Laserfiche WebLink
a response within 60 days was complied with by the issuance of the Director's denial on July 18, <br /> 2025, within 60 days of the filing of the Petition on filed May 23, 2025. See ROA at Pages 3 and <br /> 33. Rule 3-1(c)requires that the Director state the reason for the denial. The denial set forth not <br /> one but three reasons for the denial, all based clearly on law. See ROA at Pages 31-33. <br /> The Director's denial explains the Director's rational and legal foundation. See ROA at <br /> Pages 31-33. Each of the three reasons is supported by legal reasoning and case citations. See <br /> ROA at Pages 31-33. While Appellant may disagree with or dislike the reasons, that does not <br /> render the Director's decision a violation of law, erroneous, or arbitrary and capricious and <br /> Appellant has presented no evidence of such. <br /> B. The Petition Did Not Contain a Question the Director is Required to Answer <br /> Appellant continues to challenge the prior underlying decisions of past Planning <br /> Directors through the Petition and this appeal. Posing the same question with different words <br /> does not a new question make. The fact that the Petition cannot be articulated by the Appellant <br /> without rehashing the history of the project clearly evidences the Appellant's intent: to invalidate <br /> the subdivision. See ROA at Page 14: "The approval of SUB-05-00064 violated the Subdivision <br /> and Zoning Codes and is invalid." <br /> Posing questions about selected sections of the subdivision and zoning codes today is a <br /> thinly veiled attempt to force the Director to make a different ruling than was issued, and not <br /> timely or effectively challenged, many many years ago. <br /> This subdivision was completed in 2005 and no timely appeal was filed to challenge it <br /> then nor have Appellant's various lawsuits overturned the Director's past decisions. No amount <br /> of tricky lawyering will change the results twenty years later. <br /> 5 <br />