|
was sent to Pacific Aqua on May 15, 2020. Under the rules, the applicant, himself, had fifteen
<br />days in which to file a petition after that date, and he did not do so. I neglected to point that
<br />out, which means, that even though Pacifica Aqua never submitted any kind of a petition for
<br />rehearing, they certainly would've had to have done so by, I believe, the end of May. May 30,
<br />1 believe, was the cut-off date. The only document that came in after that was Mr. Shropshire's
<br />petition for a rehearing, which occurred, and I don't understand, on June 9th. I looked at it, the
<br />date is June 9 on that thing. It says he turned it in to the Planning Department on May 23rd or
<br />24th to May 261h, somewhere in there, but it did not come to the Department.
<br />Kaye: By statute, it has to come to the Liquor Control Department, and it didn't get there until
<br />June 9th. So, even if Mr. Shropshire could sit in as an interested person, in this case, he was
<br />way late. If you judge it by the fifteenth, when the letter of denial went out, he was way late.
<br />If you judge it by the day the denial was made, which was May 7th, he was really late.
<br />In addition to all of those other reasons I gave that the petition should not be considered,
<br />that's another one. He just missed the due date. Thank you.
<br />Onizuka: Thank you, Mr. Kaye. Let's proceed, at this time, Corporation Counsel?
<br />Masuda: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the previous speaker just said, I'll explain the exact
<br />same issue, which is one of jurisdiction. The ruling made on May 7, and what the rule requires
<br />under our Liquor Rule 1-9, and in this case, (Rule 1-9) G would be applicable if he's considered
<br />the interested person. Assuming the fifteen days, fifteen days from May 7th would have been
<br />May 22"d, which was not done. And as the previous speaker said, he sent it to the Department
<br />of Planning on May 26th, so that was late anyway. By the time the Liquor Department got it,
<br />it was June 9th. As far as timing, there is no jurisdiction.
<br />Masuda: Mr. Shropshire, apparently, sent another document this morning, saying that the
<br />suspension of deadlines that were first contained in the March 24, 2020, second supplementary
<br />emergency proclamation, then clarified on April 1St in the Mayor's third supplementary
<br />proclamation, explained that it would extend the deadline to sixty days. Except that, what
<br />shall be noted, and in my opinion is, that this extension is for permit deadlines and automatic
<br />approvals, which is not the case for this petition. I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman.
<br />Onizuka: Thank you.
<br />Masuda: There's one more thing. Within the Governor's proclamations, under Exhibit H, there
<br />is provision for the County to make a decision. Individual counties can make a decision on how
<br />they want to conduct public hearings. Obviously, since we're having this one, the County of
<br />Hawai'i, Department of Liquor Control chose to conduct business as usual about having social
<br />distancing using this format of the WebEx. I'd like to just put that on the record,
<br />Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
<br />Onizuka: Thank you. At this time, call for a motion to close the public hearing.
<br />Hughes: Motion to close the public hearing.
<br />Raymond: Second.
<br />JULY 2,2020— LIQUOR COMMISSION MINUTES 8
<br />
|