Laserfiche WebLink
argue, right. I mean, on any property. If you decided to make a second unit and you decide to <br />plumb it and you decide to have wastewater and you permit it, a designation is going to be <br />made. In this case, the designation has been made. So I just don't know if it's appropriate to <br />argue the logic of that designation so much as the fact that it was made, there are those <br />plumbing fixtures there. Whether or not it's used as a dwelling isn't relevant to that <br />designation. And so I think if we just look at it specifically in the context of that and whether or <br />not it should be overturned, that's where I don't think I can see anything, at least in what's been <br />presented, that there's hard evidence to say that that designation is erroneous or should never <br />been made, right? At that time, it seemed reasonable there were the fixtures. It is having <br />existing plumbing that drains out. It's just like if I made an ‘ohana unit, and I wanted to argue <br />that it shouldn't be a second dwelling at some point if a designation is made, that's what I have <br />to go with. So I just don't know how productive it'll be to argue the logic of what was made <br />versus whether or not there's something to say it should be overturned. And I can't see <br />anything to show that. So anyway, that’s just to clarify my thoughts on it. <br /> <br />ADAMS: This is Georjean Adams, I would agree with Commissioner Burns that it's reasonable <br />given the construction, the fact that we do charge for unoccupied buildings, and it's basically <br />the fact that you're generating wastewater or have the potential for wastewater, and the <br />County has to maintain the connection and treat the waste that comes through it. Lee, did you <br />have any other comments? <br /> <br />McINTOSH: No, just that the reason I said what I felt personally didn't matter is because I didn't <br />want to muddle everything. But since everybody's sharing, then I don't necessarily agree with <br />the designation. To me, one TMK should receive a sewer bill, and that should be it, and based <br />on water usage. But that's not what we're here to decide. We're here to decide about the <br />decision the director made, and it makes sense to me. But I guess my only concern is that the <br />motion was to split it into two, and I really don't see, I'm kind of confused how we're going to <br />proceed. <br /> <br />WONG: I think the motion was to modify the director's decision on appeal. Commissioner <br />Gaffney, in his explaining of his position on the motion, in his thought process, and you can <br />correct me if I'm wrong. Mr. Gaffney, was he separated sort of two issues with respect to how <br />he analyzed it. So that wasn't a part of the motion. The motion is still to modify the director's <br />decision. <br /> <br />McINTOSH: Oh, I see. So we just are modifying it. We're not ruling in favor or against? <br /> <br />WONG: So that was just the motion. So ultimately, the result is how you vote on it, right? So if <br />you agree to modify the decision, you would vote for that. If you disagree, you would vote <br />against that. So it doesn't necessarily matter what the motion is. It depends on how you vote in <br />the end. <br /> <br />McINTOSH: Okay. Do we have to designate specifically how we're going to modify it before we <br />vote on it? Or will that come after we decide to vote to modify it? <br />39 <br /> <br /> <br />