My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
07-08-2022 Letter from Petitioner's Attorney
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Board Packets
>
*Background/Recommendation Reports (June 2020-Sept 2022)
>
2022
>
2022-07-21 Leeward
>
Item #2 Bolton, Inc. (REMAND SPP-16-000188)
>
07-08-2022 Letter from Petitioner's Attorney
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2022 2:18:22 PM
Creation date
7/15/2022 2:17:47 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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
MICHAEL J. MATSUKAWA <br /> ATTORNEY AT LAW <br /> (4) Should the commission adopt the Planning Director's <br /> conclusions in his letter? No. The commission should affirmatively reject <br /> the planning director's statements in his letter. <br /> (5) If the landowner wishes to withdraw its application in SPP 16- <br /> 000188, should the commission dismiss SPP 16-000188? Yes, but only <br /> upon terms to avoid establishing unintended administrative precedent. <br /> Introduction <br /> Before the Leeward Planning Commission restarts SPP 16-000188, the <br /> commission should review the regulations governing the use of land in the <br /> Agriculture District -- what is permitted, by whom and under what conditions? <br /> The commission should also review the factual record to describe the work that <br /> the landowner is undertaking, which is a combined, multi-purpose flood <br /> control project that is augmented by the landowner's concurrent use of the <br /> project site for additional activities, such as a baseyard, stockpiling and rock <br /> crushing for commercial purposes. <br /> According to the landowner, it did not need a Special Permit for the flood <br /> control project, but that it did need a Special Permit for the augmented <br /> activities that the landowner would be engaged in concurrently with the flood <br /> control project on the same project site. For reasons stated below, the <br /> landowner needs a Special Permit for both the flood control project and the <br /> augmented activities. <br /> [ Main Project ] [ Augmented Activities ] <br /> Rock Crushing for Commercial <br /> Flood Control Project -and- Purposes, Baseyard, etc. <br /> A. <br /> Regulatory Structure <br /> In Section 205-2(d), HRS, the Legislature outlined the uses that are <br /> permitted in the Agriculture District. If the soil of the land falls into produc- <br /> tivity rating class C, D, E or U, the Legislature gave the State Land Use <br /> Commission the authority to determine what kind of activity on land with <br /> "non-prime" soils is "compatible with" with the Legislature's outline of <br /> permitted uses in Section 205-2(d), HRS. The Legislature also gave the <br /> counties the authority to "define" what is "accessory" to the Legislature's <br /> outline of permitted uses. <br /> 2111a g o <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.