Laserfiche WebLink
the rules. So, I just see a real internal contradiction there in a rule that says you don't have to <br />follow what the rules are as long as it's, State law has been changed. Either just put an <br />amendment in here that says everybody follow State law and call that good enough or we have to <br />stop action on everything until we change our rules. <br />And, I also have concerns about whether you can call permits that were issued contrary to our <br />rules validly issued permits. I'll have to ask the Corporation Counsel for suggestions in that <br />regard, but I don't know how many permits have been issued over $125,000 value limits since <br />2011. <br />DARROW: We took a look at the numbers this morning. It looks like about 130 to 150. <br />HENKEL: Any more questions or comments? Proceed, Jeff <br />KEALOHA: This is Commissioner Kealoha in the Leeward Planning. In reference to a hearing <br />to State law until rules have been set, if I walk though Act 153, I'm on Page 11, so as I'm <br />reading Act 153, it appears that what would not be considered development is Final Subdivision <br />Approval of four lots or less and then transfer of title, and then from that point construction of <br />single-family dwellings. So, in essence a property could be subdivided into four lots, sold, and <br />then four individual dwellings constructed, and each would be exempt from the SMA process <br />when, in effect, there's four dwellings being built on this property. Is that correct? Would we <br />adhere to that Act 153? <br />DARROW: Commissioner Kealoha, I, I'm looking at Page 11, and I believe you're referring to <br />No. 12 and No. 13. Is that correct? <br />KEALOHA: Nine, twelve, and thirteen. <br />DARROW: Nine, twelve, and thirteen. Yeah, those are currently in the rule. The only one that <br />was added was No. 11. No. 12 was renumbered, and No. 13 was renumbered. Those are <br />currently in our rules. Final Subdivision Approval was a proposal that was changed here, but as <br />far as adding it to our rule, there was no trigger for an SMA permit for a Final Subdivision <br />Approval. It's not a development. It's not a process that we review for SMA permits. And <br />that's why that's not added to our rule. <br />KEALOHA: Okay, thanks. <br />KAY: Jeff, we have one more question over here. One moment. <br />CARR SMITH: Thank you. Commissioner Carr Smith here. I just—Jeff, I just wanted to ask <br />you if you could clarify as you go along the rule changes that are being proposed that have to do <br />with correlating with State law. I know on that retroactivity one you, you spoke to that pretty <br />clearly, but I don't know whether any of the others have to do with being in line with the State, <br />and I think it would be helpful to know that as we go through, please. <br />DARROW: We'll do that— <br />EXHIBIT A <br />27 <br />