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
"Rosehill Cases" then pending before the Appellee Board of Appeals. s In May <br /> of 2020, the "Rosehill" parties and the County of Hawaii filed their petitions for <br /> declaratory orders with the State Land Use Commission. (Id.) <br /> 18. On May 20, 2021, the State Land Use Commission issued a <br /> declaratory order that the use of a "farm dwelling" on land in the State Land <br /> Use Agriculture District with a soil productivity rating of Class A or B for <br /> "short-term vacation rentals" is not a direct permitted use under state law. <br /> (Exhibit 9 to Opening Brief, Dkt. 68) s The commission's declaratory order <br /> was made in a "contested case" under Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes <br /> and the "Rosehill" parties then appealed to this Court in 3CCV-21-0000178. <br /> No one assigned error to the State Land Use Commission's express finding that <br /> a vacation rental is not a "compatible" use in the State Land Use Agriculture <br /> District under Section 205-5(b), Hawaii Revised Statutes. (See Part D.12 to <br /> D.16, Pages 30 to 31, infra) <br /> 19. On May 2, 2022, two months after the Appellants Ford, et al. <br /> and Gage had filed their petitions with the Appellee Board of Appeals, this <br /> Court reversed and vacated the State Land Use Commission's declaratory order <br /> that prohibited the use of a "farm dwelling" for vacation rentals (Exhibit 10 to <br /> Opening Brief, Dkt. 69). However, this Court did not rule on the State Land <br /> Use Commission's unappealed finding that a vacation rental is not a "compa- <br /> tible" use in the State Land Use Agriculture District under Section 205-5(b), <br /> Hawaii Revised Statutes. (See Part D.12 to D.16, Pages 30 to 31 infra). <br /> 20. The State Land Use Commission then pursued its own <br /> appeal from this Court's judgment to the Intermediate Court of Appeals in <br /> 5 There is no evidence as to whether the "Rosehill Cases" remain on <br /> the Appellee Board of Appeals' dockets as active, but suspended cases. <br /> 6 On January 20,2022, shortly before the Appellants Ford, et al . ' <br /> filed their petitions with the Appellee Board of Appeals, they <br /> informed the Appellee Planning Director, by their attorney, of the <br /> State Land Use Commission' s May 20, 2021 declaratory order for his <br /> consideration. (Dk. , JEFS page 7, ROA 482-484) . <br /> 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.