Laserfiche WebLink
objected to the issues the Board would heaz, the Board could not have properly heard the county <br />zoning issues excluded in the prehearing order, for reasons explained below. <br />The duty to record formal adjudicatory proceedings lies with the hearing officer or boazd <br />hearing the case. § 24-4-105(13), C.R.S. There is no duty to record the prehearing conference <br />because it is not adjudication. § 24-4-102(2), C.R.S. Only the Boazd adjudicates objections to <br />reclamation permit applications. § 34-32.5-114, C.R.S. Even if there were a transcript of the <br />prehearing conference, it would be irrelevant. The Board conducted a full adjudicatory hearing <br />and decided the case based on that hearing. The record of the Board's hearing and the Boazd's <br />decision aze what is relevant in this appeal. The Board's prehearing order is part of that decision. <br />The Plaintiffs knew of their right to object to the proposed prehearing order. Board's <br />counsel explained this right at the commencement of the hearing. Vol. 3, p. 1020. On March 5, <br />2001, seventy-nine days prior to the hearing, the Division sent all objecting parties an <br />information package about public participation and the Board hearing process. Vol. 1, pp. 207- <br />220. In this pre-hearing correspondence, the parties were informed that: <br />At the Formal Boazd Heazing, the first order of business is for the <br />Board to adopt the Draft Board Order. Parties may object to the <br />Draft Boazd Order and seek revisions. Once the Draft Board Order <br />is adopted, the Formal Board Hearing begins. Id., p. 212. <br />The Plaintiffs argue that the Board did not deliver the proposed order on time. The Boazd <br />must deliver a copy of the proposed order to all parties at least three (3) days prior to the Board <br />hearing. Construction Materials Rule 2.7.1(3). It is not clear that the Board delivered the <br />