2023-11-07 Request for Subpoena Duces Tecum

Home

for an agricultural exemption under HRS § 46-88 ("Denial"). Specifically, DPW refused to assess the applicability of the agricultural exemptions in HRS § 46-88. See Ex. 1 (Denial). I`o Processing respectfully submits that DPW's Denial violated HRS § 46-88 and was clearly erroneous in light of the evidence. Big picture, HRS § 46-88 expressly exempts "agricultural buildings"from the HCC, for the purpose of"eas[ing] the financial and administrative burden on farmers and ranchers and encourage agricultural diversification and self-sufficiency." Therefore, DPW should not have denied I`o Processing's request simply because structures met the definition of a"building"in the Hawaii County Code. Instead, DPW should have looked to the exemptions for agricultural buildings in HRS § 46-88, which supersede the permitting obligations for normal buildings in the HCC. To make matters worse, the manner in which DPW denied I`o Processing's agricultural exemption request appears to have been arbitrary. Beginning in February 2022, I`o Processing began working closely with DPW to make sure that the agricultural structures were legal and compliant; this involved multiple meetings, the submission of construction plans to DPW, an application for an electrical permit to DPW, and submission of agricultural declaration forms to DPW. In response, DPW repeatedly assured I`o Processing that everything was compliant and approved multiple rounds of inspection and approval for the electrical permit. It was not until many months later that DPW abruptly reversed its position and demanded that I`o Processing obtain traditional permits under the Hawaii County Code. Troublingly, the Denial came just several days after I`o Processing was informed that DPW was "revising policies and procedures regarding the [agricultural] declarations" -- apparently in response to I`o Processing's request, specifically. See Ex. 1 at p. 4. This sequence of events suggests that DPW may have arbitrarily created new policies to deny I`o Processing's request, or, alternatively, arbitrarily denied I`o Processing's request without having any policies or procedures in place supporting that denial. To have a fair opportunity to challenge the Denial in the hearing before the Board, I`o Processing needs access to basic documents and communications in DPW's possession concerning the Denial. The internal files generated by DPW in connection with the Denial, including emails, will allow I`o Processing and the Board to assess the grounds for the Denial. In addition, an analysis of DPW's policies, any proposed amendments to those policies, and any contemporaneous decisions on other agricultural exemptions will allow I`o Processing and the Board to determine whether and to what extent the Denial was arbitrary. 2 4871-5206-8494.1.071717-00001