2026-04-13 PL-BOA-2026-000132 Petition

Home

county officials would have informed the landowner at the time. There is a presumption that "official duty has been regularly performed." See Rule 304(c)(2), Hawaii Rules of Evidence (rules applied in courts). It is not clear whether the permit question for the pool is based on the absence of a physical permit for the pool in the county's record and/or the absence of the pool in the permit and building plans for the hotel. 2. Increasing Height of Rock Wallin Right-of-Way As stated in footnotes 3 and 4, an existing rock wall was and is located on public land that lies outside of the boundaries for Lots 4, 5 and 6, Land Court Application 1595. Jurisdiction over this strip of land has not yet been determined. The existing rock wall was then about two-feet high. The landowner increased the height of the rock wall to its present height, which hall (as heightened), poses no risk to public safety (to traffic or to flooding). When the county constructed drainage facilities for Waiaha Stream, county officials installed a guard rail along the mauka side of the heightened rock wall. Thus, risks from errant traffic is now minimized by the county's guard rail and the heightened rock wall. The heightened rock wall also diverts water to the south to the county drainage facilities in the same manner as the existing rock wall did, but with greater efficiency. The heightened rock wall also prevents water runoff from Alii Drive from entering into the landowner's property. Recent flooding events demonstrate that the heightened rock wall operated to divert water to the county's drainage facilities on the south and to prevent water from entering into the landowners' property.