My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2026-05-12 Appellant's Memorandum in Opposition to Motions to Dismiss (PL-BOA-2025-000119 & 121)
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Board of Appeals
>
Pending Petitions for Next Hearing Date
>
zCases for Past Hearings
>
PL-BOA-2025-000121 Rohr (DPW)
>
2026-05-12 Appellant's Memorandum in Opposition to Motions to Dismiss (PL-BOA-2025-000119 & 121)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/14/2026 9:10:24 AM
Creation date
5/14/2026 8:28:06 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
subject Agricultural Project District, leaving the complainants to guess as to <br /> the reason for the planning director's statements. <br /> 13. In his "closure letters," the Appellee Planning Director also <br /> did not make any reference to the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions <br /> (CCRs), the violation of which the Appellants-Appellants WILLIAM ROBERT <br /> GAGE, JR. and REBECA S. GAGE had included in their complaint. <br /> Petitions to the Board of Appeals <br /> 14. In March of 2022, the Appellants-Appellants LAWRENCE <br /> FORD, JOHN KOONTZ, DON DAVIS and PHILLIP KOSZAREK (hereafter the <br /> "Appellants Ford, et al.") petitioned the Appellee BOARD OF APPEALS, <br /> COUNTY OF HAWAII (hereafter the "Appellee Board of Appeals") to review the <br /> Appellee Planning Director's "closure letters" for error pursuant to Section 6- <br /> 9.2 of the Hawaii County Charter. (Dkt. 16, JEFS page 1, ROA 001-004; Dkt. <br /> 18, JEFS page 12, ROA 145) (Case No. PL-BOA-2022-0-00200, also referred <br /> to as the "Ford Appeal") <br /> 15. Also, in March of 2022, the Appellants-Appellants WILLIAM <br /> ROBERT GAGE, JR. and REBECCA S. GAGE (hereafter the "Appellants Gage") <br /> petitioned the Appellee Board of Appeals separately for relief from the same <br /> "closure letters." (ROA Dkt. 40, JEFS page 14, ROA 014-015; JEFS page 4, <br /> ROA 004-006; Dkt. 41, JEFS page 42, ROA 135-146) (Case No. PL-BOA- <br /> 000201, also referred to as the "Gage Appeal") <br /> The Parallel "Rosehill Cases" <br /> 16. The "Rosehill Cases" plagued the proceeding below. The <br /> "Rosehill Cases" arose out of unrelated petitions that several landowners had <br /> filed with the Appellee Board of Appeals" in 2020 that pertain to the use of land <br /> in the State Land Use Agriculture District for "short-term vacation rentals," <br /> which is a form of transient accommodation activity. (Exhibit 10 to Opening <br /> Brief, Dkt. 69, JEFS pages 5-7) <br /> 17. At the request of the parties, the Appellee Board of Appeals <br /> allowed the disputants in the "Rosehill Cases" to seek declaratory orders from <br /> the State Land Use Commission and suspended further proceedings on the <br /> 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.