COM 0017.001 2020-2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

than 60 days after the close of public hearings or allow for a longer period as the Commission is in agreement with the applicant. To address the comments that were earlier provided in earlier testimony, this proposed amendment will ideally allow for a longer time period for the Commission to either approve or deny any application. Amendment two clarifies that the Commission can add conditions of approval that are not limited to the hours of operation in terms of the use permit, and amendment three clarifies that if the Commission fails to render decision on a use permit application in the required time, it is deemed approved unless a contested case hearing pertaining to the permit is pending before the Commission, replacing the broader written objection language in the current code. Now, I know all of you have seen some of the comments that`have come into the Planning Department in regards to the automatic approvals. The history :of the automatic approval language dates to 1998 with Act 164 which amended HRS Section 91-13.5 to read as you see on the screen. This was an effort to revitalize Hawai`i's,�,economy+ in,the late 1900s. As for the change to remove written objections and replace .h with contested`case;,the Department has always allowed for written objections to be submitted on any application: -Written objections, however, have not stopped applications from this automatic approval should.the Commission not come to a decision. Historically, a contested case has-been the"o" ply deterrent ftom the automatic r approvals as required by HRS. The fourth and last amendment:is to delete Se6tion125-2-67 and replace it with the following language. Section A now "giyes,the Director the authority to administer revocation of use permits when -requested by thepermit holder. Section B is the process in which the Commission shallrevoke a permit whei .;requested by the Director. Section C explains that written notice,shall be d6ne"by the DDirector to the permit holder, and lastly, Section D is the process to-appeaL a Director", srevocation.-These proposed amendments are again to provide consistency with the code and our current Planding Commission rules of practices and procedures. _ The Planning Directors recoramer ding tliat,the Planning Commission send a favorable recommendation to, the Hawai=`.i County code` [sic] for these amendments. After the Commission got the background and rec; comments came in from Verizon Wireless and AT&T, as well as AT&T.='The.Department is,;cuffently working to change our process on telecommunication towers in which that will addtes' s Verizon'and AT&T's comments. The Department has more fine-tuning to`&o and we will present thiscliange in the following months. With that, that concludes my presentation, and I can open the floor to any questions that you may have. CARR SMITH: Thank you;~Tracie. Mike? VITOUSEK: It, my understanding is that in the Planning Commission rules there is a provision that if the applicant requests a deferral, then they're kind of off the clock for that 60 -day time period. You think that's covered adequately in these rules? CAMERO: I would have to ask Jeff to go over that. We hadn't discussed any of the deferral language, actually. 2 EXHIBIT F