2026-05-12 DPW Response to Appellant's Letter to Chair (PL-BOA-2025-000121)

Home

From: SalasFerguson, Sinclair Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2026 9:40 AM To: Planning Board of Appeals Cc: Morrison, Bethany J; Ley, Rachelle;Wan, Sylvia A; Azevedo, Neil; Spielman, Aaron; Darrow, Jeffrey W.; Richard Standke; Segawa,Wesley; Campbell,Jean K; Claudia Rohr; Holzman-Escareno,Juliana Subject: RE: Attention: Chair Cathy Lewis Attachments: 2026-5-11 Amended Letter to Chair re 2026-5-15 hearing.pdf Good Morning Chair Lewis, For the following reasons, Public Works opposes Claudia Rohr's request to continue BOA case PL-BOA-2025- 000121, Rohr vs. Public Works: 1. The issue of standing in this case is straightforward and may be resolved by the BOA on May 15, 2026, without the need for further litigation or continuances. 2. Claudia Rohr would suffer no prejudice if the BOA heard the motion on May 15, 2026, because the relevant facts have been established since the appeal was filed on May 1, 2025. 3. Considerations of judicial economy weigh strongly in favor of resolving this matter now. Thankyou. Sinclair Salas-Ferguson Deputy Corporation Counsel Attorney for Public Works 808-961-8251 From: Campbell,Jean K<JeanK.Campbell@hawaiicounty.gov> Sent:Tuesday, May 12, 2026 7:44 AM To: Claudia Rohr<crohr4@gmail.com>; Planning Board of Appeals<boardofappeals@hawaiicounty.gov> Cc: Morrison, Bethany J <Bethany.J.Morrison@hawaiicounty.gov>; Ley, Rachelle<Rachel le.Ley@hawaiicounty.gov>; Wan, Sylvia A<SylviaA.Wan@hawaiicounty.gov>; SalasFerguson, Sinclair<Sinclair.SalasFerguson@hawaiicounty.gov>; Azevedo, Neil <Neil.Azevedo@hawaiicounty.gov>; Spielman,Aaron<Aaron.Spielman@hawaiicounty.gov>; Darrow, Jeffrey W. <Jeff.Darrow@ hawa iicou nty.gov>; Richard Standke<richard.standke@gmail.com> Subject: RE:Attention: Chair Cathy Lewis Dear Chair Lewis, The Planning Department has not requested a continuance of this hearing date and strongly objects to any continuance of the hearing. This appeal was filed more than a year ago and has already been unnecessarily delayed by Appellant's failure to timely send the notice to neighbors required by BOA Rule 8-11(d)for the previously scheduled November hearing date. BOA Rule 3-12 allows that motions may be made before, during or after a hearing.This would have allowed the Department to make our Motion to Dismiss on May 15th at the hearing itself. Out of courtesy to both the Board and the parties,the Department filed our Motion early(a week prior to the scheduled hearing date). I also note that the Motion makes the same argument that the Landowner's legal brief filed on May 5th does,thus providing Appellant I