The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2025-11-07 Appellants Prehearing Brief (PL-BOA-2025-000119) Claudia Rohr 369 Nene St. Hilo, HI 96720 (808)640-5976 crohr4@gmail.com Appellant, pro se BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII CLAUDIA ROHR, No. PL-BOA-2025-000119 Appellant, APPELLANT'S PREHEARING vs. BRIEF; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE JEFFREY DARROW, PLANNING DIRECTOR; RICHARD STANDKE; DEBORAH STANDKE, Appellees APPELLANT'S PREHEARING BRIEF The Appellant CLAUDIA ROHR, ("Rohr") submits her Prehearing Brief for the hearing set for November 14, 2025. The Planning Director, Jeffrey Darrow's decision appealed found that the Standke's building project qualified as an exempt action under the Planning Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 9, (A.K.A. "the SMA Rules of the County of Hawaii"), and HRS §205A-22(2). Specifically, the Director found: 1 1. Under Planning Commission Rule 9-4(i)(2), the term "development" does not include: (A) Construction or reconstruction of a single-family residence less than 7,500 square feet in floor area, not situated on a shoreline parcel or one affected by waves, storm surges, high tide, or shoreline erosion, and not part of a larger development. (F) Repair, maintenance, or interior alterations to existing structures or uses. (0) Structural and non-structural improvements to existing single-family residences, where otherwise permissible. 2. Similarly, under HRS §205A-22(2), "development" does not include: (A) Construction or reconstruction of a single-family residence less than 7,500 square feet, not located on a shoreline parcel or one impacted by coastal hazards, and not part of a larger development. (F) Repair, maintenance, or interior alterations to existing structures. (N) Structural and non-structural improvements to existing single- family residences, where otherwise permissible. See the Planning Director's decision letter, Exhibit A to Appellant's Amended Petition, or Appellant Exhibit 6. The Appellant's Prehearing Brief will discuss (1) how the decision appealed from violates the law; (2) how the decision appealed from is clearly erroneous; (3) how the decision appealed from was arbitrary and characterized by an abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion; and (4) how the proposed expansion of the capacity to hold social gatherings at the transient accommodation rental at 14 Oeoe St. will have cumulative impact and cause substantial secondary effects on the surrounding neighborhood, no exemption is available, and the 2 building project requires a SMA Permit procedure in front of the Planning Commission. I. HOW THE DECISION APPEALED FROM VIOLATES THE LAW Under Planning Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure ("PC Rules"), Rule 9 is the SMA Rules of Hawaii County. PC Rule 9-4(u), definitions states in relevant part: "Single-Family Residence" means a detached building designed for and/or used as the complete facility for cooking, sleeping and living area of a single family only and occupied by no more than one family. Single family residences may include uses or structures normally considered accessory to the single family facilities provided that any such uses or structures are situated on the same lot or building site and are in compliance with all requirements of any county or state regulation, statute, or ordinance. A single family shall include all persons living in a dwelling related by blood, marriage or by adoption or a group comprised of not more than five persons not related by blood, marriage or by adoption. (emphasis added). [PC Rule 9, Appellant Exhibit 18, pg. 5 of 8.] The Landowners, Richard and Deborah Standke, advertise and rent out the Lilikoi House at 14 Oeoe Street, TMK 3-2-1-18-13, (STVR-19-359757), as a transient accommodation for less than thirty days, Fact: The Standkes rent out their 14 Oeoe Street "beach house" to groups of 12 individuals using their own website and an independent, AI driven, online registration platform which does not require or verify that the group reservation is for a single family. https://hilovacationhomes.com. See, Appellant Exhibit 10, verifying a reservation Appellant made for a reunion for twelve of her husband's 3 (obviously unrelated) fraternity brothers, where there is no disclosure of the requirement that reservations must be for a "single family" and no questions regarding the relationship of the guests. The Standkes simply cannot prove that the maximum number of guests temporarily residing within the Lilikoi House at any one time has been consistent with the definition of"Family" under HCC Chapter 25 and that they are, and have been, operating this STVR legally. The Standkes' business model violates the Zoning Code, Sections 25-1-5 and 25-4-16.2 Prima facie evidence; short-term vacation rentals: Advertising of any sort that offers a property as a short-term vacation rental shall constitute prima facie evidence that a short-term vacation rental is operating on that property. The burden of proof shall be on the owner or operator to establish either that the property is not being used as a short- term vacation rental or that it is being used for such purpose legally. (emphasis added) Under the Zoning Code, the Standkes have the burden of proof that the dwelling unit at 14 Oeoe Street has only been rented to one single family at a time in a manner compliant with their assurances associated with their Nonconforming Use Certificate. Under the Zoning Code, the Standkes have the burden to explain how the use of a nook off the foyer for a single bed and use of the living room with 2 hideaway queen sofa beds as additional sleeping areas complies with their nonconforming use certificate's limitation of the use of 4 bedrooms as sleeping areas. See, highlighted portions of Appellant Exhibit 9. 