2008-01-14_Agency_Appeal_-_Christopher_Yuen_vs_Board_of_Appeals

Home

1)that the Director was arbitrary and capricious in that he failed to consider other evidence regarding the amount of rainfall, 2)that the Director's reliance on only the isohyet line and one rain gauge was arbitrary in that the Rule contemplates that there would be compliance on more than one rain gauge, and that the isohyet line was within a reasonable distance from appellant's property. (ROA at 00533, 00668.) At the conclusion of the hearing of the Appeal,the Board Chair requested Jin and Lu's counsel to submit proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision and order. (ROA at 536.) On August 30, 2007, Jin and Lu's counsel submitted Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order Approving Variance Application(VAR 06-101) to the Board and the Director. (ROA at 00542—00559.) On September 14, 2007, the Director submitted objections to the Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order Approving Variance Application(VAR 06-101) to the Board and to Appellees. (ROA at 00572—00577.) At its October 12, 2007 meeting, the Board adopted the Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order Approving Variance Application(VAR 06-101) with the addition of four Conclusions of Law, two of which were adopted as a result of the Director's objections to the Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order Approving Variance Application(VAR 06-101). (ROA at 00645 — 00650.) In the Board's Conclusion of Law(hereinafter"COL")No. 6, which is critical to this appeal,the Board concluded that: The Planning Director's interpretation and application of Rule 22 in the context of this Application represented an unwarranted exercise of discretion and/or an abuse of discretion. (ROA at 00667.) 7