HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-03-03 Dec. Ruling Brandy Camacho TestimonyFrom: Brandy Camacho
To: Steen,Raimee
Cc: Kay.Christian;Danette Martin; Darrow.Jeffrey W.;Ahn.Michelle;Campbell,Jean K; Lactaoen,Kawehilani S;
Lev, Rachelle;Dacavanan,Melissa; Brian Devine; Noah Grodzin
Subject: Re: WPC Item#2 Link to WPC Hearing Materials for Petitioner: Brandy Camacho, Petition for Declaratory Ruling
Regarding Use Permit No. 15-000056 on TMKs: (3)1-5-017:084&1-5-017:118
Date:Tuesday,March 3,2026 11:21:10 AM
Attachments: TESTIMONY OF BRANDY CAMACHO(PETITIONER)-Item#2 Testimony&Exhibits.pdf
Aloha Ms. Steen,
Please find the attached Written Testimony and Master Exhibit Index (Exhibits A-E) for Item
2 of the March 5, 2026, Windward Planning Commission hearing.
I am submitting this comprehensive "Administrative Audit" today to ensure it is included in
the Digital Board Packet for the Commissioners' review prior to Thursday's hearing. This
packet contains critical new evidence, including:
Certified UIPA Admissions (Exhibit D): Official confirmation from the Planning
Department that no written authorization was ever provided for construction to proceed
following the discovery of the permit breach in December 2025.
Safety & Setback Analysis (Exhibit E): Documentation of the catastrophic fall-zone
risk(120-foot radius) and the 500-foot deficit in residential setbacks mandated by
Ordinance 25-55 (Bill 24).
Procedural Bar (Section V): Legal analysis showing that the Applicant's Petition for
Standing is procedurally barred by the repeal of the Use Permit process under current
County Law.
Please confirm receipt of this filing and verify that all exhibits have been successfully
uploaded to the Commission's digital folder for Item 92.
Mahalo for your assistance in ensuring a complete and transparent record for this hearing.
Best regards,
s/Brandy Camacho
Petitioner
On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 3:37 PM Brandy Camacho <wrote:
Aloha Raimee,
Thank you for providing the Board Packet materials for Item 92. Please accept this email as
formal acknowledgment of receipt.
I am writing to provide a Notice of Intent to Supplement Testimony regarding this item. A
preliminary review of the Background Report(Page 5, Point 29) confirms a material fact
that requires additional discovery: the mandatory easement required by Condition 3 was not
recorded until January 30, 2026, which is significantly after the building permit was issued
in May 2025.
Because this "after-the-fact" recordation confirms a material breach of the permit's
mandatory conditions, I have initiated a UIPA Records Request(sent today to Director
Darrow at the corrected address: Jeff.Darrow(i4hawaiicounly.gov)to secure the internal
communications regarding this non-compliance. I reserve the right to submit these records
as a supplemental exhibit for the Commission's review immediately upon receipt.
Please ensure this notice and the corrected service address for the Planning Director are
included in the official record for the March 5, 2026, hearing.
Mahalo,
Brandy Camacho
Petitioner
On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 1:56 PM Steen, Raimee <Raimee.Steen(a4.hawaiicounty gov>
wrote:
Good afternoon, Brandy Camacho,
Please use this link to access all the Board Packet materials for Item #2 of the a cpoming
March 5. 2026_ WPC Hearing via the County's Laserfiche Public Documents Repository.
Currently available for your review is:
Item #2 Petitioner: Brandy Camacho,Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regarding
Use Permit No. 15-000056
o Planning Department Background Report
Due to the large file size, it may take some time for the document to load.
Additional documents (i.e., Background & Recommendation reports for other items,
public testimonies, etc.) received for this hearing will be uploaded to the Board
Packet folder. You will be notified via email as any additional materials for this
agenda item become available.
Please note: No hard copy will follow.
Should you have any questions regarding Item 92 please contact Planner Christian Kay
cc'd herein) at 808-961-8136.
via LISPS: Hawaii Pacific District Church of the Nazarene)
Thank you.
Raimee Steen
Clerk II 1 Planning Division
County of Hawaii Planning Department
101 Pauahi Street,Suite 3 1 Hilo, HI 96720
Direct: (808)-961-8038 1 Main: (808)-961-8288
raimee.steennhawaiicoun ov
TESTIMONY OF BRANDY CAMACHO (PETITIONER)
REGARDING: ITEM #2 - PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING (USE PERMIT NO.
15-000056)
HEARING DATE: MARCH 5, 2026
Per my Notice of Intent to Supplement filed February 19th, this testimony provides the internal
agency records and legal analysis regarding the Void Ab Initio status of Use Permit 15-000056.
