My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2026-5-15 Appellant's draft Memorandum in Opposition to Motions to Dismiss_v1.pdf
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Board of Appeals
>
Pending Petitions for Next Hearing Date
>
zCases for Past Hearings
>
PL-BOA-2025-000119 Rohr (PD)
>
2026-5-15 Appellant's draft Memorandum in Opposition to Motions to Dismiss_v1.pdf
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/19/2026 4:10:23 PM
Creation date
6/19/2026 3:58:31 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLANNING DIRECTOR'S <br />MOTION TO DISMISS <br />Case Nos. PL-BOA-2025-000119 and 121 <br />This memorandum is based on Rule 3-2(d) of the Board of Appeals Rules of Practice <br />and Procedure, and the law on Standing in environmental law in Hawaii. <br />This case is an appeal of the Planning Director's decision to issue a SMA exemption <br />for a building project that proposes to impermissibly expand a nonconforming use — <br />a unhosted Short-term vacation Rental —in a low -density residential zoned <br />neighborhood in violation of the Zoning Code, Section 25-4-61 Continuance of <br />nonconforming uses of land and buildings and HRS section 205A-26(2)(C). <br />The CZMA, coded as Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is an environmental <br />law. See, HRS §205A-21 Findings and purposes. <br />The Hawaii County Zoning Code, Chapter 25, is an environmental law. See, Section <br />25-1-2 Scope, purposes and applicability. <br />1. Injury -in -Fact Test (Individual Standing) <br />The Supreme Court of Hawai'i relies on a three-part test to determine injury -in -fact <br />standing, heavily informed by Sierra Club v. Department of Transportation, 167 P.3d <br />292, (2007). To establish individual standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate three <br />strict elements: <br />• Actual or Threatened Injury: The plaintiff must suffer a distinct, <br />palpable, and concrete injury. Abstract, hypothetical, or generalized <br />grievances do not qualify. <br />• Traceability: The injury must be fairly traceable to the defendant's <br />challenged actions or statutory non-compliance. <br />• Redressability: The injury must be likely to be remedied, cured, or <br />undone by the favorable court ruling requested. <br />In Sierra Club, the court integrated specific expansions for environmental and public - <br />interest litigation: <br />• Geographic Nexus: Plaintiffs establish a concrete injury if they <br />use and enjoy an area (e.g., a harbor or coastline) and show a <br />reasonable threat of environmental harm from the project. <br />• Procedural Injury: A plaintiff suffers an independent injury -in - <br />fact when an agency denies them a legally mandated procedural <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.