My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2026-6-26 APPELLANTS OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED ORDER_v1.pdf
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Board of Appeals
>
Pending Petitions for Next Hearing Date
>
zCases for Past Hearings
>
PL-BOA-2025-000119 Rohr (PD)
>
2026-6-26 APPELLANTS OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED ORDER_v1.pdf
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/6/2026 7:30:46 AM
Creation date
7/6/2026 7:28:28 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
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
Procedural Injury: A plaintiff suffers an <br />independent injury -in -fact when an <br />agency denies them a legally mandated <br />procedural right, provided that the <br />procedure protects their concrete <br />interests. <br />[Appellant's Draft Memorandum in <br />Opposition, page 1.] <br />24. Standing exists to protect specific <br />Rohr objects to Conclusion of Law #24 <br />personal stakes, not to provide a forum for <br />because it will confuse the Board. <br />neighborhood -wide grievances. See Life of <br />PROTECT AND PRESERVE KAHOMA <br />the Land v. Land Use Comm'n of State of <br />AHUPUAA ASSOCIATION V. MAUI <br />Hawaii, 63 Haw. 166, 172, 623 P.2d 431, <br />PLANNING COMMISSION, 489 P.3d <br />438 (1981) ("[T]he crucial inquiry in <br />408, Haw, Supreme Court (2021) is on <br />[determining standing] is whether the <br />point: <br />plaintiff has alleged such a personal stake in <br />the outcome of the controversy' as to <br />The Supreme court confirmed: <br />warrant his invocation of ... (the court's) <br />jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the <br />"The ICA held that the Commission <br />court's remedial powers on his behalf") <br />restrictively interpreted MPC § 12-201- <br />(citation and internal punctuation omitted). <br />41(b)'s standing requirements because <br />environmental plaintiffs need not assert an <br />injury different in kind from an injury to the <br />public to establish standing." <br />The ICA had ruled below: <br />Accordingly, even under our less rigorous <br />standing requirements in environmental <br />cases, although a plaintiffs injury or <br />threatened injury need not be different in <br />kind from an injury to the public generally, <br />a plaintiff still must demonstrate that he has <br />suffered an injury -in -fact. See id.; see also <br />Akau v. Olohana Corn., 65 Haw. 383, 388- <br />390, 652 P.2d 1130, 1134-1135 (1982) <br />(holding "that a member of the public has <br />standing to sue to enforce the rights of the <br />public even though his injury is not <br />different in kind from the public's <br />generally, if he can show that he has <br />suffered an injury in fact," or "some injury <br />to a recognized interest such as economic or <br />aesthetic, and is himself among the injured <br />17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.