APP-5 <br />to the February 23, 2012 HBA letter. <br />2) There is no code requirement that, to file a local appeal, the appellant must have raised an <br />issue as to the application's consistency with a particular criterion. The code does require <br />that every appeal issue must have been raised sornewhere, by someone, in the HO's record <br />[EC 9.7655(3)]. SEN argues that "HBA did not raise before the hearings official the <br />argument that the code should be interpreted in such a waythat allows property in the <br />Buildable Lands Inventory to be developed under clear and objective standards." However, <br />that issue was raised by the Applicant as part of its September 12, 2012, final argument, <br />where it states and elaborates on the following argument: "[tjhe statutory scheme <br />anticipates that land inventoried in the acknowledged BLI for housing is to be developable <br />for housing under clear and objective standards, not off-limits to development under clear <br />and objective standards." <br />3) There is no code requirement that prohibits numerous persons or entities from joining in a <br />single appeal. In this case, there is a single appeal form and a single narrative, with one <br />individual representing both appellant parties (attorney Bill Kloos). <br />4) Contrary to SEN's assertion, the HBA did sign the appeal form and was not required to sign <br />the appeal statement (like SEN's appeal statement, the applicant/NBA's appeal statement <br />was signed only by the attorney). <br />SEN Request that the PC Strike Portions of the Applicant/HBA Appeal <br />Relevant Code Text: <br />EC 9.7655 Filing Appeal of Hearings Official or Historic Review Board Initial Decision provides at (2) that <br />"No new evidence pertaining to appeal issues shall be accepted." EC 9.7655 Filing Appeal of Hearings <br />Official or Historic Review Board Initial Decision provides at (3) that the basis of an appeal "is limited to <br />the issues raised during the review of the original application." <br />On October 5, 2012: <br />The SEN objects to what it identifies as new evidence and issues introduced in the Applicant/HBA <br />appeal: <br />1) The alleged new evidence is the set of figures submitted by the Applicant/HBA to support its <br />critique of Kevin Matthew's slope map at pages 8-9 of the Applicant/HBA Appeal <br />Statement; and <br />2) The alleged new issue is addressed in the Applicant/HBA's first assignment of error (sections <br />3 and 4) asserting that the "Matthews Map" has methodological flaws that are not in the <br />staff map, at pages 6-12 of the Applicant/NBA appeal. <br />On October 9, 2012: <br />The Applicant/HBA responded, asserting that there is no new evidence in their appeal statement. They <br />argue that the two graphics on page 8 of their appeal statement are evidence excerpted from the <br />record, displaying the same small part of the site plan, one graphic taken from Sheet L2.0 of the <br />Applicant's plan and the other a "re-creation" of the "Matthews Map." Also, they provide a different <br />set of graphics for the PC to consider, in case the PC determines that the "re-creation" is new evidence. <br />This different set of graphics includes a direct copy of the Applicant's site plan and an enlargement of <br />that same site plan with a 25' circle drawn on top. <br />Final Order- Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1) December 17, 2012 Page 4 <br />