2008-11-24 TKOHALA LLC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

And I’ve been looking at your Rule 9-11, which in honest face says that you’ve got to make a decision, you know, by the next meeting. I’m also looking at your contested case rules now. And Rule 4-3 says, in case of conflict of time and notice requirements, basically Rule 4 applies. There is also Continuance, Rule 4-5, where the presiding officer may postpone or continue any hearing to ensure the orderly and just conduct of a hearing. I guess what I’m trying to say is that there is a possibility; if there is a good reason, you know, that would be unjust to make a decision at this point, then I could see making your argument that you could continue the hearing on the reconsideration. But it would have to be I think a pretty good reason that would be unjust to go forward, the rule as is written in Rule 9-11. Mr. Lim mentioned that he felt that they should be able to submit further Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law because of what has transpired between then and now; I suppose that would need to be explored a little bit because in some sense what happened between then and now amounts to nothing happening, right, because everything went up and everything failed, so -. In that sense I guess my question is, if nothing really happened between then and now, then is there anything that really requires new proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law to be presented and considered and argued over. WATANABE: Thank you. Mr. Woodward? WOODWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are dealing with a lot of hypothetical’s. And right now we have no idea what the County Council is going to do; but they’ve got to do something. They can’t do anything with this property until they either get a time extension or a change of zone. So it doesn’t seem to make any sense to me to act on this matter. And I think there is a good reason to defer it. Mr. Lim would like to submit more Findings of Fact. And again we are in a situation where this is not going to determine a final outcome of this property. We really need to know what the County is going to do with the zoning; they’ve either got to give a time extension or they’ve got to rezone it. And for that reason, voting on this particular issue would have no effect other than perhaps just throw this thing into court, and I don’t see any particular reason that that needs to be done.So again, it’s dependent on the County Council and then having their initiative signed off on by the Mayor as far as the rezoning; otherwise, this is all moot. WATANABE: Thank you. Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman. To go on further with the discussion with regards to finding a legitimate reason to not defer or any reason of that sort, you know, it’s contained in the Mayor’s veto message; it says, “The County government operated in a land use system where we did not take into account the legitimate interest of private owners of property will be free to make various restrictive controls on this and other lands.We must, however, understand that the property is privately owned and we have to look for a balance between the desires of the public and the interest of the property owner.” And you’ve alluded to that fact many times whenever we deferred action on this issue; you said that we’d like to have the applicant and the Planning Director sit down and see how we could come to some amicable decision where both parties can buy into it. You made that point so strongly. WATANABE: Exactly. EXHIBIT A 12