Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Malama Pupukea-Waimea Contested Case Petition

4,584 views

Published on

Malama Pupukea-Waimea Contested Case Petition

Published in: News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Malama Pupukea-Waimea Contested Case Petition

  1. 1. MiLAIVT PUPUKtrA-WAIMEA 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization P.O. Box 1BB HaÌe'iwa, Hawai'i 96172 Telephone: (B0B) 3BB-3825 E-mail: SaveSharksCoveßgmail.com :ii:,;, ,!" tl 2ü.l? ¡ï liríriiÈ¿ü ii,Il! i,i::ìl'iì[.['f å*{fl; Docket No. : PETTTION FOR A CONTESTED CASE HEARING ON APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR, CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU/ DEPARTMENT OF' PLANN]NG AND PERMITT]NG TO ISSUE SPBCTAL MANAGEMENT AREA M]NOR PERMIT 2OI1 /SMA_21 FOR THtr HANAPOHAKU LLC *SIIARK/ S COVE DEVELOPMENT,,; CERT]FICATE OF SERVICE tË t'Ì il' ll IrT ilì BEFORE CTTY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU DEPARTMENT OF' PLANNING AND PERM]TTING STATE OF HAWAI /I In the Matter for Contested of the Petition Case Hearing of MLANil PUPUKEA_WATMtrA of SpeciaJ- Management Area (*SMA") Minor Permit Approval for HANAPOI-IAKU LLC (2OI1lSUe- 2I), Located at: (1) 59-172 Kamehameha Highwây, Hale'iwa, Hawai 'i 96'l 12 , TMK No . 5- 9- 011:068; (2) 59-106 Kamehameha Highway, Hale ' Lv'ra, Hawai 'i 96'772, TMK No. 5-9-011: 069; and (3) 59-053 Pahoe Road, Hafe'iwa, Hawai'i 96112, TMK No" 5-9-011:070 iì ij
  2. 2. PETITTON FOR A CONTESTED CASE HEARTNG ON APPEÀI FROM THE DECTSTON OF THE PLANNTNG DTRECTOR/ CrTY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, DEPARTMENT OF PI,ANNING AND PERMITTING TO ISSUE SPECÏAL }4ANAGEMENT ÀREA MINOR PERMTT 20]-7 /SM¡'_2L FOR THE HÄNAPOHAKU LLC SÍ{ARI(/ S CO¡E DEVELOPMENT// I. INTRODUCTÏON 1. Petitioner Mãlama Pupùkea-Waimea ("Petitioner" or ReJ-ating to Shoreline Setbacks and the Special Management Area "MPW") submits this petition, pursuant to section I2-2 of the DeparLment of Planning and Permitting (*DPP") Part 2 Rules ("Part 2 Rules"), for a contested case hearing on its appeal 2. On August 2, 2OL1, the Planning Director issued SMA Minor Permit to Applicant G70 Jeff Overton, as agenL for from the Planning Director's decision to issue Special Management Area ("SMA-) Minor Permit 2071/SMA-21 for "Shark's Cove Development Landowner and Developer Hanapohaku LLC ("Deve1oper") for a commercial development DPP identifled as "Shark's Cove Development, " (see 2011 /SMA-21 (attached as Exhibit "A.") ) , Iocated on three contiguous parcels owned by the same Developer at: (1) 59-112 Kamehameha Highway, Hale'ivta, Hawai'i 96112, TMK No" 5-9-011:068 ("Parcel 68"), (2) 59-106 Kamehameha Highway, Hale'iwa, Hawai'i 96'772, TMK No. 5-9-011:069 ("Parcel 69") ; and (3) 59-053 Pahoe Road, Hale'Íwa, Hawai'i 96'712, TMK No " 5-9- 011:070 ("ParceI '/0") 2
  3. 3. Statutes (*HRS") Chapter 2054 and Chapter 25, Revised Ordinances of Honolulu (*ROH"), and therefore is null and void. '3. For the reasons stated beIow, the'Planning Director's decision to issue the SMA Minor Permit vio.l-ates Hawai'i Revised 4. Petitioner seeks an order vacating the SMA Minor Permit, requiring Developer to pay all accumulated fines, and instructing Developer to submit an appÌication for an SMA Use Permit ("Major") that demonstrates full compliance with County, State, and Federaf laws prior to the Planning Director's approval ÏÏ. LEGAI PROTECTTONS IN THE SPECTA], MANÀGEMENT AREA The purpose of the State of Hawai'i Special Management Area law is "to preserve, protect, and where possible, to restore the natural resoLrrces of the coastal zone of Hawaii HRS S 2O5A_2I " 5 6. The purpose of ROH Chapter 25 is "to preserve, protect, and where possibrle, to restore the naturaf resources of the coastal zone of Hawaii. Special controls on development within an area along the shoreline are necessary to avoid permanenL and to ensure that adequate public access is provided to pubic Ioss of valuable resources and foreclosure of management options, owned or used beaches/ recreation areas, âDd natural ROH Chapter 25-I .2 a .) reserves