I. Opening: The Fallacy of Grandfathering
Grandfathering is not a "get out of jail free" card for active permit violations. Because the
Applicant breached Condition 3 of their original 2015 permit, failing to record a mandatory
easement "for the life of the facility" prior to the issuance of a building permit; the project was
Void Ab Initio (invalid from the start).
The Applicant operated in a state of material breach for 251 days. If the foundation of the permit
is void, the project is no longer "grandfathered" and must undergo a Safety Reset to comply
with the modern 600-foot school/residential setbacks mandated by Bill 24 (Ordinance 25-55).
II. Table of Administrative Failures (The "System Audit")
Date Event / Action Administrative
Status
Legal Consequence
May
2025
Building Permit
Issued
Dependency
Failure
Issued without the mandatory recorded
easement required by Condition 3.
Dec 3,
2025
Director Made
Aware of Breach
Actual Notice Planning Director acknowledges in writing
that Condition 3 was not satisfied.
Dec 4,
2025
Applicant Inquiry System Silence Applicant asks for "OK" to proceed; County
provides zero written authorization.
Feb 26,
2026
Standing Petition
Filed
Strategic Delay Horizon attempts to trigger a Contested
Case Hearing (CCH) prohibited by HRS §
46-89 and Bill 24.
Feb 27,
2026
UIPA Certification Official Admission The County admits it never sent a formal
notice of breach or authorization to proceed.
Feb 14 -
Mar 2,
2026
"Race to Finish" Site Violation The contractor continues heavy excavation
and jackhammering to outrun this
Commission's oversight.
III. The "Race to Completion" and Bad Faith
February 14, 2026 observation of active drilling for structural poles commenced.
On the morning of February 27, 2026, the same day the County certified they had no record of
authorizing work after the December breach, the Applicant launched a physical surge on-site.
This heavy excavation and jackhammering, occurring merely 80–100 feet from my children’s
bedroom window, is a bad-faith attempt to establish "Vested Rights" through Tactical Site
Alteration before this Commission can rule. Expenditures made with full knowledge of a legal
challenge and a total lack of agency authorization are "at-risk" investments, not a shield against
the law.
IV. Critical Safety Risk: The Fall Zone Deficit
The tower is positioned only approximately 30 feet from my property line and 80–100 feet from
my home. A 150-foot tower has a structural fall radius that would encroach over 50 feet into my
home’s interior in a collapse, with 120 feet of the total fall radius covering my private property.
Under Ordinance 25-55, Section 7(d), the mandatory setback is 120% of tower height (180
feet) and 600 feet from any residence or school. A structural failure would encroach 50 feet
into my home. The Applicant's 251-day breach has forfeited any claim to 2015-era
"discretionary" setbacks.
V. Opposition to Standing: Legally Preempted Process
The Petition for Standing filed by Horizon Tower III is procedurally barred. Ordinance 25-55
repealed the Use Permit requirement for towers to comply with the 60-day "shot clock" in HRS §
46-89. The Commission cannot grant a process that state and county law have officially
deprecated to delay a ruling on a void permit.
VI. Evidence of Admission: The "After-the-Fact" Filing
On January 30, 2026, the Applicant recorded an easement. This filing, occurring only after
court hearings and this Petition, is a functional admission of the prior 251-day breach. A
condition precedent cannot be "patched" after the fact to revive a void permit.
VII. Conclusion and Requested Action
The County of Hawai'i has now admitted in writing (UIPA Response, Feb 27, 2026) that despite
the discovery of the breach on December 3, 2025, no formal letter was ever produced and no
written confirmation was ever provided to the Applicant regarding compliance. This silence
constitutes a de facto unauthorized waiver of a Commission-mandated condition. I respectfully
request that the Commission:
1. Declare Use Permit 15-000056 Void for failure to satisfy a condition precedent.
2. Deny Horizon's Petition for Standing as it is legally preempted and procedurally
barred.
3. Issue an Immediate Stay on all construction activity to protect public safety and
household property rights.
Submitted 3rd day of March, 2026.
/s/ Brandy Camacho
Petitioner
MASTER EXHIBIT INDEX
Petitioner: Brandy Camacho
Item #2: Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Use Permit No. 15-000056)
Exhibit Title Description / Key Fact
A Use Permit No.
15-000056
Original 2015 authorization establishing the mandatory
"Condition Precedent" (Condition 3) for easement
recordation.
B Bureau of
Conveyances
Recordation
Certified record of the Jan 30, 2026 easement filing,
documenting the 251-day material breach of Condition
3.
C Site Surge Photo/Drone
Logs
Photographic evidence of active drilling (Feb 14) and
heavy excavation (Feb 27–Mar 2) within the household
fall zone.
