Laserfiche WebLink
45. The Appellants Gage also requested that any reference to the <br /> "Rosehill Cases" be excluded as well. (Dkt. 46, JEFS page 22, ROA 290-294) <br /> 46. In summary, the Appellants Ford, et al. and Gage argued <br /> that the "Rosehill Cases" were neither applicable nor relevant and were <br /> distinguishable from their own appeals before the Appellee Board of Appeals. <br /> 47. At the same time, the Appellees Neal and Zanone filed a <br /> motion for summary judgment in both the Ford Appeal and the Gage Appeal, <br /> asserting that this Court's ruling in 3CCV-21-0000178 (Exhibit 10 to Opening <br /> Brief, Dkt. 69) allows them to use their property for transient accommodation <br /> purposes as a matter of law (administrative stare decisis). In addition, the <br /> Appellees Neal and Zanone argued that the Appellee Board of Appeals does not <br /> have the authority to enforce private covenants that restrict the use of land. <br /> (Dkt. 26, JEFS page 21, ROA 363-375; Dkt. 27, JEFS page 1, ROA 376-381; <br /> Dkt. 46, JEFS page 4 ROA 272-289 <br /> 48. The Appellants Ford, et al. and Gage filed objections on <br /> October 5, 2022, including objections that the summary judgment procedure is <br /> not an authorized procedure under Section 91-2(a)(2), Hawaii Revised Statutes. <br /> (Dkt. 27, JEFS page 8, ROA 383-405; Dkt. 28, JEFS page 1, ROA 406-425; <br /> Dkt. 46, JEFS page 28, ROS 296-300; Dkt. 47, JEFS page 1, ROA 301-307) <br /> The Appellants Ford, et al. also included proposed findings and conclusions in <br /> their objections. (Dkt. 27, JEFS page 16, ROA 391-393) <br /> 49. In addition, the Appellants Gage objected to said motion on <br /> grounds that the Appellees Neal and Zanone's use of their property for tran- <br /> sient accommodation purposes violated the Covenants Conditions and Restric- <br /> tions (CCRs) that govern the use of a lot in the subject Agricultural Project <br /> District. (Dkt. 46, JEFS 28, ROA 296-300; Dkt. 47, JEFS page 1, ROA 301- <br /> 307) <br /> Hawaii Supreme Court determined that transient accommodation is not a <br /> permitted use in the State Land Use Agriculture District, upheld the <br /> State Land Use Commission' s declaratory order and nullified this <br /> Court' s decision in 3CCV-231-0000178 . <br /> 17 <br />