HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026.07.23 O'oma.Appellant's Motion for Summary Judegment.pdfOf Counsel:
PORTER KIAKONA KOPPER,
A Limited Liability Law Company, LLC
H. MAXWELL KOPPER 9601-0
SARA M. NAKAYAMA 12064-0
841 Bishop Street, Suite 1500
Honolulu, HI 96813
E-Mail: mkopperkhawaiile ag l.com
snakUamakhawaiile a
Attorneys for Appellant
O`OMA PLANTATION COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
IN THE BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF HAWAI`I
STATE OF HAWAI`I
O`OMA PLANTATION COMMUNITY CASE NO.: PL-BOA-2026-000134
ASSOCIATION,
Appellant,
vs.
JEFFREY DARROW, PLANNING
DIRECTOR, COUNTY OF HAWAI`I,
APPELLANT O`OMA PLANTATION
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION;
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Appellee. Hearing:
Date: August 14, 2026
Time: 9:30 a.m.
APPELLANT O`OMA PLANTATION COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
COMES NOW, Appellant O`OMA PLANTATION COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
("Appellant" and "Association"), by and through its attorneys, Porter Kiakona Kopper, A Limited
Liability Company, LLC, hereby move this Board of Appeals ("Board") for an order granting
summary judgment against Appellee JEFFREY DARROW, PLANNING DIRECTOR, COUNTY
OF HAWAI`I ("Appellee") as to all issues asserted and relief requested in Appellant Association's
General Petition for Appeal of Decisions by Planning Director or Public Works Director
("Appeal")
Summary Judgment is sought on the grounds that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact existing as to the fact that Appellee failed to apply the controlling setback
requirements of Hawaii County Code ("HCC") to the undisputed use of the structures for the
keeping of chickens, thereby entitling Appellant Association to judgment as a matter of law.
Given the admitted facts, it would be appropriate for the Board to issue an Order as
follows:
I. Declaring that:
a. The applicable setback for the enclosures at issue is seventy-five (75) feet
because they are used for the keeping of animals, namely chickens, and are
therefore governed by HCC § 25-5-62.
2. For such other and further relief as this Board deems just and equitable under the
circumstances.
2
This Motion is made pursuant to Rule 3-12 of the County of Hawai `i Board of Appeals
Rules of Practice and Procedures ("BOA Rules") and is based on the attached memorandum in
support, and the files and record contained herein.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, July 23, 2026.
/s/ Sara Al. Nakayama
H. MAXWELL KOPPER
SARA M. NAKAYAMA
Attorneys for Appellant
O `OMA PLANTATION
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
3
IN THE BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF HAWAI`I
STATE OF HAWAI`I
O`OMA PLANTATION COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION,
Appellant,
1IM
JEFFREY DARROW, PLANNING
DIRECTOR, COUNTY OF HAWAI`I,
Appellee.
CASE NO.: PL-BOA-2026-000134
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
Appellant O`OMA PLANTATION COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ("Appellant" and/or
"Association"), submits the following Memorandum in Support of its MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGEMENT ("Motion") as to Appellee JEFFREY DARROW, PLANNING DIRECTOR,
COUNTY OF HAWAI`I ("Appellee"), on all issues asserted in Appellant's Petition for Appeal of
Decisions by Planning Director, filed herein on June 4, 2026 ("Appeal").
I. INTRODUCTION
Respectfully, Appellee erroneously applied Hawaii County Code ("HCC") § 25-5-66,
rather than the specific setback provision set forth in HCC § 25-5-62, to the chicken coops
("structures") located at 73-1415 Kukuna Street, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740, Tax Map Key
("TMK") No. (3) 7-3-007-067 (the "Property"). The material facts are undisputed; the sole issue
before the Board is whether HCC § 25-5-62 governs the setback requirements for the structures at
issue, entitling Appellant to judgment as a matter of law.
On May 13, 2026, Appellee determined that the structures complied with HCC § 25-5-66
because they satisfied the thirty-foot setback applicable to accessory buildings and enclosures. See
Appellee's Index to Record on Appeal, Item 21. In doing so, however, Appellee failed to apply
HCC § 25-5-62, which specifically requires that any enclosure used for the keeping of permitted
animals be located at least seventy-five feet from any lot line. The undisputed facts establish that
the structures are enclosures used for keeping and housing chickens. Accordingly, HCC § 25-5-
62 governs as the more specific provision and controls over the general setback requirements of
HCC § 25-5-66. This interpretation is further supported by Planning Inspector II Elizabeth Gillis
("Inspector Gillis"), who concluded that where a structure is used for the keeping or confinement
of livestock, the seventy -five-foot setback requirement controls over the standard yard setback.
