Laserfiche WebLink
`OJ~1Y <br /> Oi 471 <br /> <br /> Stephen K. Yatnashiro i Richard Wunleman <br /> tilgynr ) Cogmratiun Cou nscl <br /> .pF Oi~NiYt <br /> C~nixixtu of ~nfixttii <br /> OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COUNSEL <br /> IUI Aupvni Srra4 Suim 325 • Ilila, Ilawai'i 96720-4162 • (808) 961-4251 • I'ax (BOd) 961-8622 <br /> 14 September 1998 <br /> TO: CONSTANCE R. KIRIU <br /> Legislative Auditor <br /> PROM: RICHARD D. WURDEMAN ~l;' <br /> Corporation Counse <br /> SUBJECT: RISOhUTION 2G7=98 <br /> On September 9, 1998, you asked whether the proposed <br /> amendments to Resolution 267-98 necessitate the introduction <br /> of a new resolution or whether Resolution 267-98 can be <br /> considered, as amended. <br /> Although the proposed amendments make substantial changes in <br /> the original proposal, it is not so "fundamentally different <br /> from that originally proposed as to amount to a new <br /> proposal". Carlsmith, Carlsmith, Wichman and Case v. C__FB <br /> properties <br /> 69 Haw 589 (1982). Further, I am assured that the changes <br /> are a response to that which was presented at the public <br /> hearing, and not new matters not previously discussed, <br /> another consideration in the Carlsmith case. <br /> While the question of "fundamental difference" is a factual <br /> one and is therefore a matter for debate, it should be <br /> pointed out that the Carlsmith case allowed Eor a building <br /> height increase from 150 to 310 feet., and that changes was <br /> not deemed a "fundamental difference." <br /> RDW:1938Lbre <br /> <br />