Attachment B <br />1 has weighty implications. According to Environ-Metal, if plan designation <br />2 boundaries are based on grid north rather than true north, the result is a <br />3 significant change in the location of plan boundaries in areas, such as the <br />4 present one, where the plan is not parcel-specific and the property in question <br />5 is subject to more than one plan designation. However, Environ-Metal argues, <br />6 the available legislative history is silent about the north arrow, from which <br />7 Environ-Metal concludes that there was no intentional decision to adopt a grid <br />8 north arrow. If so, Environ-Metal argues, the grid north arrow is a scrivener's <br />9 error that should be ignored. Environ-Metal argues that consistency with the <br />10 2004 Metro Plan requires orienting the property boundary and other overlays <br />11 with the understanding that the diagram itself is oriented to true north, i. e. north <br />12 is straight up to the top of the page on which the diagram is printed, which is <br />13 how Environ-Metal's preferred diagram, Exhibit M, is oriented. <br />14 LHVC responds, and we agree, that Environ-Metal has not demonstrated <br />15 that the hearings official erred in requiring that the overlays match the grid <br />16 north arrow. Environ-Metal's premise is that there is a mis-match between the <br />17 orientation of the north arrow and the orientation of the printed diagram itself. <br />18 However, Environ-Metal cites to no evidentiary or other support for that <br />19 premise. Environ-Metal is probably correct that if the governing bodies who <br />20 adopted the 2004 Metro Plan diagram intended to take the extraordinary and <br />Page 16 <br />i <br />HO Agenda - Page 28 <br />i <br />