2008-11-24 TKOHALA LLC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

DOMINGO: And you know, even here the Mayor himself is amplifying that very same approach to resolving this matter. So you know, I think to defer is a proper motion to make, and a legitimate and reasonable one to make for this Commission. WATANABE: Thank you. Mr. Woodward? WOODWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would say, too, the point you made, while nothing specifically has happened with the SMA Permit, a lot has happened that affects the SMA Permit; that is a negative recommendation from the Commission sent to the Council to rezone Ag-5a. They not only didn’t listen to that, they decided they want to rezone it Ag-15a. And then the Mayor vetoed it. So I’d say a lot has happened since we initially deferred this – not specifically with this Permit but having a direct bearing on it. And I think that, and the fact that Mr. Lim would like to submit more documents, is ample ground for not making a decision now that is not going to make any sense depending on what the rezoning is. WATANABE: Any further comments? Mr. Iwashita? IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My inclination now is to agree with Commissioner Woodward as far as essentially the need to have the zoning matter resolved, and that that really would impact obviously the need or whatever action we might want to take on the SMA extension – that’s procedurally. Substantively, I view myself as someone that really looks at property rights and protecting the owner’s property rights as being paramount. That has to be balanced, though. And I think as Commissioners who are required to enforce the law including the Constitution of this State, which has a specific mandate to protect the environment; in SMA applications we really, that’s our main concern, is how does any proposed development affect the environment. I want to make it clear on the record that any owner of property in this State is subject to those considerations and the limitations on the use of property imposed by the Constitution and all of the zoning laws and use control laws that we have in place. But the bottom line is that I agree and I would cast my vote in favor of a motion under Rule 4-5(c) in which the Chair would continue this matter under some terms and conditions -. WATANABE: You are looking at the Contested Case Hearing Rule 4 -. IWASHITA: Yes, Contested Case, right, 4-5(c). Because in my view the limbo status of the zoning on this matter really is a, to me, in my mind, determinative, and puts into, you know, I believe that in and of itself allows us, and the request of the applicant, the owner – not necessarily the applicant – but the owner, you know, to have this matter continued. I think for all practical purposes the zoning matter needs to be resolved somehow, someway, and then after that, if there is no agreement going forward after that, we can deal with the SMA request. WATANABE: Okay. Well, assuming this is – I see you, Mr. Woodward – but assuming this is quasi-contested case hearing, I think we should -. IWASHITA: It’s not “quasi;” this is a contested case. EXHIBIT A 13