The appellant also challenges the use of a green wall' on the western <br />boundary of the property, but fails to acknowledge or challenge the Hearings <br />Official's finding that a wall is an acceptable form of screening under EC 9.0500 <br />and would "completely obscure[e] the adjacent parking area, and to some extent <br />the buildings beyond." HO Decision, p, 13-14. The appellant complains about an <br />adjustment to an interior yard setback associated with the wall, but does not <br />establish that moving a screening element closer to an adjoining property would <br />impair its screening function. <br />The appellant also challenges two conditions imposed by the Hearings <br />Official that require OMC to revise its landscape plan to include additional <br />landscaping along the eastern boundary, and to provide an arborist report and <br />detailed plans for preserving the Cedar trees at issue. The appellant alleges that <br />the first condition is an improper deferral of a determination of "adequate" <br />screening under EC 9.8320(3). However, the Hearings Official's determination <br />does not defer the determination of what constitutes adequate screening. Rather, <br />the Hearings Official found that it was feasible for OMC to provide adequate <br />screening along its eastern boundary by providing landscaping to conform to the <br />requirements in EC 9.6200 et seq.' It then imposed a condition requiring: <br />"Prior to final PUD approval, the applicant shall revise the final site plan <br />and landscaping plan compliant with EC 9.6200 to provide landscape <br />screening along the eastern property boundary, and a combination of <br />landscape screening and fencing along the southern property line, to <br />screen the buildings from view from adjacent properties." <br />It is clearly feasible to modify the landscaping plan. Accordingly, the Hearings <br />Official did not err in imposing this condition. <br />The appellant also challenge condition 2 which requires OMC to provide a <br />certified arborist report that provides protective measures for the critical root <br />zone (CRZ) of the Cedar trees during construction, and provide a note on the <br />final PUD plans to adhere to the protection recommendations. This condition <br />arose out of the concern over the critical root zone (CRZ) relative to Building 2 in <br />the development. HO Decision, p. 11. It is clearly feasible to provide the certified <br />arborist report and modify the plans. Accordingly, the Hearings Official did not <br />err in imposing this condition. <br />Again, the appellant's Seventh Assignment of Error provides no basis for <br />reversal or remand of the Hearings Official's decision, and the same should be <br />affirmed. <br />' As noted by the Hearings Official, the green wall utilizes espaliered trees along <br />the side of the wall facing the neighboring properties. The appellant does not <br />allege or contend that this green wall would not adequately screen the <br />development. <br />' EC 9.6205 clearly specifies the "Landscaping Required by this Land Use Code" <br />for each use, and EC 9.6210 clearly defines those standards. <br />10 <br />244 <br />