I E. Environ-Metal's Appeal to LUBA <br />2 In LUBA No. 2015-092, Environ-Metal argues in a single assignment of <br />3 error that the hearings official erred in rotating the property boundary lines two <br />4 degrees to align with the two-degree skew in the north arrow printed on the <br />5 2004 Metro Plan diagram. According to Environ-Metal, the two-degree tilt to <br />6 the north arrow is a scrivener's error and was not intended to require that plan <br />7 designation and zoning boundaries should be determined based on a two- <br />8 degree tilt from true north. In essence, Environ-Metal argues that the hearings <br />9 official erred in adopting the rotated Exhibit L rather than the non-rotated <br />10 Exhibit M, as the basis for determining the LDR/POS boundary. <br />11 F. LHVC's Appeal to LUBA <br />12 In LUBA No. 2015-091, LHVC advances a single assignment of error <br />13 with three sub-assignments of error. First, LHVC argues that the hearings <br />14 official erred in rejecting Sheet 9/2/15-04, in the erroneous belief that that <br />15 overlaid diagram was not based on an enlargement of the official 2004 Metro <br />16 Plan diagram. Second, LHVC argues that the hearings official erred in <br />17 rejecting two other maps as sources of information to determine consistency <br />18 with the 2004 Metro Plan diagram. Third, LHVC argues that the hearings <br />19 official erred in determining the LDR/POS boundary based on Environ-Metal's <br />20 single-referent approach, rather than on the multiple-referent approach <br />21 advocated by LHVC. Environ-Metal presents waiver challenges to some of the <br />22 issues presented in the second and third sub-assignments of error. <br />Page 14 <br />