HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-04-24 Supplemental Information to Petition PL-BOA-26-
In The
BOARD OF APPEALS
of the COUNTY OF HAWAI'I
CLAUDIA ROHR
Appellant-Petitioner
V.
JEFFREY DARROW, Planning Director
of the County of Hawai'i;
Appellee-Respondent
BRIAN CLARK LIVING TRUST,
Landowner
On Petition for an Appeal
from the Decision of the Planning Director in issuing PL-SMM-2026-000085
PETITION
CLAUDIA ROHR
369 Nene St.
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Phone: (808) 640-5976
crohr4@gmail.com
Appellant-Petitioner pro se
1
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Interest in Subject Property:
Appellant-Petitioner ("Rohr") has visited the Old Papaikou Mill
shoreline area and beach to pursue her recreational interests in ocean
sports, photography, hiking, picnicking, and quiet enjoyment of the
scenic and natural beauty since 2003. Rohr has continuing
recreational, environmental, and aesthetic interests, including
conservation, protection and enhancement of natural resources of the
beach and marine waters, under article XI, section 9 of the Hawaii
Constitution as it applies to HRS Chapter 205A and the Zoning Code,
HCC Chapter 25. Rohr's recreational, environmental, and aesthetic
interests have been injured by the Director's issuance of a SMA minor
permit for a single-use of the property and an adjacent state-owned
beach for film industry activities without giving full consideration and
implementation of the SMA objectives, policies and guidelines; and
Planning Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 9.
b. Statement of the nature of Appeal, and the Relief Requested. Include
Director's decision and decision date:
By issuing SMA minor permit No. PL-SMM-2026-000085, dated March
25, 2026, instead of requiring that the Landowner process a concurrent
application for a SMA major permit and a Special Permit for use of
Agricultural zoned land for film industry activities to be approved by
the Windward Planning Commission, the Planning Director violated
constitutional and statutory provisions, exceeded his jurisdiction, and
abused his discretion.
Relief Requested: reverse the decision; or remand the decision with
appropriate instructions, based upon the preponderance of evidence
that the Director's decision is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable,
probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; the decision
violated the Code or other applicable law; and the decision was
arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion or
clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
C. Statement of how the Director's decision violates the law; or is clearly
erroneous; or is arbitrary or capricious, or characterized by an abuse of discretion or
clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion:
i. How the decision appealed from violates the law; or
2
The Director's decision violated:
1. The public trust doctrine, article XI, section 1 of the Hawaii
Constitution.
2. HRS §205A-2 Coastal zone management program; objectives
and policies.
3. HRS §205A-4 Implementation of objectives, policies, and
guidelines.
4. HRS §205A-26 Special management area guidelines.
5. Zoning Code, including:
Section 25-4-4. Uses prohibited. Any use not listed among
the permitted uses in a zoning district is a prohibited use
within that district, except as otherwise provided in this
chapter.
Section 25-5-72(c) uses that may be permitted in the A
district, provided that a special permit is obtained for such
use,
(14) Uses, other than those specifically listed in this
section, which meet the standards for a special
permit under chapter 205, Hawaii Revised
Statutes.
6. Planning Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule
9, including but not limited to:
*Rule 9-9 Authority of the Department in the Special
Management Area.
*Rule 9-10 Assessment, including:
(b) The information on the SMAA form shall include, but
not be limited to, the following:
(2) plot plan of the property, drawn to scale, with all
proposed and existing structures shown thereon and
any other information necessary to a proper
determination relative to the specific request.
(10) Identification and detailed information of
existing public access to and along the shoreline and
whether the access is being used.
(h) Criteria of Significant Adverse Effect, including:
3
(6) in itself has no significant adverse effect but
cumulatively has considerable adverse effect upon
the environment or involves a commitment for
larger actions;
(9) affects an environmentally sensitive area, such
as flood plain, tsunami zone, erosion -prone area,
geologically hazardous land, estuary, fresh water or
coastal water; or
(10) is contrary to the objectives and policies of the
Coastal Zone Management Program and the Special
Management Area Guidelines of Chapter 205A,
HRS.
ii. How the decision appealed from is clearly erroneous; or
The Director's decision was clearly erroneous because film
industry activities and land use is not a listed permitted use in
the Agricultural zone and SMA permits can only authorize
development consistent with the zoning and general plan. HRS
§205A-26(2)(C).
In. How the decision appealed from was arbitrary or capricious, or
characterized by an abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise
of discretion.
The Director decision was arbitrary because it failed to consider
the relevant factual information by accepting the application
when the plot plan failed to clearly disclose the property's
seaward boundary certified by the state surveyor's office on July
14, 2025, and failed to include the SLU Agriculture and
Conservation boundaries.
d. Statement of any other relevant facts:
No dedicated shoreline access was negotiated.
Dated: April 24, 2026 Respectfully submitted,
/s/Claudia Rohr
Appellant pro se
4