2008-11-24 TCROWN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

COTTLE: And Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Aye. COTTLE: Motion passes. WATANABE: Thank you. Now that we granted standing, we have a second decision to make, which is whether we are going to handle this on our own or if we are going to farm this out. Personally I think it’s relatively simple discussion, although it might get to be a little bit emotional at times. I think we can handle it, though. And I’d like to hear the feelings of the rest of the Commissioners. Mr. Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yeah, I concur, with a little bit of reservation, but I concur. And so if the Chair wants, I can make the motion, and then we can have discussion. WATANABE: Mr. Housel? HOUSEL: I agree. I think we can handle this. WATANABE: Any other comments? Maybe, oh, yeah, I guess, go ahead and make the motion. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that with regard to the contested case hearing set for this matter, which is Crown Castle International (SPP 1191), amendment to Special Permit No. 1191, etc. that the Planning Commission hear the contested case directly without appointment of a hearings officer. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have a second? Mr. Housel? HOUSEL: Yes, I’ll second. WATANABE: Okay. Any further discussion on this? All those in favor of handling this internally, say aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. WATANABE: Any opposed? Okay, then it sounds like it’s unanimous. We’ll handle that internally as a contested case hearing. Then, this is for Mr. Keoni: Earlier we had determined that the legal requirement is 10 days prior to hearing notice, and I don’t know exactly when this is going to be rescheduled, but it’s clear from your testimony, as well as the testimony of the previous testifiers, that notice was deficient as far as the time, timing of the notice. So you would need to disclose, yeah, at least 10 days prior to the next hearing date. FOX: You mean, send out a new notice to the property owners? EXHIBIT D 22