Laserfiche WebLink
ea; 1N:?E0I . 013:5. ?139957191 ,:IM TNrUM ASSGC per,,` o~ <br />29. Ort March t6, 2001, nn assistant to the BOARD iafi,rmed the TATUMS in wntinR that <br />on March 2l, 2001, the BOARD would conduct a hearing on BASIN's moron to <br />adjudicate. <br />30. On March 19, 2001, the TATUMS moved the Board for permission to intervene ~„ <br />proceedings on BASIN's motion to adjudicate for the limited purpose of cvtttesting the <br />Board's jurisdiction of that motion. <br />31. On Mazch 21, 2001, the BOARD granted the TATUMS' motion for limited intervention <br />in proceedings on BASIL"s motion to adjudicate arts permitted counsct for the <br />TATTJMS to participate in the hearing telephonically. <br />32. At the conclusion of the administrative hearing on BASIN's motion to adjudicate, a <br />majority of five members of the BOARD voted in favor of a motion to enter an order (a) <br />holding that DMG lacked authurity to vacate Notice of Violation No. Cv-2000-(1t19 and <br />(b) rescheduling an administrative heating on BASIN's challenge to Notice of Violation <br />No. CV-2000-009 for April 25, 2001. Two members of the BOARA vutal against entry <br />ofthe order. <br />CAUSfv OF ACTION <br />33. The TATUMS incorpo[a[e paragraphs t Ihrvuglt 32 of thin complnint by reference as if <br />fitily copied and set forth in iength. <br />34. The BOA]EtA's order was made in excess of the Board's jurisdiction to review DMC's <br />decisions to vacate notices of violation, which, pursuant to Colo. Rev. Star. § 34-33- <br />124(1)(aj, exists only if "u,y person having an interesi which is or rosy he adve[sely <br />affected by" Db1G's decision to vacate a notice of violation requests such review. <br />35. The BOAItiI's order is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence; and <br />otherwise inconsistent with law because, as a matter of law, DMG has the inherent and <br />siatuturily-uttplied authorit}• to vacate any nnt;re of violation that the agenc}• rssues, <br />without consulting with or obtaining the prior approval of the BOARD. <br />36. The TATUDtS aze aggrieved by BOARD's order because it compels them to expend <br />valuable time and resources defending an enforcement action that AMG iawCuily vacated <br />at the TATUMS' request but that the BOARD reinstated without having jurisdiction to <br />do so. Such expenditure of time and resources would impair the TATUMS abrliry to <br />prosecute their peudit,g citizen suit ngainet BASIN as eff~'.tively as they mig}tt otherwise <br />do. <br />w13ERRFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the TATUMS pray (a) that citation be <br />issued and the BOARD, DMG, and BASIN be cited to appear and answer }ierein. (b) tltar a!1er a <br />rria! utt dtc merits of thic action, the Court sorer an order reversmR the March Zl, 2001, order of <br />the BOARD and affirming DMG's decision to vacate Notice of Violation No. CV-2000-009, <br />5 <br /> <br />