My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2023-02-10 I'o Processing Company - BOA General Petition for Appeal 4870-8058-9647 v.4
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Board of Appeals
>
Pending Petitions for Next Hearing Date
>
zCases for Future Hearings
>
PL-BOA-2023-000065 I'O PROCESSING (DPW)
>
2023-02-10 I'o Processing Company - BOA General Petition for Appeal 4870-8058-9647 v.4
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/13/2023 9:25:14 AM
Creation date
2/13/2023 9:25:04 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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
HRS §46-88(c) Criterion I'o Processing Structures <br /> "No electrical power and no plumbing Appellant applied for and was issued an electrical permit <br /> systems shall be connected to the for the Processing Facility. No plumbing permit is <br /> building or the structure without first required for the Processing Facility,as it is above ground <br /> obtaining the appropriate county and prefabricated into the structure. No electrical or <br /> electrical or plumbing permit." Id.at plumbing is required for the Agricultural Office and <br /> (c)(8) Covered Work Area. <br /> In summary,the structures at issue squarely meet both: (1)the definition of an <br /> "agricultural building" in HRS § 46-88(d); and(2)the relevant criteria for an "agricultural <br /> building" in HRS § 46-88(c). Therefore, they are "agricultural buildings"within the meaning of <br /> HRS § 46-88 and Appellant has the right to the exemptions therein. To the extent that the DPW <br /> made any contrary factual determination, that determination is clearly erroneous and an abuse of <br /> discretion. <br /> C. DPW's Refusal to Consider the Exemptions and Approvals Set Forth in HRS <br /> § 46-88(a) and/or (b) is Violation of Law, Clear Error, and an Abuse of <br /> Discretion. <br /> As set forth above in Sections VI(a) and (b), DPW's Denial was improper because DPW <br /> failed to consider the exemptions from the building code process for"agricultural buildings," as <br /> is statutorily required by HRS § 46-88. Specifically,with respect to each of the Processing <br /> Facility, the Agricultural Office, and the Covered Work Area, DPW erred in failing to consider <br /> the applicability of the exemptions and special approvals set forth in HRS § 46-88(a) and(b), <br /> and in failing to determine that the Processing Facility met the criteria for either or both. <br /> DPW's failure to do so constitutes clear error an abuse of discretion, and a violation of law. <br /> VII. CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR REVERSAL. <br /> Based on the foregoing, as well as the arguments and evidence to be presented at a <br /> hearing on this appeal, the Board should reverse the Director's Determination and approve the <br /> Declarations. <br /> 11 <br /> 4870-8058-9647.4.071717-00001 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.