2004-01-30 TDoutor Coffee - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

appear before you, who will argue for interpretations of the rules depending on whether they benefit the positions of their clients or in the particular matter that's in front of you. Finally, you have you own legal counsel. In this case, where the Planning Director is a party to the contested case, Corporation Counsel for the Planning Commission is not Corporation Counsel for the Department. In a question of a dispute over the interpretation of the rules, over the rules to be followed, I need to advise you to listen and follow the direction of the Corporation Counsel. If you're not sure what that direction is, please inquire until you are sure. In this matter, at the last meeting at the Hapuna Prince, both myself and I believe Corporation Counsel advised that what Mr. Tsukazaki was trying to do is completely contrary to the rules. The rules -, what he is trying to do is to amend a condition of a permit that's already been granted. Rule 6-8 of the Planning Commission rules says that when you want to do that, it's like a new application. You serve notice on the members of the -, serve notice on the surrounding property owners, and you have a time frame, and it's like a new application. We do this all the time in the Planning Department. We have lots of amendments to permits granted. We're going to have one later this afternoon, we're going to have one later this morning. They follow that procedure. They give notice to the surrounding property owners and go ahead and do that. That's the Planning -. The Commission needs to follow the legal advice that you receive and not be torn by the arguments of private counsel, or you are going to get into these kinds of loops where we spend hours arguing over these things. Let remind you -, let me remind you perhaps of the Kohala Woodvale hearings, where you have attorneys arguing legal and procedural points for hours and hours, giving what to someone in -, to anyone really would be plausible seeming arguments one way or the other. Turning now to the point that Mr. Krueger made on the question of losing jurisdiction, I don't have a position on that. I haven't researched that myself. It's a legal question. I would suggest that you find out what Corporation Counsel thinks about it, I -, and follow whatever advice Corporation Counsel gives you. I share your frustration at the timing of it, if it is correct that had this been raised as a -. If this is, in fact, fatal to what is, what Mr. Tsukazaki is requesting that you do on behalf of the Applicant, then it should have and could have been brought up prior to the first time that we argued about this several months ago. I want to turn briefly to the letter that I wrote and our ultimate, the County's, the Planning Director's ultimate objection to changing the condition on the big buses, the use of the big buses. Our objection is that the loading and -, when you have -, when we allow a commercial operation by special permit, they should have a loading and unloading area off the main road. They shouldn't utilize a main highway as a loading and unloading area for people to get on and off. If we had a -, if we were zoning, if you have a zoned commercial business, a store, you can't open a store where you load and unload off the main highway. You'll see stores that are like this, some of them are -, most of them are grandfathered in from prezoning days. They're operating the way they were operating back in the '40s and the '50s, and when we do have, 10