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
Put simply, a structure that meets the definition of an "Agricultural Building"is exempt <br /> from the Hawaii County Building Code permitting process, even if the structure also meets <br /> the definition of a "Building" under the County Building Code. Instead,Appellant's <br /> structures must be processed under the exemptions and expedited approvals of HRS § 46-88. <br /> The DPW Director's determination that HRS § 46-88 does not provide an exemption from the <br /> County Building Code violates law, and must be reversed. <br /> B. To the Extent that DPW Made a Factual Determination that Appellant's <br /> Structures Do Not Meet the Definition of an "Agricultural Building,"that <br /> Finding is Clearly Erroneous and Arbitrary. <br /> It is possible that DPW's Denial is based implicitly on the factual determination that <br /> Appellant's structures do not meet the statutory definition of an"agricultural building"for <br /> purposes of HRS § 46-88. If such a factual determination was made, then it is clearly erroneous <br /> in light of the evidence in the record, and is also an unwarranted abuse of discretion. <br /> "Agricultural Building"is defined as "a development, including a nonresidential building or <br /> structure: <br /> 1. built for agricultural or aquacultural purposes, <br /> 2. located on a commercial farm or ranch constructed or installed to house farm or ranch <br /> implements, agricultural or aquacultural feeds or supplies, livestock, poultry, or other <br /> agricultural or aquacultural products, <br /> 3. used in or necessary for the operation of the farm or ranch, or for the processing and <br /> selling of farm or ranch products. <br /> See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 46-88(d). The evidence shows that Appellant's Processing Facility, <br /> Agricultural Office, and Covered Work Area squarely meet every element of that definition. <br /> First, each of those structures is a non-residential structure, built solely for agricultural purposes <br /> (processing livestock for local ranchers, storage of feed and seeds, and ancillary uses). Second, <br /> the structures are located on a commercial farm/ranch on agricultural land, for the purpose of <br /> processing livestock(i.e. a ranch/agriculture product), and for purposes incidental to such uses. <br /> Third, the structures are used for the processing and selling of farm and ranch products (livestock <br /> for local ranchers). <br /> 9 <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.