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, we're just pulling the public notice element and public testimony element out of just that <br />contested case proceeding so that the parties can really discuss their particular issues related to <br />their case. <br />Does that make sense before I go on? Any questions on that? <br />CLARKSON: So, say for example, like this morning's Use Permit application that was <br />published and the neighbors were notified <br />JACKSON: Correct. <br />CLARKSON: The neighbors were notified, how would, who would have had standing to <br />petition for a contested case in that situation? <br />JACKSON: So, today's case, notice was sent out to the surrounding property owners twice, and <br />in that notice, Ms. Valdez included the Petition for Standing in a Contested Case with <br />instructions on how to submit the petition. Her neighbors had concerns; they came and testified, <br />but none of them chose to file a petition for standing in the contested case. <br />CLARKSON: Thank you. <br />HO: It's also in the contested case rules if you want to see what the criteria are to, to be granted <br />standing. <br />IKEDA: Maija, you know, I read the, Mike Matsukawa's testimony. <br />JACKSON: Yes. <br />IKEDA: And, he said we were, we would be in violation of the Sunshine Law. Can you clarify <br />that? <br />JACKSON: I may need Malia's help on this a little bit more, but my understanding is that HRS <br />does allow for Commissions to do these types of changes to limit the public interaction as long <br />as the Commission is conducting an adjudicatory proceeding which the contested case would be. <br />Is that correct, Malia? <br />HO: Yeah, it's kind of like think of a court case. You don't allow public testimony at a court <br />case, but when you're operating at a public meeting, that's when you have to—the Sunshine Law <br />doesn't apply to when the board becomes that. <br />JACKSON: So, Malia, just to clarify that, if the Commission chose to conduct the contested <br />case hearing, my understanding is it would be the same way. The public would be involved in <br />the first hearing like, like today, and then the hearing is continued. The Commission conducts <br />the contested case hearing, makes their recommendation, and then at the next hearing, the public <br />would again have an opportunity to provide testimony and become involved. Is that correct? <br />EXHIBIT C <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.