2021-05-20 Leeward Exh A (Discussion on amending agenda)

Home

withdrawn. There has been a petition for standing in a contested case hearing on this agenda item that has also not been withdrawn. Given the very short notice, on which this item was withdrawn, was requested to be postponed, there wasn't sufficient time for the applicant to notify all the owners and lessees or individuals who have possessory interests of properties within 300 feet pursuant to Planning Commission Rule 9-1 l(d). I'm concerned about the department unilaterally postponing this item. The applicant may withdraw their application at any time, but if they want to postpone the agenda item this close to the meeting, then the Planning Commission needs to make that determination. So the applicant is not the only party involved in this public meeting, especially if there is a request for standing in a contested case. So we will hear public testimony on this item, and then the Planning Commission will consider whether this item should be continued in its entirety or whether the commission should hear the petition for standing in a contested case. Moving onto potential amendment to the agenda item number 6. Deputy planning director is requesting a change to the planning director-initiated bill to add FA zoning. Mr. Darrow, will you please explain the requested amendment to the agenda? DARROW: I can. If we can go back to the previous item. The department does not agree with moving forward on the motion to grant or to deny standing on the matter of number 2. The applicant has requested a continuance; when you read the rules, it gives the applicant the right to submit a filing fee and to request a continuance. There is no information in the rule regarding a motion by the commission. Further down in the rule, under Decision and Order, there is a section that says the applicant may request the commission to defer action on the application. So there are two different situations here. As mentioned previously, standard practice is is that if the applicant requests a continuance prior to the hearing, there is no hearing that has, was no hearing on the matter, that we accept the request, they submit the filing fee the filing fee is for administrative cost that will be used to be able to re-agendize the item—and then they are required to send out the notification. As it was late in the process, I don't know if the applicant sent out the request to the surrou- or the information that was needed to be sent out to the surrounding property owners, but the department did post on the website that this item was continued. The department is not ready to move forward on this matter, and being a parry in this matter, is requesting that it be continued. VITOUSEK: Okay, thank you. You know, we are kind of getting conflicting message on whether it's the commission's role to continue a matter on the agenda, whether it's the department's. I believe that it's the commission's role to decide whether to continue a matter that is placed for the commission, and as such, I'd like to give the commission that opportunity and, you know, they will likely consider all of the information that's coming from the department and the applicant and public testimony in making a decision to continue DARROW: The reason why I mention that I disagree with that is because the way that the rule reads is that there is a process in place for the applicant to follow without the request, or being granted by the commission, and that process is that they submit the filing fee, and that they 3 EXHIBIT A