2009-07-01 THI JOHNS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

MELROSE: I want to make sure, if those are just the conditions that I’ve heard that that’s all associated with the application, I would ask that you include your standard extension provision so that there is -. WOODWARD: He did. MELROSE: But I, no, he didn’t. WOODWARD: Didn’t you? HAYASHI: We would have a, we can include the standard extension condition; however, it’s questionable whether we can grant an administrative time extension because the Land Use Commission would be the body to, if the Land Use Commission were to be the body to approve this application, then they would have to, unless they delegate that to the Planning Department. WOODWARD: Okay, how about if we said something to the effect that our standard condition we have will be decided by the Land Use, the extension will be decided by the Land Use Commission or the Planning Commission, depending on who has the jurisdiction in this matter? Can we do that or something close to that? HAYASHI: Okay. Yes, we can use our normal administrative time extension condition, and any future time extension would have to be ratified by the, either the Planning Commission or the State Land Use Commission. WOODWARD: Is that acceptable? MELROSE: That’s acceptable. Let me go back and understand, cause I’m not sure that, I think I was out of the room when you started your motion. What I understood the issue to be is that there was a, somehow a change in the law that brought up a new wrinkle in the approval as it relates to Important Ag Lands, that specific word, Important Ag Lands. HAYASHI: Right. MELROSE: My understanding is that the State has identified a methodology for identifying Important Ag Lands and formally has adopted two changes for ag lands, one on the County of Maui, A and B both, and one on Kauai. So they’ve actually adopted this as part of the voluntary step of determining agricultural, Important Ag Lands. But the nonvoluntary process of determining at the State level the Important Ag Lands that is in conformance with US, the Hawaii Constitutional requirement has not proceeded. So that terminology, Important Ag Lands, as it relates to the State law is still in flux and moving; and these lands are not so designated. When the County redid their General Plan the Director changed the definition of what used to be important and/or intensive and extensive ag lands and created a new County-based, but not well bedded, designation at the GP for Important Ag Lands. That is not the State law. That is not what the State, it’s not the same designation as the State. And I think that’s what you’re asking, 13 EXHIBIT A