Laserfiche WebLink
requested a continuance of the March 13, <br />2026 hearing so the two related cases could <br />be heard the same day and go up through <br />the courts together. <br />11. On March 16, 2026, Landowner <br />Rohr objects on the grounds that Fact 11, <br />objected to the continuance. On May 5, <br />without more, does not create a finding of <br />2026, Landowner filed a legal statement <br />Basic facts supporting a finding of Ultimate <br />objecting to Appellant's lack of standing. <br />facts related to standing. The statement <br />does not inform the parties or the court of <br />the material facts upon which the BOA <br />relied to grant a Motion to Dismiss For <br />Lack of Standing. <br />12. On May 8, 2026, the Planning Director <br />Rohr objects on the grounds that Fact 12 <br />filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of <br />does not accurately reflect the procedural <br />Standing and an Amended Motion to <br />history. <br />Dismiss for Lack of Standing. <br />Record facts: <br />The Director's Motion was served on the <br />parties by email, but the Director did not <br />file the Motion on EPIC. The Board of <br />Appeals and the Chair were silent until May <br />12, 2026 when the Board staff <br />acknowledged the Motion and filed it on <br />EPIC. <br />13. On May 12, 2026, Appellant filed a <br />Rohr objects on the grounds that Fact 13 <br />Memorandum in Opposition. <br />does not accurately reflect the procedural <br />history. <br />Record facts: <br />Rohr filed a Memorandum in Opposition <br />and withdrew the Memorandum in <br />Opposition just hours later, the same day <br />after discovering the ICA's March 30, 2026 <br />Memorandum Opinion in Ford v. Board of <br />Appeals, Nos. CAAP-25-0000004, CAAP- <br />25-0000005, reversing the circuit court's <br />ruling that the Board of Appeals was not <br />authorized to consider dispositive motions. <br />10 <br />