|
YOSHIMOTO: Yes, you know, if we want to go through a protracted discussion about this
<br /> particular issue, then we should go into executive session. All I can say for the record here simply
<br /> put is that Leeward Commission, Planning Commission, has what it has before it, and the
<br /> Commission has options on what it wants to do. I wouldn't let this—well, it's up to the
<br /> Commission, right, I mean if the Commission wants to hear or discuss this matter further in
<br /> executive session, then that would have to come on another date.
<br /> CARR SMITH: Thank you, J
<br /> VAN PERNIS: My second
<br /> CARR SMITH: Wait, Mark, Mark, you have to, yeah, so hold on a second, please, Mark. Maija, I
<br /> think you had something to add perhaps.
<br /> VAN PERNIS: Yes, I have a second legal question and a question for staff on their presentation.
<br /> CARR SMITH: All right, hold on, Mark. Maija, did you have a comment on this?
<br /> JACKSON: I do. So, I think the sticking point of misinterpretation here is that Commissioner
<br /> Van Pernis has said that the ordinance is pau, and it's not pau. There is nothing, there is no
<br /> condition in the ordinance that says that it shall automatically expire after a certain date, or there is
<br /> no condition in the ordinance that says if you don't perform, the ordinance automatically expires. It
<br /> requires further action on the part of the Planning Director, the Commission and the Council. There
<br /> is nothing in the Zoning Code that says non-conformance means the ordinance automatically
<br /> expires. So,just to be very clear, the ordinance is not pau and it does not automatically expire. The
<br /> reason, what there is in the Zoning Code is language that says an applicant can come back and
<br /> request amendments to ordinances or time extensions to an ordinance through the Director, the
<br /> Planning Commission and the Council. So that's where we are; we have an ordinance, two
<br /> ordinances that are what we call stale, have stale conditions, the applicant has requested the time
<br /> extension, and now the ball is really in Planning Commission and County Council's court to say,
<br /> hey, you know, we don't want to offer those time extensions or, yeah, that seems reasonable. So
<br /> that's just some context of how we have handled the situation in the past based on, you know, our
<br /> legal limitations on what the code says and the ordinances do or do not say.
<br /> CARR SMITH: Thank you, Maija, appreciate that.
<br /> VAN PERNIS: Let me respond to Maija by saying that's a good argument, but under that argument,
<br /> every ordinance can go on forever.
<br /> CARR SMITH: That's what we have in front of us, Mark, so
<br /> VAN PERNIS: Okay, let me ask Maija the other legal question. The applicants are asking for
<br /> deletion of the requirement of five acres going for a school lot, which implies, or states, that they are
<br /> going to take that five acres and include it in the development. Does this additional five acres trigger
<br /> the requirement for a new application to either the County or the State agencies involved?
<br /> 11
<br /> EXHIBIT D
<br />
|