2026-6-26 APPELLANTS OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED ORDER_v1.pdf

Home

5. The November 13, 2025, BOA hearing was cancelled due to lack of quorum and the hearing was continued until January 9, 2026, by notice dated November 12, 2025. 6. On December 29, 2025, the BOA staff reminded the Appellant of the need to send and file proof of the BOA Rule 8-11(d) required notice to surrounding property owners. 7. On January 2, 2026, Appellant filed a Second Amended Petition, to which the Planning Director objected on January 5, 2026. 7 opposing party and filed with the Board no later than October 31, 2025, by 4:30 p.m., and shall be made in accordance with Board Rule 3-12. None of the parties filed any dispositive motions by October 24, 2025. Rohr objects on the grounds that Fact 5 does not accurately reflect the procedural history. [See, Exhibit C.] Moreover, Fact 3 is not a finding of "Basic facts" that supports a finding of Ultimate facts that relates to standing, and the statement does not inform the parties or the court of the material facts upon which the BOA relies to grant a Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Standing. Rohr objects on the grounds that Fact 6 does not accurately reflect the procedural history. [See, Exhibit D.] It is prejudicial. Fact 6 is not a finding of "Basic facts" that supports a finding of Ultimate facts that relates to standing, and the statement does not inform the parties or the court of the material facts upon which the BOA relies to grant a Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Standing. Rohr objects on the grounds that Fact 7 does not accurately reflect the procedural history, [See, Exhibits B and E.] DCC Jean Campbell's unfounded objections manipulated the Chair into arbitrarily stripping Rohr of a specific right to amend her pleadings up to seven -days before a future hearing granted to every other party by BOA Rule 2-4(f). Record facts: January 2, 2026, seven (7) days prior to the January 9, 2026 hearing, Rohr timely filed a