The Court reviews the record to determine whether there is fact support for the Commission's decision, not for the contentions of the applicant. If staff approval were the sine qua non of plan review, there would be no need for land use boards. The plaintiffs' claim that irrelevant or even incorrect statements were made by the Commission is also immaterial.
The Court reviews the record to determine whether there is fact support for the Commission's decision, not for the contentions of the applicant. If staff approval were the sine qua non of plan review, there would be no need for land use boards. The plaintiffs' claim that irrelevant or even incorrect statements were made by the Commission is also immaterial.
The Court reviews the record to determine whether there is fact support for the Commission's decision, not for the contentions of the applicant. If staff approval were the sine qua non of plan review, there would be no need for land use boards. The plaintiffs' claim that irrelevant or even incorrect statements were made by the Commission is also immaterial.