2016-02-04 Hearing Transcript - Arrow SPP 09-076 & Rodrigues SPP 15-178

Home

There are no agricultural uses on the property. The property is not suited for Agricultural use because it is poor soil as you’ve noted in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. It’s cinder and Aʽa lava because there’s very low rainfall in the area and because there’s no water supply available. In other words, there’s no other source of agricultural or County water in the area. So, the area is part of the draft Kaʽū Community Plan, and the community plan recognizes that quarrying activities are conducted there and should continue to be conducted there under this Special Permit process. The State Historic Preservation Division has issued a “no effect” letter saying that there are no historical sites impacted by the application. There have been no evidence of any sort of cultural activity on the property. The application and the quarries do not interfere with access to the shorelines or access to the mountains. There are no endangered species involved, and there’s no other environmental impacts from the quarry. So, the position of the Applicant is that the proposed quarrying operation meets the requirements for Special Permit under Hawaiʽi Revised Statutes, Chapter 205 and under the Planning Commission Rule 6. The rules recognize that with respect to certain activities like quarrying, they have to be conducted where the resources are. In other words, you have to go to where the resources are in order to harvest them or mine them, and that those resources may not be located in an area that’s zoned for Industrial use. So, this is typical of the type of special and unusual use that meets the criteria for issuance of a Special Permit. The Special Permit process has been utilized around the Island and over the decades to allow quarrying operations, usually in agriculturally zoned properties and because that is where the resources are located. So, basically, it seems that the Planning Commission, you know, proposed Findings and Conclusions recognize that the Special Permit process is appropriate and that the application meets the criteria for Special Permit. Interestingly, the Intervenors haven’t really objected to that or contested that because, you know, they themselves quarry cinder right across the street from the Arrow quarry. And, so the reason that we had to go through the contested case hearing process and the reason that we’re in this process right now is essentially because the Road Maintenance Corporation wanted the Planning Commission to impose conditions that would allow or would basically enhance the Road Maintenance Corporation’s ability to do what it’s already obligated to do under its corporate documents. In other words, the obligation of the Road Maintenance Corporation is to assess owners, you know, annual amounts and to use those funds to maintain the roadway. And, they have the right to foreclose properties if they need to, if there are unpaid assessments, and so, they already have the mechanism to do their road maintenance. They have the mechanism to enforce that, and it’s Arrow’s position that there’s no reason to involve the County or the Planning Commission or the Planning Department in that process. In other words, 7 EXHIBIT D