My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
12-2-2021 Opinion of the Supreme Court
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Board Packets
>
*Background/Recommendation Reports (June 2020-Sept 2022)
>
2022
>
2022-06-16 Leeward (CANCELLED DUE TO LACK OF QUORUM)
>
Item #2 Bolton, Inc. (REMAND SPP-16-000188)
>
12-2-2021 Opinion of the Supreme Court
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2022 1:53:30 PM
Creation date
6/2/2022 1:52:39 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** <br /> Department had received a complaint that Bolton was operating a <br /> quarry on the parcels and using the parcels as an equipment base <br /> yard without an applicable special permit . A subsequent <br /> investigation revealed that Bolton appeared to be operating a <br /> rock crusher for commercial purposes (i .e . , operating a quarry) <br /> on Parcel 44, storing construction equipment on the parcels <br /> (i .e . , using the properties as a construction base yard) , and <br /> maintaining a junk yard on the parcels . The letter warned <br /> Bolton that those activities potentially violated the Zoning <br /> Code, 8 and requested a response from Bolton by April 30, 2016 . <br /> The letter stated that if Bolton wanted to conduct a commercial <br /> quarry operation, it could "submit an application for a special <br /> permit that would allow for the creation of a (Quarry) and would <br /> ( . . . continued) <br /> application of [the Zoning Code] , may, within thirty days after the date of <br /> the director' s written decision, appeal the decision to the board of <br /> appeals." HCC § 25-2-20 (a) (2019) . The Board of Appeals " [h] ear[s] and <br /> determine [s] appeals from final decisions of the planning director or the <br /> director of public works regarding matters within their respective <br /> jurisdictions." CCH § 6-9.2 (a) (2018) . <br /> e Under state law and Chapter 25 of the HCC ("Zoning Code") , land <br /> within the state agricultural land use district is restricted to certain <br /> permitted uses. See HRS § 205-4.5 (a) (2017) ; HCC § 25-5-72 (a) . <br /> " [E]nforcement of the restrictions and conditions relating to land-use- <br /> classification districts in a county" is delegated "to the county official <br /> charged with administering the zoning laws for that county[ . ] " County of <br /> Hawaii v. Ala Loop Homeowners, 123 Hawaii 391, 408, 235 P.3d 1103, 1120 <br /> (2010) (quoting Pono v. Molokai Ranch, Ltd. , 119 Hawaii 164, 189, 194 P.3d <br /> 1126, 1151 (App. 2008) ) , partially abrogated on other grounds by Tax Found. <br /> of Haw. v. State, 144 Hawaii 175, 439 P.3d 127 (2019) ; HRS § 205-12 (2017) . <br /> In this case, the official responsible for administering the zoning laws in <br /> Hawaii County is the Planning Director, with the LPC also retaining some <br /> authority over zoning and land use within the County. <br /> 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.