Laserfiche WebLink
coon to prove diminution in propem value ar cost of repairs issues. Therefore, when <br />the Tatums decided, as authorized by the Act to pursue their su~sidence damage <br />claims in court rather than w^;h DD4G and this Board, then were utili2ing a statutory <br />provision that allows them to eo directy to court now rather hen n,rrsue their <br />edtninistrative claim and thtn go to court, which they would have to do anyway to <br />obtain the relic.` they desire. <br />The Act expressly provides L~:at the Tatums can pursue :hei subsidrnee- <br />relatcd damages cotrplaint by directly bringing an action in court rather than through <br />the administrative process which has now bete temtinattd Section 3433-135{fi), <br />C.RS. provides, in rele~~ntpart, as follows: <br />Any person who is injured in person or property through the violation by an <br />operator of any rule er regulation promulgated or any order or permit issued <br />pursuant tc this article may bring an action for damages {inclu ing rezsonzb;e <br />attorney and expett witness fees) as inct such opt:ator on.y :n the county <br />what said violation occurred. - <br />Basin argues, without a proper citation to any ruler or statuttn;+ provision, that <br />DMG can only vacate iu NOV 'by reaching a decision on the menu." (Motion at 3) <br />There is no requirement in the ,4ct or the Rules regttirtng DMG to make only merit- <br />based decisions to vacate. On tht zontrary, there are any r.~imber of procedural or <br />resource-based reasons :hat DMG might dcctde not to pursue an'vOV, including <br />what happened in this oase-the citizen who ini*.iated the tiOV process decidtd to <br />wi~ltdraw he: co;nnlaint so that she could pursue iter statutorily authotued court <br />2 Basta cues to Rt:le 5 0~.2(5)(b) as ;k,e basis fer its asstttion that DMG may vacz~e <br />an NOV only fcr "good cause." However t`.at rule or.•I}' 2pp!ies to cessation oraers. <br />