  4. 4. -l . "Development'/' in the Special Management Area without contest that the "Shark's Cove Development" is development. an SMA. permit is unLawful. HRS S 205A-26. Developer does not B. An SMA Minor Permit may be lawfully issued by the Planning Director onJ-y when "the valuatron is not in excess of $500,000, and which has no substantial adverse envíronmental or ecological effect, taking into account potentiaJ- cumul-atíve ef fects HRS S 205A-22 9. DPP's review of Developer's inadequate application, valuations, revisions, modificatlons, and failure to correct misleading and inaccurate information violates HRS Chapter 205A and ROH Chapter 25. 10. DPP has an affirmative duty to thoroughly review permit applications and to make determinations consistent with the purposes of HRS Chapter 205A and ROH Chapter 25. In issuing ii-s decision on the SMA Mínor Permit, DPP failed to uphold these duties and specifically failed to conduct an independent valuation and take into account pot.ent-ial cumulative impacts; therefore the determinations were based on erroneous findings of material fact or were otherwise arbitrary and capricrous ]II " PET]TIONER 11 " Petitioner Mãlama Pupùkea-Waimea rs a 501 (c) (3) non- profit organizaLíon registered to do business in the State of Hawaí'i" Petrti-oner's mailing address is P.O" Box 1BB, FIale'iwa, 4
  5. 5. based North Shore non-profit, formed in 2005, to "replenish and sustain the natural and culturaf resources of the Pupùkea and Hawai'i 96112. Petitioner's phone number 1s (B0B)'3BB-3825, and email is SaveSharksCoveGgmail-. com. Petitioner is a volunteer- Waimea ahupua'a for present and future generatrons through active community stewardship, education, and partnerships. " More information about Petitioner is available at 72. For the past twelve years, Petitioner, through its volunteer members, has maintained a weekly presence at the Pupùkea Beach Park and the Pùpúkea Marine Life Conservation District (*MLCD"), which are across the two-lane Kamehameha Highway from and virtualfy adjacenL to the properties that are the subj ect of the chal-Ienged SMA Minor Permit. 13. MPW members have stewarded and monítored the health of the Pupukea Beach Park/ MLCD/ and Special Management Area Members have worked tirelessly to increase the knowledge of and have provided thousands of volunteer hours as well as over half wr^rw " p:.,pi:}.,eawai:nea " OIq. a million dollars (in qrants, donations/ and in-kind services) beach, shoreline, and park clean ups, biological and human use monitoring, in water fish counts, limu identrficatjon studres, support for the ecological vafues, rules, and user impacts amongi the community, youth, visitors, and users" MPW and its members for improvements, oversight, educational programs and outreach, 5
  6. 6. water qual-ity testing, invasive species renLovatr and coastaf restoration. MPW afso documents and reports rule violations to the State Department of Land and Natural Resources ("DLNR") Divlsion of Conservation and Resources Enforcement ("DOCARE") through our Makai Watch volunteers. MPW is a certified member of the DLNR-DOCARE Makai Vrlatch program. 14. MPVü has many board, staff, advísory board, and volunteer members who are residents of the Pùpukea/Sunset Beach community and who are frequent users of the Shark's Cove area/ incl-uding Púpttkea Beach Park and Pùpùkea MLCD, for recreatron, research/ ecological, and educational- purposes, including specifically its board members who are long-time residents of the area, Denise Antolini, Roberts (Bob) Leinau, John Cutting, Jim Parsons/ and Laura Parsons¡ âs well as staff members Maxx Elizabeth Phitlips and Jenny Yagodich, and advisory board member Palakiko Yagodich, whose family uses the area for traditional and cultural practrces. 15. Petitioner MPW and its members are specifically, personally, and adversely affected by the "Shark's Cove Development" and its adverse impacts on the Special Management Area and therefore MPW has legal standing to bring this petition. 16. In addition, Petitioner also has standing because it suffered procedural injury when DPP erroneously treated the requiring only an SMA Minor Permrt,"Shark's Cove Development" AS 6
