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
supported by written findings of fact and conclusions of law. 17 See In re <br /> Hawaii Electric Light Compan Inc., 60 Haw. 625, 641-643, 594 P.2d 612, 623- <br /> 624 (1979); In re Terminal Transportation Inc., 54 Haw. 134, 139, 504 P.2d <br /> 1214, 121 (1972); Kilauea Neighborhood Association v. Land Use Commission, 7 <br /> Haw. App. 227, 232, 751 P.2d 1031, 1035 (1988). <br /> More on the "Rosehill Cases" <br /> 44. In late September of 2022, five months after this Court <br /> rendered its decision in 3CCV-21-0000178 and in advance of the hearing that <br /> was scheduled on the petitions before the Appellee Board of Appeals, the <br /> Appellants Ford, et al. filed a motion with the Appellee Board of Appeals to <br /> exclude any reference to the "Rosehill Cases" (Dkt. 28, JEFS page 21, ROA <br /> 426-428; Dkt. 29, JEFS page 1, ROA 429-452; Dkt. 30, JEFS page 1, ROA <br /> 453-475; Dkt. 31, JEFS page 1, ROA 476-479) because (a) unlike the land in <br /> the "Rosehill Cases," the subject land in question is located in a county-based <br /> Agricultural Project District and the county Zoning Code regulates the use of <br /> land within such a district, (b) neither the parties nor the circuit court in the <br /> "Rosehill Cases" addressed the soil productivity rating class of the land that the <br /> "Rosehill" parties owned, (c) the State Land Use Commission determines what <br /> is a "compatible" use when the soil productivity rating is Class C and (d) that <br /> the commission had actually found in the "Rosehill Cases" that the use of a <br /> "farm dwelling" in the State Land Use Agriculture District for short-term <br /> vacation rental purposes is not a "compatible" or direct permitted use in the <br /> district. is <br /> 17 "The agency shall notify the parties to the proceeding by <br /> delivering or mailing a certified copy of the decision and order and <br /> accompanying findings and conclusions within a reasonable time to each <br /> party or' to the party' s attorney of record. " The Board' s own Rule 3- <br /> 18 states that "The board shall render a written decision and order in <br /> every contested case, which shall include separate findings of fact <br /> and conclusions of law." <br /> 18 See Part D.12 to D.16, Pages 30 to 31, infra, for further <br /> discussion. Also, as is stated above, on September 24, 2024, the <br /> 16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.