2026-5-15 Appellant's draft Memorandum in Opposition to Motions to Dismiss_v1.pdf

Home

20. March 10, 2026 Chair Lewis issued ORDER GRANTING RECONSIDERATION, ALLOWING AMENDED PETITION, FOR CONTINUANCE AND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER, resetting the hearing for May 15, 2026 to provide time for supplemental briefing on the Amended Petition by May 4, 2026.. 21. The Landowner, Mr. Standke and the County Appellees did not file a Supplemental Prehearing Brief by May 4, 2026 in either case. 22. March 9, Appellant Rohr made a motion to Consolidate cases BOA-2025-000119 and 121 for hearing, which was denied by Order of Chair Lewis the same day. 23. March 12, 2026 Chair Lewis issued a continuance of the March 13, 2026 Hearing to May 15, 2026 so both cases BOA-2025-000119 and 121 could be heard by the Board on the same day 24. April 22, 2026, Board staff emailed the May 15, 2026 Agenda to Rohr, and on April 23, 2026, Appellant Rohr timely mailed her Notice to Surrounding neighbors; and on April 24 Rohr submitted proof of mailing by email to the Board and all parties. 25. The Landowner, Mr. Standke sent an April 28, 2026 email to the Board summarizing his Standing argument, but did not serve it on the other parties. 26. May 5, 2026, Board Staff forwarded Mr. Standke's informal email Standing argument and filed it in the Board packet as "2026-4-28 Legal Brief from Landowner Richard R. Standke." 27. May 8, 2026, Appellee Planning Director's counsel emailed her Motion to Dismiss and Amended Motion to Dismiss for lack of standing, based on BOA Rules 3-12(a) and 8-2 to the Board and other parties. 28. The Chair was silent. 29. May 11, 2026, Appellee Director of Public Works emailed a [Memorandum in Support ofJ Motion to Dismiss for lack of standing, minus thr BOA Rule it is based on. 30. May 11, 2026 Appellant Rohr emailed Chair a letter and Amended Letter, which read: For some reason the Appellees or their counsels in case Nos. PL-BOA- 2025 000191 and 121 want you to continue the hearings scheduled for Friday by their actions. Since I prefer communication in writing, because of my hearing disability, I do not object to you continuing the hearings in Cases Nos. PL-BOA-2025-000191 and 121 to the July meeting in Hilo so I have a meaningful opportunity to respond to the Appellees' motion papers. 31. May 12, 2026, Corp. Counsel Jean Campbell and Corp. Counsel Sinclair SalasFurguson, counsels for County Appellees in case Nos. PL-BOA-2025 000191 and 121, responded to Rohr's May 11, 2026 Letter and vigorously objected to a continuance; and Chair Lewis responded by email through Sylvia Wan, which read: 5