D Certified UIPA
Response (Feb 27)
Official County certification confirming a total lack of
written authorization for construction following the
discovered breach.
E Ordinance 25-55 (Bill
24)
Current County Law establishing the 600-foot
residential setback and the 120% tower height fall
zone standard.
EXHIBIT A: THE ORIGINAL MANDATE
Document: Use Permit No. 15-000056
Key Evidence: * Condition 3: Explicitly requires the recordation of a perpetual access
easement prior to the issuance of any building permit.
● Purpose: This exhibit establishes the "Condition Precedent" that the Applicant failed to
satisfy, rendering all subsequent permits Void Ab Initio.
Source: Page 122 - PD Background Report (Petitioner Brandy Camacho - Petition for a
Declaratory Ruling).pdf
EXHIBIT B: DOCUMENTATION OF BREACH
Document: Bureau of Conveyances Recorded Instrument (Recorded Jan 30, 2026)
Key Evidence:
● Date of Compliance: January 30, 2026.
● The Gap: The Building Permit was issued in May 2025. This document proves a
251-day delay in satisfying a mandatory permit condition.
● Legal Impact: Confirms the Applicant operated in a state of material breach for nearly
nine months.
Source: Page 410 - PD Background Report (Petitioner Brandy Camacho - Petition for a
Declaratory Ruling).pdf
EXHIBIT C: THE "RACE TO COMPLETION" EVIDENCE
Document: Chronological Site Photo/Drone Log (Feb 14, 2026 – March 3, 2026)
Key Evidence:
● Proximity: Visual proof of heavy equipment operating ~80–100 feet from the
Petitioner’s children’s bedroom window.
● Bad Faith: Documentation of an accelerated "surge" in excavation and jackhammering
immediately following legal challenges and the filing for standing.
● Safety Risk: Demonstrates the physical reality of the 120-foot fall radius over the
Petitioner's private property.
Source: Page 400 - PD Background Report (Petitioner Brandy Camacho - Petition for a
Declaratory Ruling).pdf
Feb 14, 2026 - Drilling holes for electric poles
March 1, 2026 - Heavy excavation
March 3, 2026 - Installing a new utility pole
EXHIBIT D: OFFICIAL ADMISSION OF INACTION
Document: Certified UIPA Response (Planning Department, Feb 27, 2026)
Key Evidence:
● Administrative Silence: Formal certification that the Planning Director provided zero
written authorization for the project to proceed after the breach was identified on Dec
3, 2025.
● Non-Enforcement: Admission that no formal notice of breach or stop-work order was
produced despite the confirmed violation.
EXHIBIT E: THE CURRENT SAFETY STANDARD
Document: Ordinance 25-55 (Bill 24, Draft 6) Key Evidence:
● Setback Requirement: Section 7(d) mandates a setback of not less than 600 feet from
any residence or school.
● Fall Zone Standard: Section 7(d) mandates a setback of not less than 120% of the
tower height (180 feet for this 150-foot structure).
● Procedural Change: Section 4 repealed the Use Permit requirement for towers to
comply with HRS § 46-89, thereby removing the Contested Case option.
1. Setback Requirement
Section 7(d) establishes mandatory safety setbacks:
● A minimum 600-foot setback from any residence or school.
● A minimum setback equal to 120% of the tower height measured from ground level.
For a 150-foot tower, this creates a required fall zone setback of 180 feet.
Section 7(d) provides:
“A telecommunication tower shall be set back from every property line by a distance not
less than one hundred and twenty percent of the tower height as measured from the
ground level and not less than six hundred feet from any residence or school.”
2. Repeal of the Use Permit Requirement
(Page 2, Section 4)
Ordinance 25-55 repealed the County Code provision requiring a Use Permit for
telecommunications towers.
The deleted code provision is shown in the ordinance with strike-through brackets:
“[(11) Telecommunication antennas and towers in RS, RD, RM, RCX, RA, FA, A, IA and O
districts.]”
The removal of this provision eliminated the discretionary Use Permit approval process
previously required for tower installations.
Because Contested Case hearings are tied to discretionary permit processes, the repeal
of the Use Permit requirement effectively removed the procedural mechanism that
previously allowed for Contested Case proceedings.
3. Mandatory 60-Day State “Shot Clock”
(Page 5, Section 6)
The ordinance also requires the Planning Director to issue a decision on a
telecommunications tower application within 60 days, consistent with HRS §46-89.
The ordinance states:
“For a telecommunication antenna or tower, the director shall render a decision to either
approve or deny the plan approval application within sixty days… in accordance with
Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes, Chapter 46-89.”
This statutory timeline requires an administrative decision within a fixed timeframe, further
confirming that the discretionary Use Permit process, and its associated Contested Case
procedures, no longer applies to tower approvals under the current ordinance.