2026-06-04 Proposed Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law; Decision and Order (PL-BOA-2025-000119).pdf

Home

32. Having considered the testimony, facts, evidence, and arguments provided, the Board unanimously ruled that Appellant failed to plead sufficient, non -speculative facts to establish that she is an aggrieved person pursuant to BOA Rule 8-2 which requires: (1) the person has an interest in the subject matter of the decision and is so directly and immediately affected, that the person's interest is clearly distinguishable from that of the general public; and (2) The person is or will be adversely affected by the decision. Therefore, the Board granted the Planning Director's Motion to Dismiss. DECISION AND ORDER Based on its consideration of the testimony, facts, evidence and arguments provided at hearing, including the Record on Appeal, the documents on file herein, and applying the reliable probative evidence and law, the Board hereby Decides and Orders as follows: Appellant failed to plead sufficient, non -speculative facts to establish standing as required by BOA Rule 8-2. Specifically, Appellant provided no evidence that the construction project proposed at the subject property will cause her an injury "clearly distinguishable from that of the general public" and has provided only unsupported conclusionary legal arguments. Because Appellant's claims are speculative and consist only of generalized grievances unrelated to the Special Management Area criteria underlying the Director's exemption determination, the Appellant lacks standing and the Board lacks the authority to overturn the Planning Director's determination. The Planning Director's Motion to Dismiss case Claudia Rohr v. Jeffrey W. Darrow, Planning Director and Richard and Deborah Standke (PL-BOA-2025-000119) is GRANTED. The above -captioned Board of Appeals case is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety. 7