Laserfiche WebLink
During the process of preparing her case, Appellant discovered that the zoning <br /> code prohibits a nonconforming use to increase to occupy a greater area of land, as <br /> follows: <br /> Zoning Code, Section 25-4-61 Continuance of nonconforming uses of <br /> land and buildings: <br /> (a) Any nonconforming use of land or use of a building may continue to <br /> the extent it existed on December 7, 1996 or at the time of the <br /> adoption of any amendments to this chapter, provided that a <br /> nonconforming use may be enlarged within the building it occupies, <br /> but shall not be enlarged or increased to occupy a greater area of <br /> land, nor shall it or the portion of the building housing it be moved <br /> in whole or in part to any other portion of the building site occupied <br /> by such nonconforming use, except as provided in this division. <br /> (emphasis added in bold and italics) <br /> II. POINT OF ERROR <br /> Thereafter, Appellant filed Second Amended Petition to include the claim that <br /> the Planning Director violated the law—the SMA guideline requiring consistency <br /> with the zoning, HRS §205A-26(2)(C) by violating Zoning Code, Section 25-4-61 <br /> Continuance of nonconforming uses of land and buildings. [Second Amended <br /> Petition, pg. 5, item #3.1 <br /> III. ARGUMENT <br /> A dispositive fact is a fact that, if proven with necessary certainty, resolves a <br /> legal dispute on its own. The facts, the law, and the substantial supportive evidence <br /> in the record (in brackets) that must be considered by the Board in deciding this case <br /> are as follows: <br /> 2 <br />