Laserfiche WebLink
Furthermore, the record shows that the State Department of Land and <br /> Natural Resources, the fee owner of the publicy-owned land in question, does not <br /> have a masterplan for the land and did not offer testimony to the Planning <br /> Commission. Nor did the State Department of Agriculture provide testimony to <br /> the Planning Commission. One state agency, the State Office of Planning, did <br /> offer comments to the Planning Commission and suggested that a boundary <br /> amendment might be a better and alternative procedure to employ in this case <br /> (rather than a Special Permit request). The Planning Commission does not discuss <br /> these undisputed points of fact in context of the public natural resource trust and <br /> whether the participation of these state agencies is or is not relevant. <br /> 5. THE FOLLOWING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ARE <br /> BASED ON UNLAWFUL PROCEDURE, ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE <br /> SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD AND APPLICABLE LAW <br /> AND ARE ARBITRARY. <br /> Based on the foregoing discussion, several of the Planning Commis- <br /> sion's proposed findings and conclusions are based on unlawful procedure, are not <br /> supported by the substantial evidence in the record or applicable law and are <br /> arbitrary. <br /> Adverse Affect on Surrounding Properties <br /> 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36; 65-B <br /> Potable Water <br /> 39, 40 and 41; 65-C <br /> 14 <br />