My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2007-09-21 TD-BAR
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2007
>
2007-09-21 TD-BAR
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2011 10:30:31 AM
Creation date
6/14/2011 10:30:24 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
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
GRAHAM: Okay. Are there any of the Commissioners that would like to <br />make a motion that we appeal the Court’s decision? All right, I think not. So going on <br />Mr. Torigoe’s suggestions, and since we don’t have any motion to appeal the Court’s <br />decision, I think we’re going to go forward in recognition of that decision. Mr. Torigoe? <br />TORIGOE: Okay, in that case then we need to move on and, hold on a second. <br />Okay, there are a couple of things that need to be dealt with. One is that the, as you <br />noted, the applicant has offered some further evidence; and so you need to make a <br />decision on reopening the hearing and taking that new evidence, whether you feel that <br />that’s something that ought to happen at this point. And as you move into decision- <br />making you will have to, again, pay closer attention to Rule 4-23 and see what nature of <br />proposed findings, if any, the parties would like to have before them, before the decision- <br />making goes forward. <br />GRAHAM: Okay. And the way I understand that is we do have information <br />that has been submitted that relates to the substance of the application, so we really <br />should reopen the hearing. And so probably before I bring the applicant forward here we <br />should make a motion and choose to reopen or not to reopen. Is that correct? <br />TORIGOE: That would be procedurally appropriate. I’d note that the Court <br />seemed to express a desire to make sure that the parties were apprised of all of the issues, <br />you know, that, or issues that the Commissioners may have, questions that the <br />Commissioners may have, and that the parties, particularly the applicant, be given an <br />opportunity to respond to those. And so to the extent that the evidence that’s being <br />offered is responsive to the Commission’s issues or concerns then it probably would be <br />appropriate to reopen the hearing and take that evidence. <br />GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Torigoe. Could I have a motion to that effect from <br />any of the Commissioners? <br />WOODWARD: So move. <br />GRAHAM: All right, Commissioner. Do I have a second? <br />DOMINGO: Second. <br />GRAHAM: Okay. So Commissioner Woodward is moving that we reopen the <br />hearing for the specific purposes, I believe, that Mr. Torigoe has outlined; and that <br />motion has been seconded by Commissioner Domingo. Anyone have comments on that? <br />Jeff, you want to take a roll call on that motion, please. <br />DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to reopen the <br />hearing. With that I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Woodward? <br />WOODWARD: Aye. <br /> EXHIBIT B <br />6 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.