Laserfiche WebLink
The Planning Director's decision violated HRS §205A-26(2)(C), which <br /> commands: "No development shall be approved unless the authority has first found <br /> that the development is consistent with the ...county zoning;" (emphasis added) <br /> In granting an exemption under HRS §205A-22(2)(A) and (0), the <br /> Planning Director violated HRS §46-4(a). ("... In no event shall the amortization or <br /> phasing out of nonconforming uses apply to any existing building or premises used <br /> for residential (single-family or duplex) or agricultural uses;provided that uses <br /> that include the furnishing or offering of transient accommodations shall <br /> not be considered residential or agricultural uses and may be phased out or <br /> amortized in any zoning district by county zoning regulations;") (emphasis added in <br /> bold and italics) <br /> HRS §46-4 County zoning does not distinguish between hosted and non- <br /> hosted transient accommodation land use. "For purposes of this subsection, <br /> "transient accommodations" has the same meaning as defined in section <br /> 237D-1. "Transient accommodations" includes uses that require the payment of <br /> transient accommodations taxes. HRS §46-4(a). The building and premises used <br /> for transient accommodations at 14 Oeoe St. is a wrongfully certified nonconforming <br /> use, no family lives there, and the owner does not regulate that only a family can <br /> rent the premises. <br /> II. HOW THE DECISION APPEALED FROM IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS <br /> The Planning Director's decision to grant an exemption under HRS §205A-22(2) <br /> (F), is clearly erroneous because the additions proposed by PL-SAA-2025-000280 <br /> 5 <br />