2025-02-05 Jim McMahon Testimony

Home

4. The application contains incomplete and erroneous information related to the proposed access. Which roads will be used, etc. Arguably, most of the impact to the surrounding landowners will come from traffic. The correct and complete access route should have been provided and corrected prior to the review process having started. We therefore believe that Rule 6-4 of the Special Permit Practice and Procedure has been violated. 5. It is my opinion that the applicant is deliberately trying to mislead the true nature of the proposed uses by referring them a "camping" event and "commercial vehicle storage" when a description like "a less constrained version of Nevada's Burning Man event" and a "heavy commercial equipment base yard" would better reflect that actual proposed uses. 6. The required public notification signs were not placed as per Rule 6-5 of the Special Permit Practice and Procedure. On at least 2 separate occasions a sign was placed along highway H-19 near the entrance to Indian Tree Road. Following each placement, the sign was taken down by unknown persons. The Planning Department was notified of the disappearing signs. In any case, these signs were not located on the subject property as required by Rule 6-5(a). 7. According to the criteria Section 6-3(b)(5) (A) Such use shall not be contrary to the objectives sought to be accomplished by the Land Use Law and Regulations. While the Director in his report addresses the question over whether or not camping should be allowed on prime high productive agricultural lands, the legality of industrial uses such as a heavy equipment baseyard on such lands is not addressed. However if one reviews past Special Permit applications for other base yards one will probably not find any that have been approved on similar highly productive lands. Furthermore, when they are approved they are normally located on good public roads with the condition of a time limit. The time limits are given to allow the applicant to move to more suitably zoned lands or for additional lands to be appropriately rezoned through boundary amendments. As discussed later this kind of Industrial use spot zoning is not consistent with the objectives of the Hamakua Community Development Plan. 8. According to the criteria Section 6-3(b)(5) (B), The desired use shall not adversely affect the surrounding properties. Apparently, the Planning Director does not appear to consider the properties over which vehicles must travel to reach the subject parcel as being part of the surrounding properties. Despite having -14500 contiguous acres of land across multiple parcels including the subject parcel, it does not appear to have developed direct access to a public road. It is therefore dependent on one or more private roads in the area. As the application is unclear about which