  7. 7. thereby improperly avoiding a formal publiC hearing and proper environmenta-l- review of the substantial adverse impacts and potential mitigation. substantive and procedural- due process for the "Shark's Cove Development" has improperly shifted the burden of proof from the Developer to the community to assess and mitigate the environmental and cumulative impacts of this development in the Specíal Management Area. This procedural- injury and improper placement of the burden on the community violates the spirit and letter of the laws protecting Hawai'i/ s precious shoreline resources including HRS 205A, ROH Ch . 25, the public 1-rust doctríne, and the precautionary principle IV. BACKGROUND 18. Developer purchased Parcels 68, 69, and 70 on June 26, 2014. fl . Moreover, the DPP's lack of compliance with required 19. Beginning in late 2014 or early 2015, Developer undertook unpermitted development including, but not Iinited to, adding nine stationary food trucks, constructing at least two unpermitted decks enclosing stationary food trucks, an unpermitted wooden deck addition to an existing structure, unpermitted plumping improvements/ unpermítted electrical and water connections/ unperÍLitted fences, and unpermitted grubbing 7 and grading.
  8. 8. 20. This development was done with no 'building permits and no SMA permits, and resulted in numerous violat-ions 2I. This development has increased traffic and pedestrian congiestion, unsafe and unsanitary conditions, and created litter, restroor,n over-usage problems in the Special Management Area, adversely affecting Petítioner's and the community's access to and use of the Pupùkea Beach Park and the Pupukea MLCD. Only after community viqilance, monitoring, and complaints to regulatory agencies and elected officials did Developer make any parkinq, erosion, resource over-use, potentlal poJ-Ìution, and effort to reduce the impact of its activities. However, these of spillover litter from eaterÍes at the "Shark's Cove amount of trash removed in 2016 increased to I,617 pounds. As signíficant problems persist 22" This development has, for example, increased Iitter found in the Pupukea Beach Park and the Pùpùkea MLCD as a result Development. " Members have been findinq more and more rubbish in the Special Management Area from various food trucks and have observed patrons walking over wlth food debris and leaving it on g,round" fn 2014, prior to increased commerclal operations at the "Shark's Cove Developmentr " Petitioners removed 763 pounds of trash from the Pùpükea Beach Park and the Pupukea MLCD. In 2015, after Developer's increaserl commer:cial operations, Petitioners removed approximately 1,500 pounds of trash" The B
  9. 9. its tenants' and their customers' trash, Petítioner removed I,686 pounds of trash (annualized, roughly 2,200 pounds/Year) from Pùptrkea Beach Park and the Pùpùkea MLCD. 23. Between February 2015 and November 2015, DeveÌoper j-ntentionally segmented the "Shark's Cove Development" by submitting three separate SMA Minor Permit applications for one unified development, thereby depriving DPP's Planning Director and staff of complete and accurate information. 24. Between March 2015 and January 2016, the Planning Director issued three similar SMA Minor Permits to the same Applicant Gregory A. Quinn, âs agent for the same Landowner and Developer Hanapohaku LLC for a single unified commercial development-the "Project" DPP identified, at the tíme¡ âs "sharks Cove Commerclal Developmerrt," see Jan 5, 2016 Director's öf'September TB, 2011, despite efforts by Developer to contain review meeting (attached as trxhibit "8"), located on three Hawai'i 96112, TMK No" 5-9-011:069 ("Parcel 69"), see 2075/SMA- 41 (attached as trxhibit "E"); and (3) 59-063 Pahoe Road, contiguous parcels owned by the same Developer at: (1) 59-112 Kamehameha Highway and 59-1 124 Kamehameha Highway, Hale'íwa, Hawai'i 96-112, TMK No. 5-9-011:068 (*Parcel 68") , eâô 20L5/ SMA_ 6I (attached as Exhibit "C"), superseding 2OI5/ SMA-B (attached as Exhibit "D"); (2) 59-116 Kamehameha Highway, Hale'iwa, 9