Because there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and Appellee applied the
incorrect provision of the HCC, Appellant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Appellant
therefore respectfully requests that the Board of Appeals ("Board") grant its Motion for Summary
Judgment ("Motion")
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. THE PROPERTY AND THE PARTIES' INTEREST THEREIN
Appellant Association is a community association of the project known as O`oma
Plantation (the "Project") situated in Hawaii County, State of Hawaii, and established and
existing pursuant to Chapter 421J of the Hawaii Revised Statutes ("HRS"), as amended.
The Association is subject to HRS Chapter 421J, pursuant to that Declaration of Protective
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for O`oma Plantation, dated September 9, 2025 and
recorded on November 8, 2005, in the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances ("BOC") as
Document No. 2005-227802, as amended ("DCC&Rs") and the By -Laws of the O`oma Plantation
2
Community Association, dated September 10, 2010 (collectively "Governing Documents"), as
may be amended and further restated from time to time.
Appellee JEFFREY DARROW, PLANNING DIRECTOR, COUNTY OF HAWAI`I
("Appellee") is and was at all times relevant a Planning Director with the County of Hawaii
Planning Department.
At all times relevant to this Appeal, the property located at 73-1415 Kukuna Street, Kailua-
Kona, Hawaii 96740, Tax Map Key ("TMK") No. (3) 7-3-007-0067 (the "Property") is and was
owned by FORTUNATO BOLO KAINOA PABRE and KIMBERLY ALICIA PABRE
(collectively, the "Property Owners"), by virtue of that certain Warranty Deed recorded in the
BOC on October 2, 2019 as Doc No.A72140143. Accordingly, all notices, courtesy letters, and
other correspondence concerning the Property were directed to the Property Owners in their
capacity as the record owners of the property.
The Property is located within the County of Hawai`i's Family Agricultural ("FA") zoning
district and is therefore subject to the zoning regulations applicable to FA districts under Chapter
25 of the HCC.
B. HISTORY OF PROPERTY INSPECTIONS, REVIEWS, DECISIONS, AND
APPEAL
On November 30, 2025, a member of the O'oma Plantation Community submitted a
Zoning, Land Use, and SMA Violation Complaint Form ("Complaint") to the County of Hawaii
Planning Department, detailing a violation of "Zone FA-2a section 25-5-62(a)(15)" providing that
"[c]hicken coupes shelters, processing structures [("structures")], located on the property line as
well as within the minimum 75' on both the Easterly and the Northerly boundary." See Appellee's
Index to Record on Appeal, Item 1.
3
Since receiving the initial Complaint, Appellee issued and sent several correspondence to
the Property Owners regarding the placement of the chicken structures, including the following:
(1) a first Courtesy Letter dated December 19, 2025; (2) a second Courtesy Letter dated January
14, 2026; (3) a first Closure Letter dated February 26, 2026; (4) a Violation and Order Notice dated
April 1, 2026; and (5) a final Closure Letter dated May 13, 2026. See Appellee's Index to Record
on Appeal, Items 4, 8, 15, 17 and 21, respectively.
In the December 19, 2025 Courtesy Letter, Appellee stated that "within the Family
Agricultural District (FA), a chicken coup structure would need to be located 75 feet away from
the property boundary." (Emphases added). See Appellee's Index to Record on Appeal, Item
4. Subsequently, in the January 14, 2026 Courtesy Letter, Appellee stated that "within the Family
Agricultural (FA) district, any chicken coup or related structure is required to be located a
minimum of seventy-five (75) feet from all property boundaries." (Emphases added). See
Appellee's Index to Record on Appeal, Item 8.
In the February 26, 2026 Closure Letter, Appellee characterized the structures on the
Property as "chicken coops [that] have been relocated out of the required side yard setbacks" for
which the determination was "based upon the photographic evidence provided by the property
owner See Appellee's Index to Record on Appeal, Item 15.
In the April 1, 2026 Notice of Violation and Order, Appellee determined that the Property
Owners were in violation of HCC § 25-5-66 because the "[c]hicken enclosures [were] located too
close to the property boundary lines." See Appellee's Index to Record on Appeal, Item 17.
