Hearings Official Decision (Remand)

located near the subject property. one can be reasonably confident that the LDR7P0S boundary is located as accurately as possible within the boundaries of the surveyed property lines. * * * "Both Envircm-h-letal and LHVC submitted overlaid diagrams that differ somewhat, and those differences are discussed in more detail below. In general. Environ-Metal relied on only a single referent, matching the surveyed centerline of East 30th Avenue with a portion of the black line representing East 30th Avenue depicted on the enlarged Metro Plan dia,-ram. As noted, Environ-Metal used a survev obtained front the count'v surveyor to locate the built centerline of East loth Avenue on the survey map, and attempted to alimt that centerline. depicted as a thin green line on the survey map, with the thicker black line that depicts East 30th on the enlarged Metro Plan diagram that represents the paved portion of East 30th Avenue. The resulting overlaid diagram depicts the features shown on both maps. See Exhibit 0. Record 1 378 and the color copy at Oversize Exhibit RE-Z. As explained below, on Exhibit d,, and all other Environ-Metal overlaid diagrams. the thin green line representing the East 30th Avenue centerline (from the survev map) matches the line showing the East 30th Avenue alignment from the enlarged Metro Plan diagram where it is closest to the subject property. but where East 30th Avenue curves west, those lines diverge. "LHVC. submitted testimony and maps prepared by an engineer, Schlieder, critiquing the proposed diagram at Exhibit G. Record 1071-91. Schlieder noted that Exhibit G is apparently based not on the official paper version of the 2004 Metro Plan diagram. but on the unofficial digital version. Schlieder presumably did not intend this to be a criticism in itself, because the initial maps submitted by Schlieder were also based on the digital Memo Plan diagram. "Substantively. Sell lieder identified what we will call the 'north arrow' problem. In brief. Environ-Metal's surveyed map and enlarged Metro Plan diagram were both oriented with true north to the top of the diagram. Ho"ever. Schlieder noted that the north arrow on the 3004 Nletro Plan diagram is tilted two degrees to the right relative to the top of the printed page, apparently to reflect what is called ',rid north,' a convention reflecting the difficulty of representing a portion of the round globe on a Flat map. Schlieder submitted diagrams showing that when the property boundaries are tilted two deL, rees to match the north arrow on the 3004 Metro Plan diagram an additional eight acres is subject to the POS designation. "Second. Schlieder noted that on Exhibit G the centerline of East loth Avenue from the survey map diverges north of the thick black line representing East loth Avenue from the enlarged Metro Plan diagram at the point where East 38th :Avenue curves west near its intersection with Spring Boulevard. Schlieder calculated this divergence to represent approximately 11_4 feet on the ground at the appropriate scale. Further; Schlieder took the position that the city limits line from the survey map, as depicted on Exhibit G. is offset to the northwest from its correct position, which according to Schlieder is actually located along the eastern boundary (if Spring Boulevard. but Exhibit G depicts the city limits line to the west of Spring Boulevard. Schlieder attributed these anomalies in part to the north arrow' problem, and in part to what LHVC calls the 'sliding' problem. Schlieder argued that Environ-Afetal s' sin«le-referent, single-axis approach allows the subject property lines Hearings Official Decision (Z 15-5 Remand) Page 4