My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2024-07-22 Email Daryn Arai Black Sand Beach Response Letter
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Board Packets
>
2024
>
2024-08-01 Windward
>
Item #1 AOAO of Colony 1 at Sea Mountain (PL-CCH-2024-022)
>
2024-07-22 Email Daryn Arai Black Sand Beach Response Letter
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/22/2024 1:42:18 PM
Creation date
7/22/2024 1:42:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Plan Doc Template
Document Date
7/22/2024
Related Permits
PL-CCH-2024-000022
Permit Number
PL-SMA-2023-000046
Description
Applicant's response to WPC 8-1-24 matter re: AOAO of Colony 1 at Sea Mountain petition consideration and action
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Honorable Dennis Lin <br /> July 22, 2024 <br /> Page 3 <br /> either passed or failed. Since the requisite number of votes for standing were not present, the <br /> motion legally failed. <br /> What further supports finality of the motion being defeated is the WPC Chair's <br /> announcement that the motion failed, and the Commission's decision could be appealed pursuant <br /> to state law. Thus, Colony I was not without a remedy, and as I understand it, they have not filed <br /> any agency appeal within the required 30-day time period. <br /> Planning Commission Rule 4-6 <br /> Rule 4-6(b) of the PC Rules provides in pertinent part as follows (emphasis supplied): <br /> Prehearing Procedure <br /> (b) Upon receipt of a written request to intervene, the Commission, at the first <br /> meeting on the matter, shall hold a hearing on the written request. <br /> The commission will grant or deny such written request prior to any further action on the <br /> matter. <br /> Two matters are clear via a plain reading of the PC Rules. The WPC is required to act at <br /> the first meeting when petitions to intervene are heard. This makes sense, since resolution of <br /> standing issues should be determined promptly so as not to unduly delay proceedings. <br /> Second, the WPC must"grant or deny"the petition for standing. This disjunctive <br /> language (use of the word"or") makes clear that at least one of the statements must be true for <br /> the disjunction to be true.' Hence, since the vote to grant standing failed, that is all that is <br /> necessary for compliance with the PC Rules. <br /> If the purpose of agendizing this matter for the meeting on August 1 is for some <br /> administrative reason that will not involve the rehearing of Colony I's petition, that is <br /> fine. However, as the WPC's cover letter to the agenda reads, it suggests the Commission is free <br /> to"consider and take action" on Colony I's petition. Such action would violate Black Sand <br /> Beach's due process, violate Robert's Rules of Order, be contrary to PC Rule 4-6, and is <br /> inconsistent with the action already taken by the Commission on May 6, as announced by the <br /> Commission Chair. Black Sand Beach will be prejudiced and harmed if this matter is allowed to <br /> move forward(and the Commission does grant standing) since a mediation with two other <br /> intervenors has already taken place, and permitting another party into this case at this juncture <br /> (given what has already transpired and is well documented on the record)will lead to additional <br /> ' Compare this to phrases in the conjunctive which use the word"and." Such conjunctive phrases require <br /> both statements to be true for the conjunction to be true. <br /> 3335914v1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.