Laserfiche WebLink
Specifically, the Director erroneously overlooked the following facts: <br /> (1) The building and/or the premises used for transient <br /> accommodations at 14 Oeoe St. is neither a residential use under <br /> state law, §46-4(a) (2024), nor an existing "single-family residence" <br /> under Planning Commission Rule 9-4(u), definitions: <br /> Single-Family Residence" means a detached building <br /> designed for and/or used as the complete facility for <br /> cooking, sleeping and living area of a single family only <br /> and occupied by no more than one family. Single family <br /> residences may include uses or structures normally <br /> considered accessory to the single family facilities provided <br /> that any such uses or structures are situated on the same <br /> lot or building site and are in compliance with all <br /> requirements of any county or state regulation, statute, or <br /> ordinance. A single family shall include all persons living <br /> in a dwelling related by blood, marriage or by adoption or <br /> a group comprised of not more than five persons not related <br /> by blood, marriage or by adoption. (emphasis added). <br /> (2) The additions proposed by PL-SAA-2025-000280 are not "repair, <br /> maintenance, or interior alterations" because they are additions to <br /> the footprint of the structure and "new." <br /> (4) A statement explaining: <br /> (C) How the decision appealed from was arbitrary and characterized <br /> by an abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of <br /> discretion: <br /> The Planning Director's decision appealed from was arbitrary and <br /> characterized by an abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion <br /> because the decision arbitrarily ignored the Special Management Area policy for <br /> managing development: HRS §205A-2(c)(7)(A): "Use, implement, and enforce <br /> existing law effectively to the maximum extent possible in managing present and <br /> future coastal zone development." <br /> The Planning Director's decision was an unwarranted exercise of discretion <br /> because it failed to address and enforce the Landowners' violations of the zoning <br /> code and other State laws at the SMA review stage. <br /> 10 <br />