2008-01-11 TKOHALA LLC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Commission forever. It seems to me that clearly the applicant has 90 days and then to the extent that the Commission will agree to extend it and the applicant agrees to extend it, then it can stay. But I think there’s some ambiguity there. So, I don’t know -. If the applicant wants to keep it till the next meeting and nobody has a big objection to that, then I’m not going to stand in the way of that. th LIM: That is our request, to the March 20 meeting. YUEN: I understand what Mr. Torigoe is saying about the wording. But I do think that because of the consequences of an unfavorable recommendation that in the normal course if the applicant does not, wants to keep their request at the Planning Commission in the hope of getting a favorable recommendation, they should be able to do that. I mean it’s subject to reason. If it’s something that stalls matters at the Planning Commission over and over and it’s not going anywhere, I can see the Planning Commission sending it up. But I think generally we ought to honor the applicant’s request if they want to keep the matter at the Commission. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Since we were unable to reach a decision and given Mr. Yuen’s advice, I th would move that we continue Item No. 5 until the March 20 meeting. WATANABE: Okay, we have a motion. Is there any second? DOMINGO: Second. WATANABE: You second, Mr. -? DOMINGO: Second. WATANABE: Yes, okay, Mr. Domingo seconds. Yes, comment, Mr. Rho? RHO: I have a question. WATANABE: Yes. RHO: So there’s a motion, there’s a second. And if we can’t, we don’t have five votes, and then what happens? We’re going to stay here all night? WATANABE: Yeah -. TORIGOE: You know, what I would suggest is that I think given the ambiguity that we seem to have encountered here, I think, my recommendation would be to go ahead, and if the applicant is requesting one more continuance, my recommendation would be just to say that at EXHIBIT D 17