Laserfiche WebLink
have to wait another month, or I dont know when the next meeting is in Kona, for the <br />Commission to make a determination. <br />I dont know that we really need, and I dont mean to in any manner disparage Mr. Matsukawas <br />client or Mr. Matsukawa, but I dont know that we need to have them here for the Commission to <br />take action or to make a determination on the actual application itself in light of the Courts <br />ruling. Those are my comments. Im available for questions. <br />GRAHAM:Could I ask Mr. Torigoe again for clarification, just so we know where <br />were headed. We did have a contested case and Mr. Matsukawa was the intervenor as weve <br />heard, and then we closed the contested case, and we made our decision, and then our decision <br />was appealed to the Court, and the Court has overturned our decision based on a specific finding <br />of the Court and has remanded it back to us. And so are we now in the position, I guess this is <br />the point of my question, where we would just agendize the item and then we would treat it like <br />anyotheritemforaspecialpermitbedandbreakfastwiththeunderstandingthatweneedto <br />follow the Courts instructions, but that were no longer in a contested case situation? We have <br />no more legal hurdles to deal with other than just to deal with the content of the application <br />considering the Courts remand instructions? Is that all correct? <br />TORIGOE:Not quite. I think basically the Court has remanded the matter back to the <br />Planning Commission and, in its words, €for consideration consistent with this order. The order <br />basically included the finding that Mr. Kaiawe was properly admitted as a contested case party, <br />and so I think we have consider that, this. It comes back to the Commission. It is still a <br />contested case situation. But we need to, well, the Commission needs to go forward and, as the <br />Court said, consider the matter in light of the Courts ruling. <br />GRAHAM:So then if Mr. Kaiawe were here he might ask that we reopen the <br />contested hearing and allow extra evidence or something like that, and then wed have to deal <br />with whether we want to do that or not? Is that kind of correct? <br />TORIGOE:Right. Thats one scenario that could occur. And so basically I think it <br />would be generally advisable to have Mr. Kaiawe and his counsel here before you continue. <br />GRAHAM:Thank you. Thoughts from the Commissioners? Commissioner Siracusa. <br />SIRACUSA:Yes. And also in deference to our new Commission Members who <br />werent here when we heard the case previously, I feel that its important in order for them to all <br />be on the same page with the rest of us, to be here and be able to hear both sides of the story, <br />both sides of the issues from both parties. And so while I realize this is creating some <br />inconvenience for Mr. Ibettson, I still feel that in the interest of fairness we really ought to wait <br />until all the parties are here and give our new Commissioners an opportunity to be in completely <br />in the loop. <br />GRAHAM:Thank you, Commissioner Siracusa. Commissioner Watanabe? <br />WATANABE:Yeah, and in all fairness to Mr. Ibettson, maybe we should direct staff to <br />put a stay on any further notices to Mr. Ibettson since this delay is not necessarily within his <br />control. And if were willing to do that, then Id be comfortable with making a motion to <br />4EXHIBIT E <br /> <br />