Laserfiche WebLink
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION <br /> Interest in Subject Property: <br /> Appellant-Petitioner ("Rohr") has visited the Old Papaikou Mill <br /> shoreline area and beach to pursue her recreational interests in ocean <br /> sports, photography, hiking, picnicking, and quiet enjoyment of the <br /> scenic and natural beauty since 2003. Rohr has continuing <br /> recreational, environmental, and aesthetic interests, including <br /> conservation, protection and enhancement of natural resources of the <br /> beach and marine waters, under article XI, section 9 of the Hawaii <br /> Constitution as it applies to HRS Chapter 205A and the Zoning Code, <br /> HCC Chapter 25. Rohr's recreational, environmental, and aesthetic <br /> interests have been injured by the Director's issuance of a SMA minor <br /> permit for a single-use of the property and an adjacent state-owned <br /> beach for film industry activities without giving full consideration and <br /> implementation of the SMA objectives, policies and guidelines; and <br /> Planning Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 9. <br /> b. Statement of the nature of Appeal, and the Relief Requested. Include <br /> Director's decision and decision date: <br /> By issuing SMA minor permit No. PL-SMM-2026-000085, dated March <br /> 25, 2026, instead of requiring that the Landowner process a concurrent <br /> application for a SMA major permit and a Special Permit for use of <br /> Agricultural zoned land for film industry activities to be approved by <br /> the Windward Planning Commission, the Planning Director violated <br /> constitutional and statutory provisions, exceeded his jurisdiction, and <br /> abused his discretion. <br /> Relief Requested: reverse the decision; or remand the decision with <br /> appropriate instructions, based upon the preponderance of evidence <br /> that the Director's decision is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, <br /> probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; the decision <br /> violated the Code or other applicable law; and the decision was <br /> arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion or <br /> clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. <br /> C. Statement of how the Director's decision violates the law; or is clearly <br /> erroneous; or is arbitrary or capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion or <br /> clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion: <br /> i. How the decision appealed from violates the law; or <br /> 2 <br />