My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2026-01-02 Appellants 2nd Amended Petition (PL-BOA-2025-000119)
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Board of Appeals
>
Pending Petitions for Next Hearing Date
>
zCases for Past Hearings
>
PL-BOA-2025-000119 Rohr (PD)
>
2026-01-02 Appellants 2nd Amended Petition (PL-BOA-2025-000119)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/6/2026 11:52:58 AM
Creation date
1/6/2026 11:52:40 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
The laws and rules that were violated are emphasized in bold and <br /> underlined: <br /> 1. By failing to address and enforce the Landowners' violations of the zoning <br /> code and other State laws at the SMA review stage, the Planning Director <br /> violated the Special Management Area policy for managing development: <br /> HRS §205A-2(c)(7)(A): "Use, implement, and enforce existing law effectively <br /> to the maximum extent possible in managing present and future coastal zone <br /> development." For example: <br /> a. There is no parking layout that shows individually accessible <br /> parking spaces reached from a driveway of proper design and <br /> width to allow for passage of vehicles and necessary turning <br /> movements, in violation of the parking standards for STVRs, <br /> Zoning code, Sections 25-4-16(c)(2)(C), (c)(5), and Section <br /> 25-4-54. <br /> b. The Planning Director erred by treating the subject property as <br /> a single-family residence. There was an amendment to HRS <br /> §46-4(a) that the Planning Director has failed to consider in his <br /> SMA assessment. In granting a SMA exemption under <br /> Planning Commission Rule 9-4(i)(2)(A), and HRS §205A- <br /> 22(2)(A), where the term ""development" does not include: <br /> "Construction or reconstruction of a single-family residence ...", <br /> the Planning Director violated HRS §46-4(a): "...uses that <br /> include the furnishing or offering of transient accommodations <br /> shall not be considered residential or agricultural uses..." <br /> (emphasis added in bold and italics) <br /> c. Similarly, in granting a SMA exemption under Planning <br /> Commission Rule 9-4(i)(2)(0), and HRS §205A-22(2)(N), where <br /> the term "development" does not include: "Structural and non- <br /> structural improvements to existing single-family residences, <br /> where otherwise permissible", the Planning Director violated <br /> HRS §46-4(a): "...uses that include the furnishing or offering <br /> of transient accommodations shall not be considered residential <br /> or agricultural uses..." (emphasis added in bold and italics) <br /> 2. By violating the Special Management Area policy for managing development, <br /> the Planning Director violated the Special management area guidelines: <br /> HRS §205A-26(2): <br /> 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.