3/27/2026 <br /> <br />5 <br />where the heavy equipment will be staged, it is impossible to state that the Applicant has complied with this <br />provision. <br />Additionally, the Decision notes that the Applicant has proposed fencing along the Conservation Area, <br />north of the road, but fails to address the lack of protective fencing proposed along the Conservation Area south <br />of the road. Here, again, the Applicant has failed to provide evidence of compliance. <br />Therefore, the Decision erred in finding compliance with EC 9.4980(4)(a) as the Applicant has not <br />carried their burden of proof by providing evidence of compliance. <br />B. The Applicant has not demonstrated compliance with EC 9.4980(4)(b) <br />EC 9.4980(4)(b) provides: <br />“Petroleum products, chemicals, or other deleterious materials used in the construction process <br />shall not be allowed to enter a stream or wetland that is within a /WR conservation area.” <br /> <br />With respect to compliance with this provision, the Decision states: <br /> “The applicant provides a statement that agrees to the above criterion, however evidence to <br />demonstrate how their plan will comply is not provided. To ensure compliance with this <br />standard, the following condition is warranted: <br />8. Prior to final site plan approval, the applicant shall add a note to the final site <br />plans that states, " Petroleum products, chemicals, or other deleterious materials <br />used in the construction process shall not be allowed to enter a stream or wetland <br />that is within a WR conservation area.’ <br />Based on the materials in the record and the above findings and conditions of approval, the <br />standards at EC 9.4980(4) are met.” <br /> <br />Decision, p. 15. <br />First, the Decision recognizes that the Applicant failed to provide evidence of compliance. Second, <br />adding the language of the provision to the final plat in no way actually provides any evidence that ensures <br />compliance with this provision. Sinply restating the provision is not evidence of compliance. <br />Therefore, the Decision erred in finding compliance with EC 9.4980(4)(b) as the Applicant has not <br />carried their burden of proof by providing evidence of compliance. <br />IV. Conclusion <br />