Appellee ordered the Property Owners to relocate "all chicken enclosures so they are at least 30
feet from all property boundaries." Id. (Emphasis added).
On April 23, 2026, Planning Inspector 11 Elizabeth Gillis ("Inspector Gillis") sent
correspondence to an inquiry regarding zoning regulations applicable to properties within the
Family Agricultural ("FA") zoning district. See Appellee's Index to Record on Appeal, Items 18
and 19, respectively. In the correspondence, Inspector Gillis determined that although "Section
25-5-56 [sic]" and "Section 25-5-62(15)" address minimum yard requirements differently, "where
a structure or area is used for the keeping or confinement of livestock, the seventy-five (75) foot
separation requirement applies and controls over the standard yard setbacks." (Emphasis
added). See Appellee's Index to Record on Appeal, Item 19.
In the May 13, 2026 Closure Letter, Appellee concluded that case #PL-PCV-2025-01100
was resolved and officially closed because "Planning Inspectors conducted a compliance
inspection" on May 11, 2026 to verify that "the animal housing and chicken cages" were relocated
with measurements showing the animal structures were "approximately 52 feet from the property
boundary lines, which exceed[ed] the required setback distance. See Appellee's Index to Record
on Appeal, Item 21. Appellee further concluded that "[a]fter reviewing the results of the
inspection, the Planning Director [... ] determined that the appropriate setback in the FA Zoning
District should be 30 feet." Id.
On June 4, 2026, the Association, by and through its counsel, filed its Petition appealing
Appellee Planning Director's May 13, 2026 Decision. See Appellee's Index to Record on Appeal,
Item 23.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
A. SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure ("HRCP"), summary judgment
is appropriate when the record shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact such
5
that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ralston v. Yim, 129 Haw. 46, 56,
292 P.3d 1276, 1286 (2013). The moving parry must first establish that "no genuine issue of
material fact exists with respect to the essential elements of the claim or defense which the motion
seeks to establish or which the motion questions[.]" Id. "The moving party may discharge his or
her burden by demonstrating that[,] if the case went to trial[,] there would be no competent
evidence to support a judgment for his or her opponent." Id. 59, 292 P.3d at 1289.
IV. LEGAL ARGUMENT.
A. APPELLEE ERRONEOUSLY INTERPRETED AND APPLIED THE
HAWAPI COUNTY CODE ("HCC")
Appellant does not dispute the nature or location of the structures, nor does it dispute that
the enclosures are used for the keeping of chickens. Rather, the sole dispute is which provision of
the Hawaii County Code ("HCC") governs the required setback distance. In making his
determination for the appropriate setback requirements in the Family Agricultural ("FA") Zoning
District, Appellee relied upon HCC § 25-5-66(b), concluding that a thirty-foot setback applicable
to certain accessory buildings and livestock enclosures controlled. However, the Association
contends that HCC § 25-5-62(a)(15) applies given that the structures are enclosures for the keeping
of permitted animals, requiring a minimum setback of seventy-five feet from any lot line.
1. HCC § 25-5-62(15) APPLIES HERE AS THAT SECTION
SPECIFICALLY GOVERNS STRUCTURES USED FOR KEEPING
LIVESTOCK
The Record on Appeal establishes, and Appellee has consistently recognized, that the
subject Property is located in a Family Agricultural ("FA") Zoning District under the HCC. See
Appellee's Index to Record on Appeal, Items 4, 8, 15, 17 and 21, respectively. Accordingly, there
is no genuine dispute that the Property is subject to the FA zoning regulations. The only question
before the Board is which of the applicable FA setback provisions govern the location of the
structures located on the Property. That question is one of statutory interpretation and is therefore
appropriate for resolution as a matter of law.
In reviewing questions of statutory interpretation, well -established principles are followed:
First, the fundamental starting point for statutory interpretation is the
language of the statute itself. Second, where the statutory language is
plain and unambiguous, our sole duty is to give effect to its plain and
obvious meaning. Third, implicit in the task of statutory construction is our
foremost obligation to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the
legislature, which is to be obtained primarily from the language
contained in the statute itself. Fourth, when there is doubt, doubleness of
meaning, or indistinctiveness or uncertainty of an expression used in a
statute, an ambiguity exists. And fifth, in construing an ambiguous statute,
the meaning of the ambiguous words, phrases, and sentences may be
compared, in order to ascertain their true meaning.
