Laserfiche WebLink
Unusual Conditions <br /> 65-D <br /> Suitability for Agriculture <br /> 65-E <br /> Change in Character of the Land <br /> 65-F <br /> Public Natural Resources Trust <br /> 66 <br /> Conclusion of Law; Decision and Order <br /> CONCLUSION <br /> The primary flaw in the Planning Commission's proposed (draft) <br /> findings and conclusions is its attempt to "redo" or "rewrite" its original findings <br /> that the Intermediate Court of Appeals did NOT VACATE on appeal (see Parts A <br /> and C, above) and that Connections did not assign as error on appeal (Finding No. <br /> 22). The Planning Commission on remand is bound by the original findings that <br /> the Court did NOT VACATE and that were not challenged on appeal. Instead of <br /> addressing the unvacated and unappealed findings and explaining why the <br /> unvacated and unappealed findings have no evidentiary effect on Connections' <br /> Special Permit request, the Planning Commission simply ignores the unvacated <br /> and unappealed findings altogether. <br /> Further, the Planning Commission's reliance on the former planning <br /> director's revised recommendations is also misplaced because the :armer planning <br /> 15 <br />