4 The Planning Director's decision violated HRS §205A-26(2)(C), which commands: "No development shall be approved unless the authority has first found that the development is consistent with the ...county zoning;" (emphasis added) In granting an exemption under HRS §205A-22(2)(A) and (0), the Planning Director violated HRS §46-4(a). ("... In no event shall the amortization or phasing out of nonconforming uses apply to any existing building or premises used for residential (single-family or duplex) or agricultural uses;provided that uses that include the furnishing or offering of transient accommodations shall not be considered residential or agricultural uses and may be phased out or amortized in any zoning district by county zoning regulations;") (emphasis added in bold and italics) HRS §46-4 County zoning does not distinguish between hosted and non- hosted transient accommodation land use. "For purposes of this subsection, "transient accommodations" has the same meaning as defined in section 237D-1. "Transient accommodations" includes uses that require the payment of transient accommodations taxes. HRS §46-4(a). The building and premises used for transient accommodations at 14 Oeoe St. is a wrongfully certified nonconforming use, no family lives there, and the owner does not regulate that only a family can rent the premises. II. HOW THE DECISION APPEALED FROM IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS The Planning Director's decision to grant an exemption under HRS §205A-22(2) (F), is clearly erroneous because the additions proposed by PL-SAA-2025-000280 5 are not "repair, maintenance, or interior alterations" and they are additions to the footprint of the building envelop under roof and "new" -- a concrete lanai, a second- story covered deck, and the foundation for a staircase/closet. The Planning Director's decision is clearly erroneous because PC Rule 9 and Chapter 205A must now be read in pari materia with Act 17 (May 3, 2024). The transient accommodation use at 14 Oeoe St. is neither a residential use under state law, §46-4(a) (2024), nor an existing "single-family residence" under Planning Commission Rule 9-4(u), definitions. III. HOW THE DECISION APPEALED FROM WAS ARBITRARY AND CHARACTERIZED BY AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION OR CLEARLY UNWARRANTED EXERCISE OF DISCRETION. The Planning Director's decision appealed from was arbitrary and characterized by an abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion because SMA use permit assessment application No. PL-SAA-2025-000280 is incomplete. None of the additional information required by PC Rule 9-10 Assessments and the form the Planning Department uses, such as a site plan showing the off-street parking, was included. See, Appellant Exhibit 4, pg. 3, #1: "description of the proposed development in sufficient detail to convey the full extent of the improvement proposed to and upon the land. For example, in the construction of a structure, specify the amount of land area to be graded and leveled to accommodate the proposed structure, parking area and other related facilities. IV. HOW THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE CAPACITY TO HOLD SOCIAL GATHERINGS AT THE TRANSIENT ACCOMMODATION 6 RENTAL AT 14 OEOE ST. WILL HAVE CUMULATIVE IMPACT AND CAUSE SECONDARY EFFECTS ON THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AND REQUIRES A SMA PERMIT PROCEDURE IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. The transient accommodation use at the premises at 14 Oeoe St., TMK(3)2-1-0 18- 013, generates on-street parking and vehicles backing out onto Oeoe St. that create tsunami evacuation congestion, diminished fire protection and access to emergency services to my neighbors and my homes, and diminishes the long-standing bikeability and walkability character of the neighborhood since 2018. The guests staying at this location often arrive in large groups that drive in separate cars. Adding a total of 444-SF of cover lanai and an enclosed stairway to make it easier to run up and down, will expand the capacity to hold gatherings and parties on premises already illegally used as a four-bedroom short-term vacation rental. The additional development will draw even more on-street parking and increase the number of vehicles stacked in the driveway and backing out onto Oeoe St., which may have a substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect, taking into account potential cumulative and secondary effects under HRS §205A-22 and the definition of"Special management area use permit." A SMA use permit is required not only for the project exempted under No. PL- SAA-2025-000280, but for the 2025 NUC renewal application. Under the standard of review outlined in Planning Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 9- 10 Assessment, part (h), Criteria of Significant Adverse Effect, a "Special Management Area Use Permit" approved by the Planning Commission is required for the proposed development at 14 Oeoe St., under Nos.: (2) curtails the range of beneficial uses of the environment; (3) conflicts with the long-term environmental policies or goals of the General Plan or the State Plan; (4) significantly affects the economic or social welfare and activities of the community, County or State; 7 (10) is contrary to the objectives and policies of the Coastal Zone Management Program and the Special Management Area Guidelines of Chapter 205A, HRS. "Special Management Area Use Permit" means an action by the authority authorizing development ...which may have a substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect, taking into account potential cumulative effects." §205A-22 Definitions. "Special management area use permit" procedures under Planning Commission Rule 9-4(u) definitions and Rule 9-11 are required as a matter of law. Dated: Hilo, Hawaii, November 7, 2025. Respectfully submitted, RcriLv- CLAUDIA ROHR, Plaintiff Pro Se 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing document was served upon the following parties shown below, via electronic mail service on July 11, 2025, or soon thereafter. 1. Planning Director Jeffrey Darrow Jeff.Darrow@hawaiicounty.gov 2. JEAN CAMPBELL, jeank.campbellghawaiicounty.gov Deputy Corporation Counsel Attorney for the Planning Director 3. SYLVIA WAN, SylviaA.Wanghawaiicounty.gov Deputy Corporation Counsel For the Board of Appeals 4. Board of Appeals boardofappealsghawaiicounty.gov 5. RICHARD AND DEBORAH STANDKE richard.standkeggmail.com DATED: Hilo, Hawaii,November 7, 2025. 041/44:. gvei CLAUDIA ROHR, Plaintiff Pro Se 9