  10. 10. 2OI5/SMA-24 (attached as trxhibit rrprr¡ .1 25. The inadequate applications, revisions, modifications, and failure to correct misleadinq and inaccurate information led to the illegal segmentation of the permitting process vlolating HRS S 2054 and ROH Chapter 25 26. On March 9, 2076l MPW filed a petition for a consolidated contested case hearing on appeal from the decisions of the Planning Director, City and County of Honolulu, Department of Planning and Permitting to issue three Special Management Area Minor permits for the Hanapohaku LLC "sharks Cove Commercial Development." See Case No. 2016/GEN-4. This contested case and Developer's Petition To Intervene are still pending. Hale'îvta, Hawài r i '96'lï2, TMK No. 5-9-011:070 ("Parcel J0") , see 21. On April 6, 20f6l over one hundred community members attended the North Shore Neighborhood Board Special Meeting for the Hanapohaku LLC "Sharks Cove Commercial Development" at I¡rlaimea Valley. At this meetinq, Developer, represented by co- owner Andrew D. Yani, repeatedly apologized and promised to withdraw all three SMA Minor permits. 28. On May 2, 2016, in response to Developer/s request to withdraw the three SMA minor permits, DPP revoked all three t Some of these 2, supra. addresses appear to have changed" See Paragraph 10
  11. 11. permits (201'5/SMA-'24, '2O"I5/SM|A-4'l , and 2015/ SMA-61), ordering that aIl development authorized by these approvals be removed, that the area be "restored to its pre-approval conditionr " and "Ia]ny outstanding violations associated with those approvals must be resolved (i. e., grading, etc. ) See DPP May 2, 2016 letter (attached as Exhiblt G//) 29. On May 3I, 2016, Developer applied for another SMA Minor Permit 2016/SMA-36 for modifications of and additions to the commercial structures orÌ Parcel 68, including converting the dentist's office and prefabricated container buildinqs into a commercial kitchen and correcting of existing violations. See 2016/Sl4l-36 Application File (attached as trxhibit "H") . 30. Developer's May 23, 2016 val-uation for SMA Minor Permit 2016/SMA-36 states that the cost of converting the dentist's offrce into a "commercial kitchen" would total $49,005 (commercial kitchen interior, Ç26,505 and commercíaf kitchen addition, ç22,500) . In addition, Developer states the cost of a related contarner conrmlssary building as $25,000. See 2016/SMA- 36 Application File (Exhibit H//) (J.Uno & Assoc. Inc. cost anal-ysis at p" t3l.) Major SMA Use permit, which would require an Environmental 31" On July 13, 2016l DPP rejected SMA Minor Permit 2076/SMA-36, stating that the appropriate remedlz for the outstanding víolations and future development was to obtain a 11
  12. 12. Assessment. See'2076/SM?'-'36 Application'!-iIe'(Exh'ib'rt'"H"'), also August 29, 2076, letter from DPP to Senator Riviere (attached as Exhibít "f"). 32. Despite DPP's rejection of 20L6/SMA-36, Developer proceeded to illegally construct the "commercial kitchen" and made a number of other unpermitted site improvements. See 2Or1 / SMA-21 (trxhibit A// ) at 3- 4 . 33. On January 23, 2011 / DPP issued a Notice of Vlolation ("NOV") to Developer for "[m]ul-tiple violations in Special Management Area without a Special Management Area (SUa¡ permit Structures íncluding food trucks, shipping containers, loading trucks, septic tanks, wooden decks and stairs, tents, eating areas with tables and benches, signs and sheds, temporary toilets, fences, walls, parking areas and all other structures which have not been permitted must be removed" Grading has been undertaken without the required permit. Commercial actiwities which lack a SMA permit must cease correct all of the violations cited above and restore the síte to the original conditíons allowed by approved permíts." See 2016INOV-12-I31 (attached as Exhibit "J") (emphasis added) 34. In response, Developer took no action to cure the violations in the NOV. 35" On February 2J, 2071 / DPP issued a Notice of Order (*NOO" ) t-o Develope:: f or "mul.tiple violations j-n Special 1aIL
  13. 13. lvlanagement'Area (Slta1 without an SMA'Use Permit." D'PP ordered Developer to pay a fine of ç2,000.00 by March 30, 2011 and to correct violations by March 74, 2011, after which a $500.00 Permit 2011/SMA-I4 "to allow (retain) [sic ?] exísting daily flne would be assessed until the corrections were completed. See ZOI]/NOO- O 0Z (attached as Exhibit K// ) 36. Developer did not comply with the NOO and continued unpermitted development and commerciaL activities on the site. 31 . On April 1"9, 207J, while the MPW contested case was stayed by agreement, Developer applied for yet another SMA Minor did not demonstrate that the Project is eligible for a minor SM-A commercial activities including food trucks, after-the-fact grading and grubbing, construction