br />Appellants argue that OSM is still obligated to issue a notice of <br />violation for a violation that they allege existed in 1995 even <br />though any such violation has since been abated. Id. <br />5 <br />