fencing] proposed at this time. " <br />Hearings Official's Decision: <br />The Hearings Official did not address a prohibition against fencing between individual lots in the <br />decision. <br />Summary of Appellant's Argument: <br />The appellant takes issue with the fact that the applicant indicated Covenants, Conditions and <br />Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the project would prohibit the construction of fences between <br />individual lots. The Hearings Official erred by not addressing a prohibition against such fencing <br />either as a condition of approval or as a notation on the final plans. <br />Planning Commission's Determination: <br />There are no code requirements to eliminate private fences between properties in the PUD <br />criteria. Any mention by the applicant regarding the intent to limit fences between properties <br />through private CC&Rs is solely at the discretion of the owner since CC&Rs are privately <br />enacted and enforced by the property owner and future Home Owners Association through <br />civil action. <br />Based on the available information in the record, the Planning Commission finds that the <br />Hearings Official did not err with respect to this appeal issue. <br />Appeal Issue #28: EC 9.8320(11): The proposed development shall have minimal off- <br />site impacts, including such impacts as traffic, noise, stormwater runoff and <br />environmental quality. The Hearings Official erred in dismissing EC 9.8320 (11) by <br />referring to her previous discussions of Criterion (5), (6), and (7) and alleging that <br />these discussions "establish that the proposed PUD will have minimal off-site <br />impacts". <br />Hearings Official's Decision: <br />The Hearings Official found that the findings in EC 9.8320(5), EC 9.8320(6) and EC 9.8320(7) <br />established that the proposed PUD would have minimal off-site impacts. The Hearings Official <br />incorporated these previous findings to establish compliance with this criterion (Hearings <br />Official Decision, page 77). <br />Summary of Appellant's Argument: <br />The appellant asserts that the Hearings Official failed to evaluate the evidence in the record <br />that contradicts her findings. The appellant argues that this cursory dismissal is a serious error <br />in judgment and ignores the appellant's careful analysis of detailed evidence of the off-site <br />impacts on road, traffic and emergency response conditions. The appellant believes there are a <br />number of crucial errors, inaccuracies, and omissions in the evidence and analysis presented in <br />both the application and the staff materials, as well as in the Hearings Official's discussions. The <br />appellant maintains that direct, pertinent evidence and analysis are necessary and must be <br />evaluated under EC 9.8320(11) to determine whether the application satisfies the standard. <br />Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 35 <br />