Laserfiche WebLink
ail <br />I <br />coon to prove diminution in properly value or cost of repairs issues. Therefore, v;hen <br />the Tatums decided, as authorized by the Act to pursue their su;,side:~ce damage <br />claims in court rather than wi:h DMG and this Board, they were utilizing a statutory <br />provision that allows them to go directly to court now ether has pursue their <br />administrative claim and then go to court, which they v.•ould have to do anyway to <br />obtain the relict Lhey desire. <br />The Act expressly provides that the Tartans can pursue that subsidrnce- <br />related damages corplaint by dit+ecily bringing an action in court earlier rhea through <br />the administ-ative process which has now been tennutatrd. Section 34-33-135(6), <br />C.RS. provides, in relevant part, as follows: <br />Any person who is injured in person or property through the violation by an <br />operator of any rule cr regulation promtilgated or any order or pcrntit issued <br />ptnsuant tc this article may bring an action for damaees (including rez~rzble <br />arorney and expert witness fees) against such oprator on:y ;n he county <br />where said violation occurred. - <br />Basin argues, without a proper citation to any tuleZ or statutory provision, that <br />DMG can only vacate iu NOV "by reaching a decision on the mcnts." (Motion at 3) <br />There is no requirement in the Act or the Rules requiring DMG to make only mctir.- <br />based decisions to vacate. On the contrary, there are any number of procedural or <br />resource-based reasons :hat DMG might decide not to pursue an'.~IOV, including <br />what happened iri this case-the citizen who initiated the ti0V process decided to <br />wi*.itdraw hr. complaint so that she could pursue her statutorily authorized coup <br />' Basi*t cites to Rule ~ D3.2(5)(b) as the basis ter its assertion that DMG tray vacate <br />an NOV only fcr "good cause." However t.`.at rule orl}• app!ie~ to cessation oraers. <br />