My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005-05-20 EXHIBIT C HUGGETT PC
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2005
>
2005-05-20 EXHIBIT C HUGGETT PC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2011 2:43:10 PM
Creation date
6/13/2011 2:43:05 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
HAYASHI:No, not that I know of. <br />SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioner Iwashita? <br />IWASHITA:Counsel do you have any cases that, let me preface my question. The rule <br />of law that you cite inthe memo, or that your firm cites in the memo, talks about a permit that <br />runs with the land. We dont actually have a permit issued in this case. Do you know of any <br />case, which addresses the issue of an application being transferable or that the application runs <br />with the land. <br />SCHULTZ:We were not able to find anyone specifically in Hawaii, I think the reason <br />is is that, it probably wouldnt go up onto appeal until you know the permit has been formally <br />denied or approved. There is, theres one case that was recently decided in January 2005 by the <br />HawaiiSupremeCourtwhereIbelieveVoicestreamappliedforapermit.Imsorry,madea <br />claim so that there was no permit needed this Commission said that there was that when on <br />appeal. The Supreme Court in its caption makes a quick note that T-Mobile is now the persons <br />who is seeking the, actually appealing the decision that a permit was needed and it does say <br />without any. In other words, the Supreme Court doesnt take up any issue with that. But thats, <br />thats what I can say to you without doing more research on to this subject. <br />IWASHITA:Im not getting that what is the significance of the case you just cited? <br />SCHULTZ:It basically, its just pure dicta. That the Supreme Court had no problem <br />with the Applicant changing midstream. I guess once again, you have to look at the Planning <br />Commission Rules 911(a) again, doesnt ask about the Applicant. The Applicant really should <br />not be important. You dont want the Commission making decision on an Applicant on whose <br />brother it is, you know its the project that this Planning Commission should look at. How does <br />this project effect the Special Management Area. <br />SPRINGER:Commissioner Iwashita follow up? <br />IWASHITA:Im new so you gotta pardon me. But I guess my concern is that, I think <br />everyone agrees that a permit runs with the land, right? But we dont have a permit issued in this <br />case. What were talking about is whether or not the rule, under our rules whether we have a <br />new application or not. And so, to me its not real helpful to say that a permit runs with the land <br />cause it doesnt address the direct issue. To me its not you know, its not real helpful. So I was <br />just asking for any other authority but basically there is none. <br />SCHULTZ:I have, I cannot cite you any right now. <br />SPRINGER:Mr. Director youve heard Commissioner Iwashitas concern that this is <br />not a permit that has already been granted that were discussing but rather an application that is <br />in process. Do you have any comments in addition to those made by Mr. Schultz? <br />EXHIBIT C <br />7 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.