of a parking J-ot, installation of an j-ndividual wastewater system, and the establishment of outdoor, covered eating and drinking areas. " See 2011lSue-14 Apptication Fl1e (attached as Exhibit L//) at 1 38. On May 16, 2071 / DPP rejected SMA Minor Permit 2O71ISMA-14 as incompleLe, finding "that application materials Permit" in part because the value of the food trucks was not included. *ff the food trucks leave the site each day, the application should specify that, and the walue of the trucks will not need to be added Lo the total Project wal-uation. If, oh the other hand, the food trucks will reqularly remal-n an place for days aL a time or cannot move at all, the walue of the 13
  14. 14. trücks must be included ín the'Project valuation. In síte visits last year, w€were led to believe that the trucks do not rnove on a daily basls, and in fact rarely move at all. If this is the case, the application should clearly say so. If the new proposal involves daily movement of the trucks, the application should indicate where they will be parked every eweníng." See 2011 /SMA-14 Application File (Exhiblt *L") (emphasis added) at 1- 2 existing[,] retail and eating estab'lishments on the site, and to authorize site improvements" such as: clearing; gradÍng; fiÌl; landscapírg; gravel cover; parking LoL/ sidewalk; ATU wastewater the-fact SMA Minor Permit to allow newl, I and partially retain system; chain link fence; trash enclosure; water Iines; and 39. On May 23, 2011, Developer re-applied for an "after- electrical lines. Developer estimated the total valuation for 4 the development at $351,908. See 2071 /SMA-21 (Exhibit A//) at See 2011 /Sve-21 Apptication File (Exhibit *M") . DPP approved 40. Despite DPP's unambiguous directive of May 76, 20I'/, the valuation made no mention of the existing unpermitted food trucks that regularJ-y remain in place for days at a time; and did not mention the already in-place complete commercial kitchen. a plan submit-ted by Developer that included fjve food trucks, Lhe value of which should have been included in the cost valuation 14
  15. 15. because, according to 'DPP, '"their use is considered 'development' for the purposes of Chapter 25, ROH"" 2011/SMA-21 2011) for SMA permit 2011 /S'IA-21 incomplete, but it is also inadequate and misleading. The valuation inexplicably reduces the cost of muftíple items already installed on site. for (trxhibit A// ) at 6 41. Not only is the Developer's valuation (dated May 22, example, oD April 16, 20IJ, Item 7, "Temp. Erosion Control Exhibit "M") . 42" On Augrust 2, 20L1, the Planning Director approved SMA 2011 /SUa-l¿ Application File (Exhibit "L"). However¡ or May 22, Measures, In Place Complete" was valued at $9,500.00. See 2OI1, Item L, "Temp. Erosion Control Measures, fû Place Complet-e" was reduced by sixty-one percent without explanation to $3,696.00. See 2071 /sYt?'-Zt Applicatlon FiIe (attached as (Exhibit "4") at 1. There is no indication that DPP conducted a Minor Permit 2011 /SMA-21 based on her determination that the Project "has a stated valuation of less than $500,000, and will have no significant ef fect on SMA resources." See 2011 /SNIA-2I thorough and independent review of the "stated valuation." 43 " The permit approval also vÍolated HRS Chapter 2054- 26(2) (a) and ROII Chapter 25-3 "2 (b) (1) because it noL contain any findings regardinq existing or potential cumulative impacts, or indicate that such impacts had l¡een considered. For example, l5
  16. 16. alone indirect, potential, and cumulative impacts. See 2011/SMA-21 (Exhibit "A") at 4. To the contrary, Dpp improperly punted any analysis of trafflc impacts to later stages of the âlthouÇh DPP acknowledge'd that the "Project generates traffic congestion, " and "creates problems with vehicufar and pedestrian safety, " DPP díd not analyze these existing direct impacts, let permitting process/ see 2011 /SI4A-2I (Exhibit A//) at J, notwlthstanding that traffic impacts are environmental impacts that must be considered at the SMA stage. 44. In another indication of its underestimation of the rmpacts/ DPP acknowledges DeveJ-oper's estimate that "each food truck serves an average of 300 to 400 customers per day." See 2011 /SMA-2I (Exhíbit A//) at 6. This means that the total estimated number of customers to the site is 2,000/day, or 60,000/month, or 720,0OO/year. The impacts of attractlng this large number of customers to the site are nowhere anal-yzed by DPP " "compliance with the Unilateral Agreement (Ue¡ executed pursuant 45. DPP also failed to conduct an adequate analysis of to the provrsions of the original zone change of this site to 20f1 /sua-21 (Exhibrt A) at 1 " DPP mentions only one of several aspects of l-he UA and rgnored the Kamehemeha Highwalz improvements requì red under the uA to address traffrc impacts the B-1 Neighborl-rood Business District (Ordinance No " 1B-J6) ." 16