State v. Silver, 125 Hawaii 1, 4, 249 P.3d 1141, 1144 (2022) (Emphases added). There is
no other way to interpret this County Code. The statutory language of the HCC is plain and
unambiguous, and the intent of the legislature is clear. The Hawaii Appellate Courts frequently
state that "the fundamental starting point for statutory interpretation is the language of the statute
itself'. See Schmidt v. Board of Directors of Assn of Apartment Owners of Marco Polo
Apartments, 73 Haw. 526, 531, 839 P.2d 479, 482 (1992).
Property designated within the Family Agricultural District is subject to HCC § § 25-5-60
through 25-5-69. The HCC provides that the Family Agricultural District allows "[1]ivestock,
grazing; provided that any feed or water area, salt lick, corral, run, barn, shed, stable, house,
hutch, or other enclosure for the keeping of any permitted animals shall be located at least
seventy-five feet from any lot line". (Emphases added). See HCC Section 25-5-62. Additionally,
property within this district have a minimum yard that "shall be thirty feet for front and rear
yards and twenty feet for side yards, [with] accessory buildings and enclosures (other than
fences under eight feet high) for the shelter and confinement of any livestock shall be at least
7
thirty feet from the side and rear property lines. (Emphases added). See HCC Section 25-5-
66.
Here, the HCC expressly addresses structures used for the keeping of livestock in the FA
District, where the Property is located. The language of HCC § 25-5-62(a)(15) is clear and
unambiguous. Rather than regulating only a particular type of structure, the ordinance identifies
numerous examples including corrals, runs, barns, sheds, stables, houses, hutches, and concludes
with the catch-all phrase "or other enclosure for the keeping of any permitted animals." See
HCC § 25-5-62(a)(15)(Emphasis added). By employing this expansive language, the County
made clear that the seventy -five-foot setback applies whenever a structure or enclosure is used to
keep permitted livestock, regardless of its particular design or construction.
Appellee has previously determined that the seventy -five-foot setback requirement applies
to the structures and areas used for the keeping or confinement of livestock. See Appellee's Index
to Record on Appeal, Items 4 and 8. However, Appellee subsequently misapplied the provisions
of the HCC in determining the setback requirements governing the Property and the structures at
issue to be thirty feet pursuant to HCC § 25-5-66(b). See Appellee's Index to Record on Appeal,
Items 17 and 21. Because the undisputed facts establish that the structures on the Property are
enclosures for the housing and keeping of chickens, HCC § 25-5-62(a)(15) directly governs the
setback requirement applicable to those enclosures. Inspector Gillis acknowledged and supported
Appellant's position that HCC § 25-5-62(a)(15) applies when she provided that "where a structure
or area is used for the keeping or confinement of livestock, the seventy-five (75) foot separation
requirement applies and controls over the standard setbacks". See Appellee's Index to Record on
Appeal, Item 19. Therefore, the seventy -five-foot setback provision of Section 25-5-62 of the
HCC applies as the structures at issue are for the keeping and housing of livestock.
t
2. THE HAWAI`I COUNTY CODE ("HCC") REQUIRES APPLICATION OF
HCC § 25-5-62(a)(15) UNDER ESTABLISHED RULES OF STATUTORY
CONSTRUCTION
i. HCC § 25-5-62(a)(15) AND HCC § 25-5-66(b) CAN BE
HARMONIZED BY REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH BOTH
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
When two provisions relate to the same subject matter, Hawaii courts must construe them
so that each provision is given effect whenever possible. Metcalf v. Emples. Benefit Ass'n, 99
Haw. 53, 59, 52 P.3d 823, 829 (2002). The Hawaii Supreme Court has explained that "what is
clear in one statute may be called in aid to explain what is doubtful in another." Richardson v. City
& County of Honolulu, 76 Haw. 46, 54, 868 P.2d 1193, 1201 (1994) (quoting HRS § 1-16 (1985)).
Accordingly, before concluding that one provision displaces another, this Board must first
determine whether the provisions can reasonably be read together. If they can, Hawaii law requires
that both provisions be given effect.
