2020-11-05 Exh B PD Initiated Relating to Use Permit

Home

DARROW: Yeah. CAMERO: Okay. DARROW: There you go you're on. CAMERO: Okay, sounds good. Thank you, guys so much for your patience. Good morning Chair and members of the Planning Commission. As the Chair mentioned this is a Planning Director Initiated amendment relating to the time and revocation requirements for Use Permits. If you have any questions, please feel free to stop me at any time for clarification. Can you all see my screen? With this bill the Planning Director is proposing four (4) amendments. These amendments are to change the zoning code language with the language that is in the current Planning Commission Rules of Practice and Procedures. Three (3) of the 4 proposed amendments of this bill are within Section 25-2-64 of the Hawaii County Code. The proposed amendment number one (1) will remove the requirement that the Commission shall either approve or deny a Use Permit application no later than sixty (60) days after the close of public hearings or allow for a longer period as long as the Commission is in agreement with the Applicant. To address comments that were provided in earlier testimony received by the department this proposed amendment will allow for a longer time-period for the Commission to either approve or deny an application. This is not shortening the time-period in essence. Proposed amendment number two (2) clarifies that the Commission can add conditions of approval that are not limited to the hours of operation in terms of the Use Permit. The proposed amendment number three (3) clarifies that if the Commission fails to render a decision on a Use Permit application in the required time it is deemed approved unless an extension is agreed to by all parties and a contested case hearing pertaining to the permit is pending before the Commission. Replacing the broader written objection language in the current code. Now, you should have received an amendment to this Section which reflects what was suggested by the Leeward Planning Commission at their October 15, 2020 hearing. The Director thought this was an appropriate amendment for the automatic approvals therefore, we added the language unless an extension is agreed to by all parties. All of the proposed amendments are shown on your screen. Comments came into the Planning Department with regards to the automatic approval language. I've taken this time to clarify the history of the automatic approval language which dates to 1998 and Act 164 which amended HRS Section 91-13.5 to read as you see on the screen. This at the time was an effort to revitalize Hawai`i's economy in the late 1990's. As for the change to remove the written objections and replace it with the contested case. The Department has always allowed for written objections to be submitted on any application. Written objections, however, has not stopped applications from the automatic approval should the Commission not come to a decision. Historically, a contested case has been the only deterrent from the automatic approval as required by HRS. EXHIBIT B 3