ENFORCE35557 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RCS' B1':U. V. &S. : X11-"0- O A: L'7P\i 3fly 131 ~AG3-~ D. G. &S. :il 6 IBLF. 96-90R, 96-91R Second, it oantends that `he Hoard snou'_d have placed r» reliance on the State blurt decision bc~use it was issued lcr~ after the 1994 I19; and 1995 Cal decisions at issue. It asserts that it was not part of the record before either of those offices at the Lime their decisions were cede and, therefore, should not be a factor i.~ detennirinc whether or not II~ was arbitrary, capri:.ious, or abused ins discretioa~ in reachi.~g its conclusion, With regattl t-0 CQ~S's tMn assignments of error, tre Tatusns charge that the first is fta~sstally wrrnuJ on the l.~~r. They assert that CBS's first arytasent lacks merit became even if OEt~i ware correct that the relevant regulation is violated a¢:ly when an operator fails to pay full as~ensatioa to a homeoNrt~ar for subsidence damage, "a point the Tatimis adamantly dispute, " HRI had failed to provide any ampensation to the Tattmrs at ttve time of the infoanal review decision. (Opposition at 5.) The Tat7mLS claim that Cl4S's second p^g'~^t is inoonaistent with the fi.--st, ignores th6 fact that the administrative record c~tains able evidence aside from the state court decision ir. support of the Tatsas' position on subsidence, ar:d that the Regions]. Disectnr had before him at the time of his informal review essentially the same material evidence as that Fm~=ad in the state court p1000eeding. . We must reject C3'S'a position that, because the Tatuns received ~~sation for subsidence as a result of the 199'7 State court decision, there was m violation of 2 Colo. Code Rags. § 4.20.3(2)(c) (1991). 'lire record shows that at the time Imo, troncLuded its tedviical evaluation in this ease subsidence had catuad material damage to the Tatung' house. That fact P^+'"~~+aw~ a violation of 2 Colo. Code Rega. ~ 9.20.3(2), az~d we reject OEri's oontentian to the contrary. The regulation contiru~ea by listing three bases for rectifying tre violet=csi: (1) restoration, rehabilitation, or re[rnral and replaoanent of the stsucture~ (2) purchase of the stnreture !or snit market presubsidrnoe value; or (3) oo>tpenSatir~n o! the oY~41er of the structure 1n full amowlt of the A; mi n,+t'i pn ip yy~~ resulting lrtm subsidence. There is no evidence that the violation had haen rectified at the time tt~ occluded its evaluation. OE61 states that the Board must clarify its ruling because otherwise O~ ie response to our ostler to take appsapriate action, will oondlu't an inspactiori as required by 30 C.F.R. § 892.11, and if it; finds no violation exists, no enforoeatPSit action can be taken. As the Tatu~s note, issuances of n notice of violation establishes a reoor+i for the operator's history of violatiens whiff is relevant for pearit suspension or revocation and civil penalty imputation. FShether suc3i a entice of violatirn would be itmedi.ately subject to vacatics~ because of $RI's payment to the Tatung is not an issue before us. Turning t0 C~f's second ground fcx reox:sideration, CSI asserts that the Board erred in ctx~sideria3 the State ccazt decision because it 5