04-29-2014, 09:08 AM
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session201...4_SD1_.HTM
The bill text calls it a "Sustainable Living Research Permit". I refer to it as a "Use Permit" simply because that terminology is currently used for all other exception permits (CUP, SUP). Because SB2274 has died, we will never know exactly what name County would have given this permit, but I suspect the word "Use" would be included, because it is a permit for a use.
Note, however, that a discussion of the possible name of a permit that might someday exist does nothing constructive to solve the actual problem which we still have today. (Half-point for the hypocrisy of this post.)
It is my considered opinion that County created this problem: this circus sideshow has been going on long enough that Belly Acres should either have been granted their SUP or been served with a C&D. Period.
From where I sit, SB2274 looks like a legitimate attempt to solve the very problem that everyone is complaining about. The whinging NIMBYs of opposition have yet to offer any constructive solution, nor is County taking any authoritative action.
Meanwhile, Belly Acres and other "sustainability research sites" remain completely unregulated.
Research would mean an accredited institution testing a hypothesis.
Perhaps; this condition is not directly imposed by SB2274, however the County may add other requirements at its discretion. Defining "research" as suggested above would certainly raise the barrier to entry.
I expected it to go like this: County would meet the letter of SB2274 by creating a "sustainability research permit" process while adding enough conditions that it would be nearly impossible to actually qualify for the permit. They would then grant two or three of these permits to UH (and possibly a Volcano art gallery) so that nobody could claim that County was refusing to issue permits.
quote:
Application for sustainable living research permit; evaluation. (a) A person desiring a sustainable living research permit shall submit an application to the planning department for the county in which the proposed sustainable living research site is located.
The bill text calls it a "Sustainable Living Research Permit". I refer to it as a "Use Permit" simply because that terminology is currently used for all other exception permits (CUP, SUP). Because SB2274 has died, we will never know exactly what name County would have given this permit, but I suspect the word "Use" would be included, because it is a permit for a use.
Note, however, that a discussion of the possible name of a permit that might someday exist does nothing constructive to solve the actual problem which we still have today. (Half-point for the hypocrisy of this post.)
It is my considered opinion that County created this problem: this circus sideshow has been going on long enough that Belly Acres should either have been granted their SUP or been served with a C&D. Period.
From where I sit, SB2274 looks like a legitimate attempt to solve the very problem that everyone is complaining about. The whinging NIMBYs of opposition have yet to offer any constructive solution, nor is County taking any authoritative action.
Meanwhile, Belly Acres and other "sustainability research sites" remain completely unregulated.
Research would mean an accredited institution testing a hypothesis.
Perhaps; this condition is not directly imposed by SB2274, however the County may add other requirements at its discretion. Defining "research" as suggested above would certainly raise the barrier to entry.
I expected it to go like this: County would meet the letter of SB2274 by creating a "sustainability research permit" process while adding enough conditions that it would be nearly impossible to actually qualify for the permit. They would then grant two or three of these permits to UH (and possibly a Volcano art gallery) so that nobody could claim that County was refusing to issue permits.