2025-10-22 Appellants Exhibit 19_Letter to PC

Home

rental is operating on that property. The burden of proof shall be on the owner or operator to establish either that the property is not being used as a short-term vacation rental or that it is being used for such purpose legally. (emphasis added) I have the right to a contested case on a proposed SMA use permit for the construction in the SMA proposed in PL-SAA-2025-000280, and the proposed 2025 NUCR for a four-bedroom STVR in the SMA, where the burden of proof shall be on the STVR operator to prove that the building and premises will be used for transient accommodations legally. A contested case is a proceeding in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after an opportunity for agency hearing, under HRS §91-1, guaranteed in our democratic society by article I, sections 1 and 5 of the Hawaii Constitution, and the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth amendments to the US Constitution. By approving a SMA exemption for the project at 14 Oeoe St., No. PL-SAA- 2025-000280, without requiring the owner/operator of the transient accommodation prove that the property is being used as a short-term vacation rental legally, violates §205A-26(2)(C) which mandates that the authority shall not approve development unless it is consistent with the general plan and zoning. The definition of"development" must be interpreted to embrace Act 17's significant changes as a matter of law and in the spirit of the law. Attachment-6. After May 3, 2024, transient accommodations shall not be considered residential use. HRS §205A-22(2)(A),(F) and (N) and Planning Commission Rule 9-4(i)(2)(A), (F), and (0) exceptions to the definition of"development" do not apply. 8 APPELLANT EXHIBIT 19, pg. 8 of 41