My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2025-07-08 Landowner's Response to Petition
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Board of Appeals
>
Pending Petitions for Next Hearing Date
>
zCases for Past Hearings
>
PL-BOA-2025-000119 Rohr (PD)
>
2025-07-08 Landowner's Response to Petition
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2025 8:33:44 AM
Creation date
7/14/2025 8:15:15 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
Argument 2 <br /> This argument focuses on parking. She correctly mentions my house has 4 permitted <br /> parking spots. For a maximum capacity of 12 guests (almost never booked that full) I have <br /> never seen more than 2 cars parked at the house. She includes pictures of traffic to imply a <br /> traffic problem caused by my homes. These pictures are of beach parks visitor parking in <br /> front of my homes while visiting the beach, not my guests. She continues to argue that the <br /> Board has discretion to stop my permit. This time she cites County of Hawaii Planning <br /> Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure Rule 9-10 entitled "Assessments." <br /> Here, Rohr plucks out a sentence where Board discretion is used. But this paragraph is <br /> used to determine whether a project requires a minor SMA permit or a major SMA permit. <br /> Prior to the above Rule 9-10 is Rule 9-8. Rule 9-8 states that "No development shall be <br /> allowed within the Special Management Area without obtaining a permit in accordance <br /> with this rule." As stated above, my project is specifically excluded from "development" so <br /> everything after is simply moot. <br /> Arguments 3 and 4 <br /> She argues that certain details of my permit are lacking, but this project is for rear stairs <br /> and a front deck, so driveway details are irrelevant. <br /> Arguments 5-9 <br /> All of these arguments are on the premise that"single family residence"can't house <br /> unrelated people. Because unrelated guests stay in vacation rentals, several rules were <br /> violated. <br /> Again, Rohr misinterprets the definition of"single family residence." The definition <br /> describes the type of structure, not the daily use of the structure. The reason for the <br /> definition is to separate a type of structure from a multi-family structure or a commercial <br /> structure. Your child's birthday sleepover doesn't violate a law any more than vacation <br /> rentals. <br /> The paragraphs below the"arguments" are general anti-vacation rental ranting and don't <br /> deserve a response. <br /> Best regards, <br /> Richard Standke <br /> Owner <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.