Laserfiche WebLink
conclusions deviate from the Intermediate Court of Appeals' decision and are not <br /> "consistent with" the Court's mandate. <br /> Proposed Finding Change to Original Findings <br /> Subiect or Conclusion or Conclusions <br /> Affect on surrounding 31 (removed last Eliminates original FF 17, 18, 46 <br /> properties (traffic) sentence of FF 31) and 47 that were not vacated on <br /> [Pages 6 to 7] 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 on appeal and that remain in full <br /> force and effect on remand. <br /> Source of 60 gpd data 37, 38, 39, 40, Does not establish source <br /> ("where that figure 41 of 60 gpd data, as mandated. <br /> came from") [Pages <br /> 7 to 8] <br /> Ability to develop a Eliminates original FF 49 that <br /> a potable water source was not vacated on appeal and <br /> [Pages 7 to 8] that remains in full force and <br /> effect on remand. <br /> Ability to provide Eliminates original FF 22 that <br /> sufficient water was not assigned as error on <br /> for the school appeal and that remains in full <br /> [Pages 7 to 8] force and effect on remand. <br /> Adverse affect on Contradicts original FF 46, 47 <br /> surrounding proper- Part 65.13 that were not vacated on appeal <br /> ties [Pages 14 Part 65.0 and that remain in full force <br /> to 15] and effect on remand. <br /> Change in essential Contradicts original FF 57 <br /> character of the land Part 65.F that was not assigned as error <br /> [Page 16] on appeal and that remains in full <br /> force and effect on remand. <br /> The foregoing proposed (draft) findings listed above are clearly <br /> erroneous. Nor are the former planning director's revised recommendations that <br /> the Planning Commission relied on when it voted to approve Connections' Special <br /> 7 <br />