Laserfiche WebLink
PARTIES: I do. <br />GRAHAM: All right, thank you. I think our main order of business is <br />procedural at this point. And whether we get to any content issues on whether we should grant <br />or not this today, we don’t know at this point, but we sure need to work out what the procedure <br />for going forward is with you folks. And I think maybe we’d start by having Mr. Torigoe here <br />give us a little sense of what the Court had to say as it brought back it to us, so that the <br />Commissioners are all aware, as well as you guys, of how we view this at this time. <br />TORIGOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll try to be as concise as I can. The <br />Court basically reversed the decision, but did not order that you grant the permit either. So <br />basically the Court is returning the matter to us, and the Court said it’s remanded to the Planning <br />Commission for consideration consistent with this order. So in a sense the Court has basically <br />nullified your previous decision, and has returned it to you right at the point before you made the <br />decision. And so you’ve got to pick up from there. <br />And there are three basic kinds of things the Court said in the decision: No. 1, it affirmed that <br />Mr. Kaiawe retains his intervenor party status. So Mr. Kaiawe remains an active party in this <br />proceeding. Second thing was the Court said that you should not be considering Mr. Ibbetson’s <br />alleged prior noncompliance with any law or failure to disclose graves. Okay? So you should <br />not consider any of those allegations about Mr. Ibbetson’s prior conduct. This is a land use <br />issue; it’s not a credibility or personality issue. And probably most importantly the Court seems <br />to be ordering that, or you consider, that the essential character of this property and use of the <br />land as it now is be considered residential, and not cemetery. Okay? So although obviously you <br />don’t have to ignore the fact that there are graves there – you still can consider the impacts on the <br />existing graves – but the Court seems to say that you should consider this essential character of <br />the land to be residential. <br />And so with that in mind, at this point again we need to pick up where the Court returned us, and <br />proceed consistently with what the Court has told us about this. And so the parties are here <br />today, and we can look at, you know -. At this point you need to continue with your decision <br />making process. And the question is how do we go about that at this point. <br />GRAHAM: All right. From the Commissioners? Mr. Woodward? <br />WOODWARD: I have a question for Mr. Torigoe. My reading of the Court <br />decision was based on the fact that there was a deed, and the deed granted an easement to the <br />gravesite, but didn’t call it cemetery. I guess that’s why they’re saying it’s a residential area. <br />There are graves there, and there is an easement that’s granted in the deed. Is that correct? <br />TORIGOE: That’s essentially correct, yes. <br />GRAHAM: And yet -. Yes, Commissioner Siracusa? <br />SIRACUSA: Yes. Somehow things seem to have gotten turned around, because <br />in the judge’s ruling the judge is saying that there are matters like the fact that the building <br />permit was for a single-family residence, and not for a bed and breakfast, that is of no legal <br />EXHIBIT A <br />3 <br /> <br />