  17. 17. The permit approval does not contain any mentlon of the required road improvements nor any analysís of traffic impacts and congestion resulting from the "Shark's Cove Development 2OI1 / SMA-2I (Exhibit "4" ) at 2 See 46. DPP also failed to mention or address the outstandinq flnes assessed against Developer for illegal development in the SMA as described in DPP's own NOV and NOO. Given the history of this developer violatlng DPP/ s orders, payment in full of the fines, now approaching $100,000, shoufd have been a condition of the SMA Minor Permit. See NOV and NOO (Exhibits J// and "K") V THE PI,ANNTNG DIRECTOR/ S DECISION TO APPROVE THE SMA MTNOR PERM]T FOR THE *SHARK' ' CO/E DEVELOPMENT" VIOI,ATED HRS S 2O5A AND ROH CHAPTER 25. 4'7 . The Planning Director erroneoltsly approved the SMA Minor Permit for the "Shark's Cove Development" Iocated on the North Shore of O'ahu on Parcels 68, 69, and 70 because the requirements for an SMA Minor Permit were not met " 48. No SII4A permlt, including an SMA Minor Permit, may be issued unless it is first found that adverse environmental or ecological effect/ HRS S 2054- 26 (2 ) (A) ; and (b) The development is consistent with the ob-jectives, policies and guidelines of Chapter 205A, HRS S 2054- 26(2) (B) " (a) The development will not have any substantíal- T7
  18. 18. 49. The'Planning'Director may not issue an SMA Minor Permlt for a development unless it meets all of the tests set out above and the valuation of the development is not in excess of $500,000.00. 50. The Planning Dírector's decision to issue SMA Minor Permit 2071 /SMA-ZL to "al-low new and partialty retain existing retail and eating estab,lishments on the site, and to authorize site improvements including girading, paved parking, outdoor seating, wastewater management, storm water retention, and various other improvements" violated the Part 2 Rufes and HRS S decision of the Planning Director to issue the SMA Minor Permit 9I-L4, and a petitlon for a contested case hearing regarding the 2OI1 / SMA-2r (Exhibit "A" ) . analyze the conditions of Lhe existing Unilateral Agreement, (5) 51 " The Planning Director's decision was arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to law, because she negilected to: (1) consider alI available material facts, (2) properJ-y investigate the val-uation of the Project, (3) analyze obvious direct, lndirect, potential and cumulative impacts prior to approval, (4) is proper under section 12-II (a) of the Part 2 Rules. See require the payment of fines directly related to the subject matter of the SMA Minor Permit, and (6) require an SMA Use Permit, in vrolatron of HRS S 205A and ROH Chapter 25 1B
  19. 19. 52. The 'Pa'rt' 2 Rules provide'for an appeal' of the decision of the Planning Dlrector to issue SMA minor permits in section I2-2 (a) : Any person who is specif ically, pe,rsonally, and adversely affected by an action of the director may request a hearing to appeal any part or requirement of the action, Chapter S I2-Z (a) . q? This appeal is timely filed within thirty (30) reversed or vacated. published in the Office of Environmental Quality Control Notice pay all accumufated fines, and apply for an SMA Use Permit. on August 23, 2011. See 'i'Ild"Þdi, at 11. 54. The SMA Minor Permit is invalid and void. The Developer should be required to correct al-I pending violations, calendar days after notice of SMA Minor Permit 2011 /SlqA-21 was 55. Petitioner reserves the right to amend this Petition to set out in more detail the reasons why the Planning Director's decisron to issue the SMA Minor Permit must be DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, Se ember 22, 2 Ie d An I ffi¡a1a1 PÚPÚKEA-WAIMEA ent 19

×