2006-11-22_Answering_Brief_re_Calvert

Home

According to the legislative history of HRS Section 91-13.5, the law was enacted in an attempt to correct a reported problem of delays in obtaining business and development related approvals. The Governor's Economic Revitalization Task Force studied the issue. In enacting Act 164, S.B. No. 2204 (1998) the legislature stated: The purpose of this Act is to require the establishment of maximum time periods for the review and approval of all business and development related permit approvals and licenses. Issuing agencies would be required to review application for completeness in a timely manner and then to act upon the application within an established time frame, or application approval would be automatic. Having established a time limit for action on variance applications, the Planning I Department must perform under that time limit or the consequence under state law is automatic approval. The obligation of the court in interpreting a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the PP g intention of the legislature in enacting the law, United Public Workers, AFSCME, Local 646, AFL-CIO v. Hanneman, 106 Hawaii 359, 105 P.2d 236 (2006). In this case,the legislative intent is clear to make the timing permitted process more certain. Allowing the County to exempt itself from the requirements of the law does not give effect to the legislative intent. Appellant argues that this is not the case because the County provides for automatic denial. However, in the case of a conflict between the state law and a county law, the state law should prevail. C. Subdivision is a Part of the Zoning Authority Generated to the County by HRS Section 46-4 Appellant argues that the variance application is not a permit under HRS Section 46-4 which grants the County its zoning authority. The County was originally granted authority to enact subdivision laws by virtue of HRS Section 62-34(7). Chapter 62 was repealed in its entirety and replaced by HRS Chapter 46 12