07-08-2022 Letter from Petitioner's Attorney

Home

MICHAEL J. MATSUKAWA ATTORNEY AT LAW C. SPP 16-000188 As is stated above, in 2015, county officials issued grading and stock- piling permits to the landowner for the flood control project that is incidental to expired Special Permit 1047 and to the abandoned coffee visitor center. (Exhi- bit 1 enclosed). The landowner then started work. After nearby property owners and others lodged numerous complaints against the landowner's work, the Planning Director issued a "warning letter" to the landowner. This caused the landowner to apply for a new Special Permit in SPP 16-000188. In its application, the landowner did not describe the flood control project as the work that required a Special Permit (Exhibit 2 enclosed). The landowner only described the augmented activities (not the flood control project) as the work that requires a Special Permit -- "A baseyard/staging yard for equipment, storage of materials, stockpiling and crushing of natural materials for commercial use." Planning officials accepted the application without comment. The Planning Director's Letter After the Petitioner filed its request for standing and after the Leeward Planning Commission held its first and only public hearing in SPP 16-000188, the Planning Director (who is just a party in the proceeding and who is not the final decision maker in SPP 16-000188) wrote a letter dated September 21, 2016 (Exhibit 3 enclosed) to the landowner, who is another party in the proceeding, advising the landowner (1) that the landowner did not need a Special Permit for the flood control project and (2) that the landowner did not need a Special Permit for the augmented activities as well. In support of his letter, the Planning Director stated that the augmented activities are "related to the on-site and off-site drainage improvement," i.e., related and incidental to the flood control project, and do not constitute "commercial" activity. The Planning Director also stated that the flood control project itself is not "prohibited by ... the State Land Use Law." Further, the Planning Director stated that the so-called baseyard was related and incidental to the flood control project. Thus, the Planning Director opined that the landowner could undertake both the flood control project and the augmented activities under the grading and stockpiling permits, and without a Special Permit. The Planning Director closed his letter, stating "We are confident that these determinations are defensible based on all of the facts provided and confirmed by our department." With that, the Planning Director stated that the landowner's application for a Special Permit "will be withdrawn." However, the 51 Page