My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2017-04-06 Hearing Transcript - PC Rule Amendments (Public Comments Only)
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2017
>
2017-04-06 Hearing Transcript - PC Rule Amendments (Public Comments Only)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/4/2017 1:42:37 PM
Creation date
5/4/2017 1:42:31 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
So, for Rule 3 for Declaratory Rulings, we're suggesting changing the filing fee from $500 down <br />to $200. And, declaratory rulings are initiated to request that the Commission clarify conditions <br />of a permit or application of law. This benefits both the applicant and the Planning Department. <br />Historically, applicants have declined requesting a declaratory ruling due in part because of the <br />$500 filing fee. They felt that was too high. <br />Did you have a question, Joe? <br />CLARKSON: Can we ask questions during <br />JACKSON: Sure. <br />CLARKSON: Why is there any cost? I'm just curious. Why is there a fee? <br />JACKSON: We—we do have a cost because we do have to do a publication, and so there are <br />costs that the Department carries associated to that. <br />CLARKSON: And it adds up to $200? <br />JACKSON: The publication costs exceed $200 usually, but we still feel like we have to hit that <br />sweet spot where the fee is not too high to where people won't ask for a dec ruling, but it's not so <br />low that we can't account for the publication costs. <br />And, let's see, let me actually back up. Oh no, that's the next slide. Okay, contested case rule. <br />Some of the changes we're proposing to the contested case rule are to remove the requirement to <br />notify the public of—or actually persons other than the parties of a contested case, removing the <br />requirement to provide notice to the general public through publication in the newspaper and <br />remove the requirement for the applicant to serve notice of the contested case hearing on <br />surrounding property owners. And, lastly, remove provision for public testimony during a <br />contested case proceeding. <br />So, the purpose for doing that is to clarify that the purpose of a contested case proceeding is for <br />the parties, rather than the general public, to state their case. This change only applies to the <br />contested case proceeding. The applicant will still be required to notify surrounding property <br />owners of the Commission's first meeting on the application as stated in the other rules for the <br />various applications, and to notice the general public through publication in the paper. <br />So, as you knowI can explain that a little bit more—as you know, what usually happens is you <br />get an application like let's say for a Use Permit, and at that first hearing, what would happen is <br />we would publish it in the newspaper, and the applicant would provide notice to surrounding <br />property owners. Then, at that first hearing, let's say, you get a petition for contested case, and <br />you grant standing. Typically, the contested case is deferred to a later date, and it's that entire <br />contested case proceeding that would not be noticed to the general public. After the contested <br />case proceeding is done, it always comes back to the Planning Commission. You usually get a <br />hearings officer's report, and that hearing would be published in the paper, and I believe that <br />hearing would also be noticed to surrounding property owners. <br />EXHIBIT C <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.