Page 4 <br />July 6, 2016 <br />the requirements of EC 9.6792(3)(a), EC 9.6792(3)(d)(1) and EC 9.6792(3)(d)(2). Final <br />Argument, p.8. The Applicant claims that Valley River Inn's statements to the contrary <br />erroneously rely on the original Application submittal for its arguments. This claim is new <br />evidence that contradicts the Applicant's own revised April 4, 2016 application narrative. Valley <br />River Inn quoted from the revised April 4, 2016 application narrative, which states that <br />"Geotechnical work has not yet been completed" and that the preliminary information "will be <br />verified with the geotechnical report to be submitted with the building permit." Revised <br />Application Narrative, p.31. The Applicant's new claim that it provided all of the requirement <br />stormwater and geotechnical reports and demonstrated compliance with these requirements is <br />new evidence that is not part of the record and should be stricken. <br />Conclusion <br />The Applicant's final argument was supposed to be limited to argument based on the evidence <br />already in the record. The Applicant's multiple new adjustment requests and new evidence <br />submitted as part of the final argument clearly went beyond this limitation and improperly <br />included substantial new evidence. Unless this new evidence is stricken from the record, Valley <br />River Inn will be substantially prejudiced. <br />Very truly yours, <br />HATHAWAY KOBACK CONNORS LLP <br />E. Michael Connors <br />EMC/pl <br />cc: Valley River Inn <br />