There is no dispute that both HCC § 25-5-62(a)(15) and HCC § 25-5-66(b) apply to
livestock enclosures and structures. 1 The only issue is whether compliance with one provision
excuses compliance with the other. It does not. HCC § 25-5-62(a)(15) and HCC § 25-5-66(b) are
harmonized because they impose separate setback requirements, and neither provision states that
compliance with one satisfies or displaces the other. HCC § 25-5-62(a)(15) establishes a setback
requirement for permitted livestock use in the FA zoning district, while HCC § 25-5-66(b)
prescribes minimum yard requirements for accessory buildings and enclosures. 2 Both provisions
1 HCC § 25-1-5(b) defines "livestock" as: [A]11 animals generally associated with farming,
which are raised or kept for food and other agricultural purposes. Such animals include: swine;
cattle; horses; goats; sheep; chickens, ducks, geese, turkey, and other poultry; rabbits; and bees.
(Emphases added).
' HCC § 25-1-5(b) defines an "accessory building" as: [A] building, no more than twenty feet in
height, detached from and subordinate to a main building or main use on the same building
E
regulate different aspects of the same activity: one governing the permitted use of land for livestock
use, and the other governing the location of structures on the property. Instead of conflicting, HCC
§ 25-5-62(a)(15) and HCC § 25-5-66(b) are complementary to one another.
The Supreme Court of Hawaii has held that the generally accepted rule of statutory
construction is that "unless a legislative intention to the contrary clearly appears, special or
particular provisions control over general provisions, terms or expressions[...] [and that] [i]t is
also elementary that specific provisions must be given effect notwithstanding the general
provisions are broad enough to include the subject to which the specific provisions relate". See In
the Interest of R Children, 145 Haw. 477, 485, 454 P.3d 418, 426 (2019). The Supreme Court of
Hawaii has also held that:
Three rules of statutory construction are especially germane to the inquiry.
First, legislative enactments are presumptively valid and should be
interpreted in such a manner as to give them effect. Second, laws in pari
materia, or upon the same subject matter, shall be construed with reference
to each other. What is clear in one statute may be called in aid to explain
what is doubtful in another. Third, where there is a plainly irreconcilable
conflict between a general and a specific statute concerning the same subject
matter, the specific will be favored. However, where the statutes simply
overlap in their application, effect will be given to both if possible, as repeal
by implication is disfavored.
Richardson v. City & County of Honolulu, 76 Haw. 46, 54-55, 868 P.2d 1193, 1201 (1994)
(citations omitted).
Here, the structures are undisputedly enclosures used for the keeping of chickens, placing
them squarely within the specific language of both HCC § 25-5-62(a)(15) and HCC § 25-5-66(b).
HCC § 25-5-62(a)(15) expressly permits "[1]ivestock, grazing" in the FA district, subject to the
site and used for the purposes customarily incidental to those of the main building or use.
(Emphases added).
10
condition that "any feed or water area, salt lick, coral, run, barn, shed, stable, house, hutch, or
other enclosure for the keeping of any permitted animals" must be located at least seventy-five
feet from any lot line. The provision therefore applies not merely to traditional livestock facilities
such as bains, stables, and corrals, but broadly to any structure or enclosed area used to keep
animals permitted within the district. Chickens are specifically included in the definition of
"[1]ivestock" pursuant to HCC § 25-1-5(b), and the structures at issue are used to house, shelter,
or otherwise contain the chickens.
If compliance with HCC § 25-5-62(a)(15) alone were sufficient, then HCC § 25-5-66(b)
would not apply to livestock enclosures, even though livestock enclosures also fall within its scope.
Such an interpretation would effectively read livestock enclosures out of HCC § 25-5-66(b) despite
the absence of any provision providing otherwise. Here, it is clear that HCC § 25-5-62(a)(15) and
HCC § 25-5-66(b) overlap in their application, and it is possible to comply with both provisions.
ii. Even Where Conflict Exists Between the Provisions, HCC § 25-5-
62(a)(15) Controls Under Principles of Statutory Construction and the
More Restrictive or Specific Setback Provision Governs
If HCC § 25-5-62(a)(15) and HCC § 25-5-66(b) cannot be harmonized, Hawaii law
requires the application of HCC § 25-5-62(a)(15) to govern because it is the more restrictive
provision governing enclosures for livestock. The Hawaii Supreme Court has recognized that
where a "plainly irreconcilable" conflict exists between a general and specific statute concerning
the same subject matter, "the specific will be favored." Richardson, 76 Haw. at 54, 868 P.2d 1193
at 1201.
