The brief concludes that:
PARD will likely cut and paste several bits of the Hearing Examiner's decision in its attempt to piece together its claims that the Hearing Examiner's decision was erroneous. This is the only way it can create the illusion that the Examiner's decision supports its claims. However, it is clear from an examination of the entire decision that all substantial evidence in the record supports the Hearing Examiner's decision to uphold the issuance of the DNS and site plan approval, and PARD is unable to meet its burden of proof regarding its claims. For these reasons, the Respondent requests that the Court reject the claims made by petitioner and affirm the City's approval of the site plan and issuance of the DNS for the project.The brief can be downloaded here.
Technorati Tags: wal-mart walmart