Laserfiche WebLink
DARROW: Yeah. <br />CAMERO: Okay. <br />DARROW: There you go you're on. <br />CAMERO: Okay, sounds good. Thank you, guys so much for your patience. Good morning <br />Chair and members of the Planning Commission. As the Chair mentioned this is a Planning <br />Director Initiated amendment relating to the time and revocation requirements for Use Permits. <br />If you have any questions, please feel free to stop me at any time forlarif cation. Can you all <br />see my screen? <br />With this bill the Planning Director is proposing four (4) ami <br />change the zoning code language with the language that is=in <br />Rules of Practice and Procedures. Three (3) of the 4 _ posc <br />Section 25-2-64 of the Hawaii County Code. The;roposed <br />remove the requirement that the Commission shailter_apl <br />application no later than sixty (60) days after the closeAz <br />period as long as the Commission is in agreement with the <br />were provided in earlier testimony receivedby the departmel <br />allow for a longer time -period for the Commission to either <br />This is not shortening the time -period in ess_ericW ; ._ <br />Proposed amendment number two (2) clarifiem <br />approval that are not limit, ;hours of open <br />amendment number three (3) cla_f es that if the <br />Permit application in�th required time it is deem <br />all parties and a contested ::ease hearing pertaining <br />Commission. Renlacinathe`==broader-wtre1�obig <br />ents.=-These amendments are to <br />ie _current :V -r ing Commission <br />amendments Zf=this bill are within <br />nendment nurnbl one_(1) will <br />ye or deny a Use Permit <br />e= hearings or allow --`for a longer <br />)licant. To address comments that <br />this proposed amendment will <br />jrove or deny an application. <br />C0 -_--=-9 -Ron can add conditions of <br />in term§`�of the Use Permit. The proposed <br />nission fails to render a decision on a Use <br />proved unless an extension is agreed to by <br />ie permit is pending before the <br />on language in the current code. <br />Now, yoAhould have feceiyed ari'anendment to this Section which reflects what was suggested <br />by the lr eeward Planning missi6ffi >tl eir October 15, 2020 hearing. The Director thought <br />this was au appropriate amendment fof the automatic approvals therefore, we added the language <br />unless an e:66r ion is agreed-- o by all parties. All of the proposed amendments are shown on <br />your screen. <br />Comments came into t1e-Planning Department with regards to the automatic approval language. <br />I've taken this time to clarify the history of the automatic approval language which dates to 1998 <br />and Act 164 which amended HRS Section 91-13.5 to read as you see on the screen. This at the <br />time was an effort to revitalize Hawai`i's economy in the late 1990's. As for the change to <br />remove the written objections and replace it with the contested case. The Department has always <br />allowed for written objections to be submitted on any application. Written objections, however, <br />has not stopped applications from the automatic approval should the Commission not come to a <br />decision. Historically, a contested case has been the only deterrent from the automatic approval <br />as required by HRS. <br />EXHIBIT B (DRAFT) <br />3 <br />