Laserfiche WebLink
comprised of not more than five persons not related by blood, <br /> marriage or by adoption. (emphasis added). <br /> The Standkes rent out their 14 Oeoe Street "beach house" to groups of <br /> 12 individuals using their own website and an independent, AI driven, <br /> online registration platform which does not require or verify that the <br /> group reservation is for a single family. <br /> The Standkes' business model violates the zoning code, Sections 25- <br /> 1-5 and 25-4-16.2 Prima facie evidence; short-term vacation rentals: <br /> Advertising of any sort that offers a property as a short-term <br /> vacation rental shall constitute prima facie evidence that a <br /> short-term vacation rental is operating on that property. The <br /> burden of proof shall be on the owner or operator to <br /> establish either that the property is not being used as a short- <br /> term vacation rental or that it is being used for such purpose <br /> legally.(emphasis added) <br /> 6. The Standkes have the burden of proof that the dwelling unit at 14 Oeoe <br /> Street has only been rented to one single family at a time and must <br /> explain how the use of a nook off of the foyer for a single bed and use of 2 <br /> hideaway queen sofa beds in the living room as additional sleeping areas <br /> complies with their nonconforming use certificate's limitation of the use of <br /> 4 bedrooms as sleeping areas. <br /> 7. By allowing the construction project to proceed without any effort to <br /> enforce the County's short-term vacation rental law, the Planning <br /> Director violated zoning code Section 25-2-35, Section 25-4-16.3, and <br /> Planning Department Rule 23-16(a): <br /> STVRs in violation of HCC Chapter 25, any rule adopted <br /> thereunder, or any permit or variance issued pursuant thereto, <br /> shall be subject to enforcement pursuant to HCC Section 25-2- <br /> 35. <br /> 8. The Planning Director violated HRS §205A-26(2)(C), which commands: <br /> No development shall be approved unless the authority has first found <br /> that the development is consistent with the county zoning..." (emphasis <br /> added) The Planning Director has turned a blind eye to the fact that the <br /> Standke's operation violates the zoning code. <br /> 9. In granting an exemption under HRS §205A-22(2)(A), (F), and (0), the <br /> Planning Director violated HRS 46-4(a). ("... In no event shall the <br /> 7 <br />