Laserfiche WebLink
TABLE OF CONTENTS <br /> I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS ................................................................ 1-8 <br /> A. Introduction..........................................................................................................1-8 <br /> 1. The Property ............................................................................................1-3 <br /> 2. The Variance Application .......................................................................3-5 <br /> 3. The Appeal...............................................................................................5-8 <br /> B. Jurisdiction ............................................................................................................. 8 <br /> 11. STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR DECISION .................................. 8 <br /> III. STANDARD OF REVIEW...........................................................................................8-10 <br /> IV. ARGUMENT............................................................................................................... 10-16 <br /> A. Summary of Argument ................................................................................... 10-11 <br /> B. The Board of Appeals Erred By Shifting The Burden Of Proof To <br /> The Director In Violation of State Law...........................................................11-15 <br /> C. The Board's Conclusion of Law No. 6 Exceeds The Bounds <br /> Of Reason Because It Is Unsupported By Any Clearly Articulated <br /> FOF And It Erroneously Place The Burden On The Director To <br /> Prove That The Variance Application Did Not Meet The Rainfall <br /> RequirementOf Rule 22 ................................................................................. 15-16 <br /> V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 17 <br />