COM 0027.053 2000-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

We note that the document prepared by the State does refer to W. H. Shipman's plans in §3.1 Existing Site -Land Use and Regulatory Status. Keeping in mind that the Chapter 343 document was accepted in December of 1995, it is not clear how much more detail would have been available at that time to the Department of Transportation regarding Shipman's plans. I understand that the Planning Director has met with Ms. Goodell to discuss the concerns she raised regarding this issue. My understanding is that he also feels that the Shipman plans were included in the Department of Transportation study and no violation of Chapter 343, HRS, is apparent from the information provided by Ms. Goodell and from a review of the Department of Transportation document. Ms. Goodell wants the County to investigate the alleged violations or to perhaps agree with her statement that a new assessment is necessary. According to §343-5(g), HRS, a statement that is accepted with respect to a particular action shall satisfy the requirements of Chapter 343 and no other statement for that particular action shall be required. We would point out that §343-7, HRS, sets forth a statute of limitation period for the environmental impact statement process. Ms. Goodell's complaints are far past the time for filing judicial challenges. The County has no authority over the adequacy or inadequacy of the State's document. If a new environmental assessment is required under Chapter 343, it must be as a result of a triggering activity. The actions which trigger the requirement of an assessment are found in §343-5(a), a copy of which is attached for your review. As to the concerns raised on the possibilities of County liability to area merchants for loss of income, we do not believe that there would be a basis for such liability. The only County action contemplated is the rezoning. Generally the exercise of zoning authority does not give rise to tort liability on the part of a County. McQuillin Mun. Corp. §25.54. In a case by a group of downtown property owners to invalidate a rezoning ordinance which would permit development of a regional shopping center, a court found that it was not the function of County zoning ordinances to provide economic protection for existing businesses. The reasoning of the court is that free and open competition is a foundation of our society. The legislative body should base it's decision on a particular zoning request on whether it is in the best interest of the orderly development of the community. Swain v. County of Winnebago, 111 Ill. App. 2d. 458, 250 N.E.2d 439 (1969). If you have any further questions on this matter, please let me know. 2