11-02-2021 Intervenor - Exceptions to WPC Proposed FOF, COL, DO

Home

25) Connections also referred to that source in its own environmental assessment (Record on Appeal at 124). On remand, the Planning Commission ignores the source of the 60 gpd standard and makes no finding thereon. Nor does the Plan- ning Commission analyze that data in relation to Connections' proposed use and unvacated and unappealed Finding Nos. 22 and 49 that Connections does not have the ability to develop a potable water system or to provide sufficient water for the school. a 3. AT LEAST THREE OF THE DECISION CRITERIA DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SCHOOL IS NOT AN "UNUSUAL AND REASONABLE"USE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION. As stated, the original record shows that an adverse affect is presented to surrounding properties (unvacated Finding Nos. 17, 18, 46 and 47). Further, the original record also shows that there will be a change in the essential character of the land (unvacated and unappealed Finding No. 57). Moreover, the record shows that Connections cannot provide a sufficient water for the school (unappealed ° On this point, the Intermediate Court of Appeals stated that the Planning Commission made no determination on the credibility of Connections' water expert (Memorandum Opinion, at Pages 25-26),but did not address original Finding No. 22 ("Connections has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that it has or can develop sufficient water for the Development") because Connections did not assign this finding as error on appeal. Accordingly, the Inter- mediate Court of Appeals let Finding No. 22 stand as written. As to original Finding No. 49, the Intermediate Court of Appeals informed the Planning Commission that it"may reconsider any weight to be assigned"to the facts covered by Finding No. 49 ("There is no evidence that Connections has the ability to develop a potable water source as a mitigating measure, previously proposed by the Director"). (Memorandum Opinion, Pages 26-27) However, since the Court left original Finding No. 22 in place -- that there is no evidence to demonstrate that Connections "has or can develop sufficient water for the Development" -- the Planning Commission must still give great weight to Finding No. 22. 11