2007-09-21 TIBBETSON - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission. This is a continued hearing. As you had mentioned, the applicant in this case, Daniel Ibbetson, has requested a Special Permit to allow a 2-bedroom bed and breakfast operation. This is within the South Kona District of Hawaii, just south of the Kona th Paradise Subdivision. At our last hearing – let me back up a little – on January 20, 2006, the Planning Commission voted to deny the request for the Special Permit. The applicant had appealed the decision to the Court, and the Court hadremanded, had reversed the order; the Third Circuit Court reversed the decision back to the Planning Commission, and remanded the case back to the Planning Commission for further proceedings. At our last hearing on August st 31, there was a motion made to approve the request; the motion did not pass with four ayes and two noes. Since our last hearing we have received several correspondences. Two of them from th attorney, Michael Matsukawa: one of them is dated September 13, 2007, this is a letter to th Mr. Ivan Torigoe, Corporation Counsel, and one letter dated September 14to Chairman, William Graham. Additionally, we’ve received a response letter from attorney, Dennis Krueger, th dated September 19 to Mr. Ivan Torigoe, Corporation Counsel. GRAHAM: Jeff, I don’t presume we need for you to describe the physical aspects of the application. All of that’s in everybody’s mind, all right? Okay? DARROW: If you would like, I could, or if not -. GRAHAM: What would the Commission like? RHO: I’m okay. GRAHAM: I think the Commission is okay. Thank you anyway. You mentioned in your presentation that we took this matter up at our last meeting on the West side here on August st 31; I also just want to point out we do have the transcript of those proceedings before us. All the Planning Commissioners have that. And at that meeting we did have a motion for approval of the application based on the Planning Director’s proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order along with a few modifications to that, which we can see in our transcript. The motion failed to achieve the five votes necessary for passage. And so the matter comes before us again today. Mr. Torigoe, could you give us a few words on the proper way to go forward here since we do have a couple of submissions from both the intervenor and the applicant? TORIGOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, you just mentioned that there was a fresh transcript, so I’m wondering if one of the things we need to take care of too is just for everybody to review the transcript, make sure that there’s no corrections or additions that you want to make to it, and then perhaps approve that as one of the first things. Beyond that, as was mentioned, we do have a couple of, or three correspondences from the parties’ attorneys. In substance, what these seem to be doing is that Mr. Matsukawa seems to be asking that the Commission and/or suggesting that the only vote that the Commission can take, or the motion that the Commission can make at this point is to deny based on Robert’s Rules of Order’s rules on reconsideration, and it also is asking that the Chairperson declare that the application would be denied. So in essence these are written requests I think as a way we should handle them under Rule 4-17, which allows for a response from Mr. Krueger, and Mr. Krueger did write back in response. So I would suggest that the Commission first of all take up Mr. Matsukawa’s written EXHIBIT A 2