Appeal Documents - Laserfiche WebLink

has an inadequate driving surface" are synonymous. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record establishing the alleged "adequacy" of the street to satisfy EC 9.6815(2)(f). Photographs of Lombard Lane show significant deteriorations of the surface and pavement distress, crumbling, and lack of drainage facilities. Appellants incorporate by reference all arguments related to EC 9.6815(2)(f) raised before the Hearings Official as if set forth here. The Hearings Official misconstrued applicable law and made inadequate findings not based on substantial evidence with regard to EC 9.5500(7), (13), and (14) The Hearings Official's allegations of adequacy are generalized and do not articulate or explain how it is feasible to comply with the articulation requirements. Appellants incorporate by reference all arguments related to EC 9.5500(7), (13), and (14) raised before the Hearings Official as if set forth here. The Hearings Official misconstrued applicable law and made inadequate findings not based on substantial evidence with regard to EC 9.5500(6) The Hearings Official misconstrued applicable law and made findings not supported by substantial evidence. Other than generalities, the applicant has not demonstrated how the adjusted proposal will "create a vibrant street fagade with visual detail" and "provide multiple entrances to buildings or yards." The notion that "modulation, architectural articulation, and finished material selection" (which has not been established at this point), exaggerated offset, and so forth do not equate to vibrancy or create visual detail. Indeed, they have not even been established. Adjustment is not warranted under EC 9.5500(6). Appellants incorporate by reference all arguments related to EC 9.5500(6) raised before the Hearings Official as if set forth here. The Hearings Official misconstrued applicable law and made inadequate findings not based on substantial evidence with regard to EC 9.6735(2) The Hearings Official's findings are conclusory and are therefore not based on substantial and are inadequate. Appellants incorporate by reference all arguments related to EC 9.6735(2) raised before the Hearings Official as if set forth here. Incorporation of arguments by reference Appellants incorporate by reference all arguments made by Sean T. Malone, Greenlight Engineering, Rob Handy, Julie Hulme, H.M. Sustaita, Loren Schein, the City Attorney, and LandWatch Lane County (including but not limited to the attached).