11-02-2021 Intervenor - Exceptions to WPC Proposed FOF, COL, DO

Home

4. The Development does not adequately meet the requirements or guidelines for a special permit as required by Section 205-6, HRS and Rule 6 of the Commission Rules. 5. The Development is not consistent with the County General Plan, particularly as to the impacts on the immediate community. (Emphasis added) RA: part I, 77. Appellant objected to these alleged errors in its April 21, 2014, Joint Exceptions to Hearings Officers [sic] Report Finding of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation Dated April 7, 2014. RA: part II1,2965-2966; 2967. See also, Sec. 91-14(g)(1), (2), and (4), HRS; Troyer v. Adams, 102 Hawai'i 399,409, 77 P.3d 83, 93 (2003). C. Mixed Findines of Fact and Conclusions of Law(clearly erroneous standard) The Trial Court and Appellee were clearly erroneous because the Trial Court's and Appellee's conclusions are dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each individual case: The following are Mixed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: VI. APPLICATION OF SPECIAL PERMIT CRITERIA TO THE DEVELOPMENT 62. Although the County General Plan Public Facilities-Education course of action for South Hilo encourages the establishment of additional schools as the need arises, the property Development, at the subject location, is contrary to the General Plan. (Emphasis added) RA: part I, 76. Appellant objected to this alleged error in its April 21, 2014, Joint Exceptions to Hearings Officers [sic] Report Finding of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation Dated April 7, 2014. RA: part III, 2965-2967. VII. UNUSUAL AND REASONABLE USE OF LAND R 63. The construction of a school on the Property is an unusual use of the land because a school is not a permitted use in the State Land Use Agricultural District. However, the evidence presented does not demonstrate that the Development is a reasonable use of the Property. Specifically, Connections has not demonstrated how this school can be built without sufficient potable 10