2026-05-12 Denial of Request for Continuance for 05-15-2026 Hearing (PL-BOA-2025-000121)

Home

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< irdofappeals@hawaiicounty.gov> Cc: Morrison, Bethany J <Bethany.J.Morrison@hawaiicounty.gov>; Ley, Rachelle<Rachelle.Ley@hawaiicounty.gov>; Wan, Sylvia A<SvlviaA.Wan@hawaiicounty.gov>; SalasFerguson, Sinclair<;inclair.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 151h 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 51h does,thus providing Appellant no less than 10 days to respond to this argument. As of this morning, 3 full days remain prior to the hearing. It has always been the Appellant's burden to prove she has standing to file this appeal(See BOA Rule 8-2)so this is not a new or unexpected position for her to defend. This frivolous appeal has already delayed the Landowner's ability to move ahead with a simple project and cost the County, including this Board,time and resources to prepare, postpone, and prepare again. There is no valid reason to continue to lay the costs of this appeal on the Landowner and the County. This appeal should proceed as scheduled on Friday May 151h. The Planning Department firmly requests that Appellant's request for a continuance be denied and the hearing proceed as planned. Aloha, Jean From: Claudia Rohr<crohr4@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 11:54 PM z