2003-02-21 tkamuela - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

to establish rules, and Rule No. 6 says you can approve Special Permits in agricultural districts. Also, Ordinance No. 889 is part of the County ordinance. It does not exist a part and separate from the Hawaii County Code and was never mean Now, the Hawaii County Code lists churches as a use in an agricultural district if a Use Permit is obtained. So we feel that Rule No. 6 lays out the process for obtaining this Special Permit. Now if you were to have the belief that Ordinance No. 889 were separate and a part from the County Code, then what would be your required height limits on this particular lot? What would be your yard setback requirements? ItÓs not mentioned in Ordinance No. 889 because Ordinance No. 889 is a part of the Hawaii County The rules of the Planning Commission and the State Land Use Commission require that certain criteria are met in order that the special use be approved. We believe that all of those criteria have been met by this particular application by the Kamuela Congregation of JehovahÓs Witnesses. And if you look at our proposed Findings and Conclusions, we state why we believe we met all the criteria. But IÓd like to f where the Hearings Officer felt, in her opinion, that the criteria for the Special Permit was not met. Now, for example, does the proposed church use within a half-acre portion of a lot in an agricultural district promote the objectives and effectiveness of HRS, Chapter 205? We know that this is a question that, you know, even I wrestled with, you know, how does it promote those objectives and effectiveness of HRS, Chapter 205 relating to agricultural districts? But then when you think about the State Land Use law, they stated what their objectives were. Now how did they try to see that their objectives were met? Well, they promulgated rules and regulations whereby it would not contradict their objectives and effectiveness of their, that State Land Use law. So, in effect, they set out the guidelines on how non-agricultural uses could be considered then in Special Permits. Therefore, we feel itÓs reasonable to conclude when these criteria are met, all of the rest of the criteria just like the Hearings Officer concluded to a reasonable degree, then the State Land Use law achieved what it set out to do, and that the proposed use meeting these criteria, would not be contrary, then, to the objectives and effectiveness of Chapter 205. Consider this, itÓs a half-acre for a church use out of a five-acre lot. Consider that 90 percent of the lot is still available for agricultural use. Consider a site that has been unused for agriculture for 20 years. Consider a site that is part of an agricultural subdivision that has no agricultural activity. So is the proposed use an unusual and reasonable use of the land? We feel reasonably the answer has to be Ðyes.Ñ 13