2026-6-26 APPELLANTS OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED ORDER_v1.pdf

Home

The Proposed Order Erred By Ignoring Geographic Proximity: Appellant is a neighbor/property owner located within 210-feet of the subject property. Under Hawaii law, close proximity to a challenged land -use action creates a personal, distinct stake in the outcome, distinguishing Appellant's injury from that of the general public. The Proposed Order is Prejudicial and Violates BOA Rule 2-2(b)(1): The Planning Director's Proposed Order ignored Rohr's specific pleadings of facts regarding standing, and instead made up and mischaracterized facts she claimed were Rohr's pleadings on Ultimate facts on standing. For example, Fact #1 6 falsely misrepresents: "finding that the home improvement construction project, composed primarily of the construction of an internal staircase and the addition of an external lanai, proposed by Landowner..." The building plans attached to the SMA assessment Application and Rohr's pleadings makes Fact #16 an outright lie. Fact #29 and #30 cite to "injuries related to neighborhood traffic congestion" when a word search of the Second Amended Complaint finds not a single reference to "traffic congestion." The word "traffic" is used once in a footnote on page 7, referring to avoiding traffic on Kalanianaole St. The Proposed Order Creates a False Narrative and Violates BOA Rule 2-2(b)(1): The Proposed Order creates a false narrative, step by step, that Rohr's case is frivolous and Rohr alone has been the cause of the delay of the contested case hearings. As a minor fact regarding the continuation of the January 9, 2026 hearing, Fact #6 falsely states: "On December 29, 2025, the BOA staff reminded the Appellant of the need to send and file proof of the BOA Rule 8-11(d) required notice to surrounding property owners." But see the email --there is nothing but a link to an agenda and not more, [Exhibit B.] Furthermore, the Director's proposed order builds a false narrative that the Chair was justified in her decision 3