2003-11-07 TSOTO - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

donÓt need to abide by them, then we ought to be providing a list to the applicants, to the consultants, and to the public on which ones apply and which ones donÓt. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Mooers. Corporation Counsel OÓToole, was it you who gave us the guidance that we, the Planning Commission does have the discretion in this matter to accept or deny the application for standing? OÓTOOLE:Yes. And I think, just to clarify, IÓm working with the substantial compliance. In other words, has the essence of that rule been complied with and is the purpose of the rule defeated because there was no notary? And I think substantial compliance is a concept that is used in various contexts, and I think you can use it here if you so desire and analyze what does the notary add to the situation. The rule itself doesnÓt say you have to have notary. It just says you have to fill out this form. And, so, I think that timeliness is absolutely essential. I donÓt think that you can do away with that, the filing fees, so forth and so on. But, you know, the notary, especially in this case because what you had is a notary for an individual and the Applicant is a group, and a notary that said, you know, this group has authorized this person to sign for us would, might be more meaningful than the one thatÓs in our form, which apparently doesnÓt contemplate that there might be, you know, various situations of whoÓs going to sign or not. And I do agree with Mr. Mooers that apparently counsels have signed in the past, and perhaps they should have been informed that counsel could have signed on that form, you know. Then there would not have been this issue. SPRINGER:So, Ms. OÓToole, the matter of substantial compliance might come up on a case-by-case basis, as in the case that is before us tonight? OÓTOOLE:ThatÓs correct. SPRINGER:Thank you. Commissioners, we have heard presentations both by the Applicant and by the, Mr. Kim who represents the Association who desires standing in this contested case. Is there, are there any questions or comments? Do we have a motion? Mr. Graham? GRAHAM:Only comment I have is, you know, Mr. Kim was speaking of law. I sure remember closely first-hand of both the Mahukona case and the PASH case at Kohanaiki where the Planning Commission did not grant standing yet it was overturned by the courts, and it turned into a very lengthy process thereafter. So even though IÓm not particularly in favor of contested case hearings, my, the history I remember is the Planning Commission tends to err on the side of not granting. And I canÓt remember of any cases where the Planning Commission granted standing but then that got overturned in the courts. Maybe there has been some, but I canÓt recall any. So, consequently, I feel like probably we should grant it, from the history. 5