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
RELIEF REQUESTED: <br /> Reversal of Director's 2/15/22 decision. <br /> Statement of Error <br /> Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 205 violation <br /> State Land Use Commission declaratory order dated <br /> 5/20/21 <br /> County Zoning Code violation <br /> Ordinance 97-133 violation <br /> STVRs on a farm dwelling is prohibited <br /> Other Relevant Facts <br /> The subdivision CC&Rs prohibit "businesses" and operation <br /> of a STVR is a business. <br /> 34. A plain reading of the Appellants Gage's petition also informs <br /> the Appellee Board of Appeals that the dispute concerns the Appellee Planning <br /> Director's "closure letter" and his conclusion therein that the Appellee Neal and <br /> Zanone's use of their property for transient accommodation activity is a direct <br /> permitted use. And, further, that such activity violates the county Zoning <br /> Code, Ordinance 97-133, Chapter 205 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes and the <br /> State Land Use Commission's declaratory order as well as the Covenants, <br /> Conditions and Restrictions governing the subject land. <br /> 35. If the petitions allegedly are vague or incomplete, the <br /> Appellee Board of Appeals'jurisdiction was not affected thereby. The Appellee <br /> Board of Appeals obtained subject matter jurisdiction immediately upon the <br /> filing of the petitions under the provisions of Section 6-9.2 of the Hawaii <br /> County Charter. <br /> 36. To cure any alleged ambiguity or uncertainty, the Appellee <br /> Board of Appeals could have requested the Appellants Ford, et al. and Gage to <br /> amend their petitions. In fact, the Appellee Board of Appeals held a pre- <br /> hearing conference to identify the issues that are to be determined at the <br /> agency hearing and to ensure procedural readiness. <br /> 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.