2008-04-18 TKOHALA LLC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

LIM: We believe the permit is technically still alive, but we can’t proceed with development. WOODWARD: If I might make a recommendation, Mr. Chairman, and I’ll ask Mr. Torigoe to comment on this. It seems to me that we ought to hold this vote on SMA 379 in abeyance until there is a decision from County Council regarding the rezoning. And by holding that Special Management Permit extension request in advance, that they not be able to act upon it until the rezoning question is addressed by County Council. I mean, is that reasonable, Mr. Torigoe? WATANABE: Mr. Torigoe. TORIGOE: Well, I suppose that’s an option if -, basically at this point both the attempt to revoke and the attempt to extend the time have failed at this point. But there remains the question of what happens to that SMA Permit in limbo. I suppose what could happen is that someone could, the Commission could basically put that revocation matter on hold until further moved on based on what may happen at the Council. I’m just looking at the rules right now to see if there is anything that would govern that. LIM: On the applicant’s behalf we’d like to finish things up, so we don’t have to come back anymore. WATANABE: Mr. Yuen. YUEN: If I could -, yeah, and I don’t want to rush Mr. Torigoe here. First, as far as Mr. Woodward’s suggestion, it’s fine with me; if any further action on the SMA Permit is put on in abeyance until the Council takes action on the zoning, that’s fine. What I think the effect of what has happened here is on a request for a time extension there is a provision in the rules that if it does not get a favorable vote on the first matter, on the first time it comes to the Commission, it can be brought to the Commission for reconsideration on the next meeting, and if it does not get five votes in favor the next time, then it is finally denied. TORIGOE: Yeah, and I think, you know, when you look at Rule 9-14, Revocation, it also says that the procedures shall be the same as provided under Section 9-11 F, which is what the Director was just talking about. So it seems to apply to both. And so basically -. YUEN: Then that’s fine. TORIGOE: Yeah. So if the Director would like to have this brought up for reconsideration one more time, that could happen. Or if the parties both would say, no, that’s enough, you know, these basically go away or it dies at this point. And the Director could come back and move again for revocation. And really if the applicant wanted to come back and make another application for an amendment based on changed circumstances such as a different rezoning, then that could be brought as well. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman -. EXHIBIT A 26