2008-11-24 TKOHALA LLC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The Planning Department’s recommendation is that the Planning Commission approve the revocation of SMA 379, and deny the request of the applicant for the time extension of Condition 4 of SMA 379. This morning we received correspondence from the applicant, dated November 24, 2008, in which they are asking the Planning Commission to defer these matters until the zoning is resolved. WATANABE: Fellow Commissioners, do we have any questions of staff? Seeing none, I do have some questions then. Earlier, Mr. Torigoe, you and I were discussing the Planning Commission Rules. And I’m wondering if you might explain to the Commissioners the rule regarding time limitations on the SMA and what nay or yea or inability to come to a decision actually means. TORIGOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m referring to your Rule 9-11.F, which is the rule that applies to both amendments and to revocation actions. Procedurally, basically we are at the point of reconsideration; you may recall that both the Director and the applicant had asked for reconsideration because there was a failure to make a decision by five votes one way or the other. And under Rule 9-11.F.3, the Department is supposed to place the application for reconsideration on the agenda for its reconsideration at the next meeting, and in the event the Authority fails to render a decision by a majority vote of the total membership at the next meeting, the application shall be considered as denied. So you may recall that at the last meeting on this matter that was to consider both of the reconsideration motions, but the parties agreed to continue both of these reconsideration matters until after the Council has had the chance to deal with the pending rezoning applications. And of course, as has been explained at the Council, the applicant’s request for extension of time for conditions on the RS-15 rezoning was denied. But the Council also went ahead, and basically took their own rode on the Planning Director’s request to go to RA-5a and instead attempted to go to a 15-acre designation, which the Mayor then vetoed. So here we are. And you are back in the position where under the rule basically, unless the parties agree to continue the matter further, the rule seems to indicate that you should try to make a decision on both of these motions for reconsideration. WATANABE: But I believe you also pointed out that if we fail, there are consequences, if we fail to make a decision either way. TORIGOE: Well, again, both the request for amendment of the condition and the request for revocation are under this rule, and if you cannot get five votes for either of them, then it appears that they both are considered as denied, which would leave you in a position of having this SMA Permit not revoked but neither with an extension of time. So it’s kind of sitting out there not, you know, not revoked but kind of immobilized – similar to where the zoning is now. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Mr. Yuen, I assume you are not willing to concede to a continuance. nd YUEN: No. The agreement was, at the May 22 meeting, that we would continue it until final Council action on the pending zoning matters. If there are not five votes either way, EXHIBIT A 3