I be slightly tilted to the right on the 2004 Metro Plan diagram, relative to the <br />2 side borders, to match the two-degree rotation of the north arrow.3 <br />3 It is Environ-Metal's burden to demonstrate that the hearings official <br />4 erred in requiring that the overlays align to match the north arrow on the 2004 <br />5 Metro Plan diagram. Environ-Metal has not done so. Environ-Metal relies <br />6 upon the questionable premise that on the 2004 Metro Plan diagram the north <br />7 arrow was accidentally rotated two degrees to grid north, while the body of the <br />8 diagram was oriented to reflect the top of the printed page as true north. <br />9 However, there is simply no evidence to support that premise. To the contrary, <br />10 the testimony and evidence in the record, while not conclusive, suggests that <br />11 both the north arrow and the features on the diagram are oriented to grid north. <br />12 Environ-Metal's assignment of error is denied. <br />3 The record helpfully includes Exhibit N (oversize exhibit RE-M), which <br />appears to support LHVC's position. Exhibit N provides side-by-side <br />comparisons of adopted Metro Plan diagrams from 1980, 1987, and 2004. The <br />adopted 1980 and 1987 Metro Plan diagrams have true north arrows pointing to <br />the top of the maps, and the north-south streets appear to align accordingly, <br />being parallel to the sides of the map. Record 203. In contrast, on the 2004 <br />Metro Plan diagram the same north-south streets depicted on earlier diagrams <br />appear, to our untutored eye, to be rotated slightly to the right, relative to the <br />side borders, consistent with the two-degree tilt of the grid north arrow. Id. <br />Page 18 <br />