Public Comment (8) - Laserfiche WebLink

process (three weeks after the hearing), has methodological shortcomings disrA 15 . above, and is unsuitable for site planning by the applicant due to its size and lack of scale. (a) Contrary to the HO's finding, the applicant did respond to the Matthews Map, to the extent possible based on the sketchy documentation associated with the Matthews Map. (b) There is no'basis in law or in common sense for denying this application for failure to conform the Site Plan to the Matthews Map of slopes, rather than the Staff Map of slopes. PC Findings: The Applicant/HBA faults the HO for relying on the Matthews Map to evaluate the slope criterion and for expecting the applicant to design around that map. The Applicant/HBA finds methodological flaws in the Matthews Map. Mr. Matthews explained his methodology in an August 20, 2012 letter to the Tebbutt Law Office, which the Applicant/HBA critiques as follows: Mr. Matthews started with a PDF map, which he imported into Photoshop, then measured the distance between the contour lines in Photoshop, using a circular brush tip for the diameter of a 25-foot circle. The image resolution is stated as 3302 x 2282 pixels. Pixels are squares placed on a grid pattern to represent shapes (straight and curved lines, circles, etc.). This creates room for error or fudging in the measurement. The pixelated lines on the map have depth. That is, each contour line becomes multiple pixels wide... The Applicant/HBA note that the discrepancies between the two maps are likely a result of computer monitor resolution, affecting pixel size, and by moving drawings into and out of software, which generates inaccuracies in line weight. The Applicant asserts that the Matth.ews Map cannot be reproduced to-scale to be used as a reliable source for dictating or restricting areas of development. The accuracy of Mr. Matthews' map was.even questioned by the HO: It is not clear to the hearings official whether the software resulted in more accurate information, but the hearings official believes that the circular shape of the measuring tool did provide more accurate information. (See page 13 of the HO Decision.) The evidence of record shows that the areas of 20% slope submitted by Kevin Matthews cannot be confirmed on the same area of the site plan produced by the. Applicant, even when applying the circular measuring tool. The Applicant/HBA shows that the five-foot contours in this area are greater than 25 feet apart -that the circle fits between the contour lines. Hence, the circle measurement tool did not provide different results that the square measurement tool initially used by staff; the Matthews Photoshop map produced different results than the Applicant's AutoCAD map. Final Order - Deerbrook PUD (PDT 12-1) December 17, 2012 Page 14 17