Laserfiche WebLink
Kelly Wilson rejected the third and final inspection of the electrical permit. Although no DPW <br /> inspector actually visited the site that day for a final inspection, Mr. Wilson rejected the <br /> previously-issued electrical permit on the grounds that I`o Processing needed to first obtain <br /> building permits for the Facility. Alarmed by DPW's reversal of its previous approval, I`o <br /> Processing immediately submitted the Declarations, seeking DPW's official recognition that the <br /> Facility qualified for an agricultural exemption under HRS § 46-88 (as DPW had previously <br /> advised). What followed was 18 months of shifting positions and ever-involving criterion and <br /> requests by DPW: <br /> • January 9, 2023: DPW informed I`o Processing that it would need 1 to 2 months to <br /> prepare a response to the exemption request because it"was currently revising <br /> policies and procedures regarding the declarations" and the inspector had"a few <br /> issues [he] require [sic] department acknowledgement/clarification." This despite the <br /> fact that HRS § 46-88 requires that the "appropriate county agency shall certify the <br /> building, structure, related appurtenances, or development within thirty calendar days <br /> upon the receipt of the written notice from the owner or occupier." <br /> • January 13, 2023: DPW informed I`o Processing that the "structures do not qualify <br /> to utilize the HRS § 46-88 exemption" and told I`o Processing that"you will need to <br /> pursue traditional permitting (Building/Electrical/Plumbing)." (emphasis added). <br /> DPW explained that an exemption was not available because the Facility met"the <br /> definition of a Building," and therefore an"[a]pplication for building Permit is <br /> required." DPW expressly confirmed that this rejection was its "final decision"for <br /> purposes of I`o Processing's 30-day window to appeal to the Board. <br /> • February 10, 2023: After I`o Processing informed DPW that it was appealing, DPW <br /> reversed its January 13 final decision, stating that"[w]e are in discussion and have <br /> not made a final decision." (emphasis added). DPW offered a new, contradictory <br /> position: Whereas on January 13 DPW held that the Facility did not qualify for an <br /> exemption, DPW now stated that the exemption of HRS § 46-88 could apply, but <br /> 6 <br /> 4871-5206-8494.1.071717-00001 <br />