In Save Sunset Beach Coalition v. City & County of Honolulu, the Hawaii Supreme Court
explained that "[b]ecause the uses allowed in country zoning, are prohibited from conflicting with
the uses allowed in a State agriculture district, only a more restricted use as between the two is
11
authorized". Save Sunset Beach Coal. v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 102 Haw. 465, 482, 78 P.3d 1,
18 (2003). As such, where overlapping regulations apply, only the more restrictive use is
authorized. Similarly, the Hawaii Supreme Court has explained, "[w]here there is a `plainly
irreconcilable' conflict between a general and a specific statute concerning the same subject matter,
the specific will be favored." State v. Putnam, 93 Haw. 362, 370, 3 P.3d 1239, 1247 (2000).
Here, HCC §§ 25-5-66(b) and 25-5-62(a)(15) regulate the same property and impose
different restrictions. However, Appellee's reliance on the more general accessory -building
setback in HCC § 25-5-66(b) effectively nullifies the seventy -five-foot requirement expressly
enacted by the County for livestock enclosures. Additionally, Appellee's interpretation improperly
applied the general setback provision contained in HCC § 25-5-66(b) instead of the more specific
setback requirement prescribed by HCC § 25-5-62(a)(15). Such an application of the HCC is
contrary to established principles of statutory interpretation and cannot be reconciled with the plain
language of the HCC. Since HCC § 25-5-62(a)(15) contains a specific setback requirement
governing livestock enclosures, it controls over the more general accessory -building setback
provision in HCC § 25-5-66(b).
The statutory interpretation of the HCC does not authorize Appellee to adjust the specific
setback requirement imposed by HCC § 25-5-62(a)(15) in favor of the more general yard setback
contained in HCC § 25-5-66(b). By substituting the thirty-foot setback for the seventy -five-foot
setback expressly required by HCC § 25-5-62(a)(15), Appellee failed to correctly apply the HCC.
As demonstrated above, the undisputed facts establish that the structures are enclosures used for
the keeping of chickens on property located within the FA District. Under the plain language of
HCC § 25-5-62(a)(15), those structures are subject to the seventy -five-foot setback requirement.
12
Thus, Appellee erred as a matter of law by solely applying the thirty-foot setback contained
in HCC § 25-5-66(b) instead of the specific seventy -five-foot setback mandated by HCC § 25-5-
62(a)(15), and Appellant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant respectfully requests that the Board GRANT the
instant Motion as noted herein.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, July 23, 2026.
Is/Sara M. Nakayama
H. MAXWELL KOPPER
SARA M. NAKAYAMA
Attorneys for Appellant
O `OMA PLANTATION
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
13
IN THE BOARD OF APPEALS
COUNTY OF HAWAI`I
STATE OF HAWAI`I
O`OMA PLANTATION COMMUNITY CASE NO.: PL-BOA-2026-000134
ASSOCIATION,
Appellant,
VS.
JEFFREY DARROW, PLANNING
DIRECTOR, COUNTY OF HAWAI`I,
Appellee.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing document was duly served on
July 23, 2026, to the following parties in the manner indicated below:
O`OMA PLANTATION COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
73-1348 Kukuna Street
Kailua-Kona, HI 96740
E-mail: Erik@Tremain-Design.com
Appellant
FORTUNATO & KIMBERLY PABRE
73-1415 Kukuna Street
Kailua-Kona, HI 96740
E-mail: kbabre(a�gmail.com
Kainoap7kgmail.com
Landowner
HAND -
DELIVERED U.S. MAIL E-MAIL
�) �) N
JEAN CAMPBELL, ESQ. O O (X)
Corporation Counsel
County of Hawaii
101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325
Hilo, HI 96720
E-mail: jeank.campbell(.hawaiicounty.gov
Attorney for Appellee
SLYVIA WAN, ESQ. O O (X)
Corporation Counsel
County of Hawaii
101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325
Hilo, HI 96720
E-mail: slyvia.wan(c�r�hawaiicountgov
Attorney for Board of Appeals
COUNTY OF HAWAI`I PLANNING O O (X)
DEPARTMENT BOARD OF APPEALS
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, HI 96720
E-Mail: boardofappeals(abhawaiicountygov
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, July 23, 2026.
ls/ Sava M. Nakavama
H. MAXWELL KOPPER
SARA M. NAKAYAMA
Attorneys for Appellant
O `OMA PLANTATION COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
2