Laserfiche WebLink
(Emphasis in original). The Plaintiffs made it very clear to the Division that they wanted the <br />Division to completely ignore the underlying violation of the statute and leave the NOV hearing <br />process behind solely so the Plaintiffs could seek resolution of their claims in a different forum, <br />while a[ the same [ime leaving open the possibility that the Plaintiffs could come back to the <br />Division and star over with a new proceeding on the same underlying NOV if in the future the <br />P~"-- -:ct_ `= _nJ .tom _:'._} 2 _..."Se cf ~„1l- ~1°d J"1 _, ~r° .. 4__ _.__. ._.~- ^-^t:;='''' ,_.:~]°.- <br />__ ' r. _ _ _ <br />seazch for relief. <br />On Mazch 12, 2001, the Division responded to the Plaintiffs' request by vacating the <br />NOV without prejudice and withdrawing the hearing on the NOV scheduled for Mazch 22, 2001. <br />On Mazch 13, 2001, Basin Resources filed the Motion of Basin Resources, Inc. to Have Notice of <br />Y'iolation Adjudicated or, .9lternativei}~, Y'acated x~ith Prejudice. The Division and the Plaintiffs <br />subsequently filed responses to Basin's motion. At the Boazd's regularly scheduled meeting date <br />on Mazch 21, 2001, the Boazd held a hearing on the objections to the vacation of the NOV and to <br />the withdrawal of the hearing on the NOV. At the hearing, the Boazd's attorney raised a <br />threshold legal question to the Boazd as to whether, once the Board's jurisdiction was invoked by <br />Basin's request for a hearing submitted on November 13, 2000, the Division had the authority <br />under the statute to unilaterally vacate the NOV without nrrjudice withnnt goino t.: the Rnard for <br />approval. The Board considered the azguments of the parties and the procedural history of the <br />matter, and reached the legal conclusion that once Basin requested a hearing on the NOV <br />pursuant to § 34-33-124(1)(a), C.R.S., the jurisdiction of the Board was invoked over the course <br />of the NOV hearing process. The Board further concluded that, because the Board was the entity <br />exercising jurisdiction over the NOV hearing process, the Division did not have the authority to <br />