Laserfiche WebLink
Chair Carr Smith reconfirmed with staff that those applications were set for a hearing at the <br /> November 19, 2020, meeting, as far as the Commission was concerned. With respect to Chair <br /> Carr Smith's concern about the meeting length, Commissioner Vitousek spoke of his experience <br /> with the state Board of Land and Natural Resources where the board would remove a <br /> controversial item from the agenda to force the applicant to talk to their opposing parties and the <br /> government agencies prior to being heard by the board. He suggested that the Commission could <br /> determine based on public testimony whether it might make the hearing go more efficiently to <br /> have the applicant meet with the community and the Planning Department prior. Chair Carr <br /> Smith questioned if the Commission has the right to do so. Mr. Darrow responded that the <br /> Planning Department could request applicants to do so; however, there are specific time frames <br /> in which applications must be heard by the Commission, and if the applicant is not amenable to <br /> an extension, the Commission can find itself facing automatic approval. Commissioner Vitousek <br /> said that if the applicant was not willing, then the application would proceed to a hearing as is, <br /> which is what the Board of Land and Natural Resources does. Mr. Darrow said that since the <br /> indication of potential controversy is often apparent at early stage, the Planning Department does <br /> strongly encourage the applicant to meet with the community in such cases. He said that <br /> applicants also often assure the Planning Department that they have done so but cannot come to <br /> an agreement with the community. <br /> Commissioner Vitousek also suggested that an amendment to the Planning Commission Rule 9 <br /> and/or other appropriate sections be considered so that when the Commission reviews a time <br /> extension request, factors such as the passage of time, changes in the community and the <br /> environment shall be considered. He cited the federal regulation, 36 CFR Part 800, requiring <br /> that the effects of development on historic properties be re-evaluated after time because of the <br /> environment changes. Mr. Yoshimoto cautioned the Commission against discussing matters that <br /> were not on the meeting agenda. Commissioner Vitousek requested the matter be placed on a <br /> future agenda. Mr. Darrow responded that the staff was working on amendments to the Planning <br /> Commission Rules 8 and 9 based on Senate Bill 2060, which had amended Section 205A of <br /> Hawaii Revised Statutes; that would be a good time to consider such amendments to those rules <br /> as well. <br /> ADJOURNMENT <br /> There being no further business, it was moved by Commissioner Yates and seconded by <br /> Commissioner Kealoha that the meeting be adjourned. A voice vote was taken, and the motion <br /> carried with all in favor. Chair Carr Smith adjourned the meeting at 5:25 p.m. <br /> Respectfully submitted, <br /> Noriko Sauer, Secretary <br /> ATTEST: <br /> Nancy Carr Smith, Chairperson <br /> Leeward Planning Commission <br /> 5 <br />