Laserfiche WebLink
1. THE PROPOSED (DRAFT) FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS DEVIATE <br /> FROM THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEAL'S MANDATE AND <br /> ATTEMPT TO ELIMINATE THE ORIGINAL FINDINGS AND CONCLU- <br /> SIONS THAT THE COURT DID NOT VACATE AND THAT REMAIN IN <br /> FULL FORCE AND EFFECT ON REMAND. <br /> As stated in Parts A and C, above, the Planning Commission proposes <br /> to eliminate and to "redo" or "rewrite" original Finding Nos. 17, 18, 46 and 47 <br /> (adverse affect on surrounding properties), Finding Nos. 22 and 49 (ability of <br /> applicant to develop a potable water source or provide sufficient water for the <br /> school) and Finding No. 57 (change in the essential character of the land), which <br /> are findings that the Intermediate Court of Appeals did NOT VACATE or that <br /> were not challenged on appeal. As stated earlier, the former planning director's <br /> revised recommendations, which the Planning Commission relied upon when it <br /> voted to approve Connections' Special Permit request, are not supported by the <br /> unvacated findings and unappealed findings. In fact, some of the former planning <br /> director's revised recommendations stand in direct contradiction to the unvacated <br /> and unappealed findings as to at least three of the decision criteria. <br /> 2. THE PROPOSED (DRAFT) FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS FAIL TO <br /> REVEAL THE SOURCE OF THE 60 GPD DATA THAT THE INTERME- <br /> DIATE COURT OF APPEALS COULD NOT LOCATE IN THE RECORD <br /> AND, FURTHER, DO NOT ANALYZE THAT DATA. <br /> The Intermediate Court of Appeals for some reason did not read the <br /> testimony of the Department of Water Supply witness (T. McCall, Page 84, Record <br /> at 1630) who is the source of the 60 gpd data. (See Memorandum Opinion, at Page <br /> 10 <br />