2008-02-12_Opinion_re_Mud_Lane - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Honorable Dominic Yagong February 12, 2008 Page 5 Here,however, the proposed project does no more than restore and resurface a long- established rural secondary public road. It is not, for instance, creating a substantially larger, faster,multilane paved road. As Exemption Class 2, item No. 1 finds, even paving of an existing gravel road is generally approved as an exemption. This project does not even go that far. There are no exotic secondary effects foreseen. Some members of the public have,without official sanction, been using the right-of-way for recreational walking. However, this is not an area dedicated for park or recreational uses. It remains a road right-of-way, which has never been abandoned by the County Council. As such, the County retains the authority to clear the area for road use. Permissive recreational use, without right to continue such use, does not provide standing to sue for an EA. See, Conservation Council of North Carolina v. Constanzo, 505 F.2d 498, 502 (4tI' Cir. 1974). III. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing,the County administration's position is that the proposed project does not require an EA under HRS Chapter 343, because State Environmental Council approved exemptions apply. Please let us know if there are substantial additional facts that should be taken into account. Thank you. Sincerely, I WO Ivan M. Torigoe Deputy Corporation Counsel IMT:mc sAwork 2008\feb\wrk 08-0245 position Itr to yagong re mud lane IMTmc