2023-02-10 I'o Processing Company - BOA General Petition for Appeal 4870-8058-9647 v.4

Home

The Hawaii legislature clearly intends for HRS § 46-88 to exempt agricultural buildings from the County Building Code. Indeed,the express purpose of the statute is to encourage sustainable, local farming and ranching by easing the administrative burdens and barriers facing them,including the building code. In 2013, the legislature amended HRS § 46-88 to make it substantially broader. The legislature explained its intent: "Your Committee on Conference finds that nonresidential building code requirements are financially and logistically burdensome to farming and ranching operations despite the minimal risk that these structures pose to public safety. Although Act 114, Session Laws of Hawaii 2012, exempts nonresidential agricultural and aquaculture buildings and structures from the building permit requirements, farmers and ranchers are still discouraged from expanding their farming operations due to the onerous building code requirements. The agricultural exemptions provided by this measure will ease the financial and administrative burden on farmers and ranchers and encourage agricultural diversification and self-sufficiency." See Ex. 10 (emphasis added). That intent is also shown by the specific amendments approved by the legislature, which include, among others: o "Removing the requirement that each county establish a list of agricultural buildings and structures that are exempt from existing building permit and code requirements;" o "Removing the county's discretion to determine which buildings and structures are exempt from building permit and building code requirements by requiring that all buildings and structures specified be exempt from building permits and, in certain cases, building code requirements;" Id. Clearly, the legislature intended that"agricultural buildings"be exempt from the burdensome and expensive requirements of the standard county building code permitting process, to encourage the development of sustainable farming and ranching in Hawaii. The DPW's Denial clearly violates the letter and intent of HRS § 46-88. The DPW is correct that the Processing Facility, Agricultural Office, and Covered Work Area might meet the definition of a"Building"under the Hawaii County Building Code,which is broadly defined as "any structure used or intended for supporting any use or occupancy." The DPW is also correct that the County Building Code purports to require the traditional building permit process for structures that meet the definition of a"Building." However, DPW's Denial is nevertheless incorrect: DPW failed to recognize that HRS § 46-88 expressly exempts a structure that meets the definition of an "Agricultural Building"from the County Building Code permitting process. 8 4870-8058-9647.4.071717-00001