2007-05-24 TIBBETSON_2_ - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

consequence; the judge seems to be saying that whatever happened before was of no legal consequence. And the fact that certain pieces of information like about the fact that there were burials there were not disclosed to the Building Department when Mr. Ibbetson went in for his application, his permits, for the house and for the swimming pool were not disclosed. And yet, we were told we should consider this now as though this is a residential property, even though what we are looking at as part of the problem is the fact that it was misrepresented in the first place, and that the original deed says use it as cemetery forever. So I don’t -. What happens if we disagree with any part of the judge’s ruling? I mean, do we follow our own consciences, or do we have to -, are we forced to abide by something that we disagree with? GRAHAM: Mr. Torigoe, would you have a response to that? TORIGOE: Well, at this point my best advice to you is to try the best you can to heed, you know, what the judge has told us with respect to the -, being careful not to make this a case in which you make your decision based on perceptions that a party may or may not have misrepresented things. And again it’s a land use decision ultimately, and so I will urge you to make a decision on that basis. GRAHAM: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: If I may, I think, Rene’, what the judge is saying is that the fact that the burials were not disclosed within the process of obtaining the permits is inconsequential, because the Planning Department, etc. we have no rules that say you must disclose this or you forfeit the permit. Therefore the permit was provided, and because the permit was provided, that established the usage as residential. And so now we have to consider this a residential -, basic use is residential – it was converted, yeah – and then determine whether we would grant a Special Use for a bed and breakfast, which is consistent with what we typically would do. On the other hand, I should also point out that the judge did not say or eliminate the possibility of turning down the Special Use, if you can find some other way of denying this by using a land use type of argument as opposed to the argument that we used. So the argument that we used was found incorrect. Had the judge felt that it should automatically be granted, it was within her jurisdiction to award the Special Permit to the applicant immediately, and not even have remanded it back to us, and certainly not have required them to mediate. As I recall, she required them to get into mediation, and from that standpoint, you know, I too really would prefer that this be mediated to a settlement rather than us deciding. GRAHAM: Okay, if you all don’t mind, Commissioners, I’d rather not discuss this too much at this point, because to me this gets into more something we’re going to discuss later when we take action. And I’d like to just go a little further with the procedures we’re going to deal with at this point rather than any of those specific issues. And in that regard, Mr. Torigoe, Commissioner Watanabe did bring up the mediation, and I don’t think you spoke to the mediation in your original words about the Court’s remand back to us and all. Could you just give us a little sense of where the mediation process came from and where it’s at now and all, so we can use that procedurally to go forward? TORIGOE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I was not personally involved in that, so I think we should ask the parties to explain the current status of that. My understanding is that there was a separate declaratory judgment lawsuit that was filed by Mr. Kaiawe with EXHIBIT A 4