Laserfiche WebLink
develop a department then we just add on to his duties. That <br /> should suffice. <br /> MR. CADINHA: And the appeals procedures? <br /> MRS. KOBAYASHI : Your two areas of concern, <br /> Richard, were they suggested as changes by the planning <br /> director? I think only the last one was, right? <br /> MR. ISHIDA: The first one was not because it <br /> came up after the planning director testified. I think it <br /> is something serious enough that we should take care of it. <br /> I think that the planning director, prior to that opinion <br /> coming up, , ,he had no idea that that would have been held <br /> that way. <br /> MR. CADINHA: Richard, could you say it again, <br /> in layman ' s language. Exactly, procedurally, how you view <br /> the mechanics, now. On the appeals process. <br /> MR. ISHIDA: As I understand these provisions, <br /> there are certain areas like denying a zoning change, which <br /> the director can do. Legal counsel, I am correct on that, <br /> right? The director has authority to do that. ._ The review of <br /> that action does not go to the planning commission. It goes <br /> directly to the board of appeals. Unfortunately, there is, <br /> in denying the zoning request, there is no procedure whereby <br /> the director takes evidence, in essence. I mean, he will <br /> take in whatever he wants, but then the review process is such <br /> that the board of appeals looks" at it on what is presented and <br /> says , well, the director acted capriciously or arbitrarily. <br /> I think if we are going to provide for an appeal situation , <br /> then I think we should provide a procedure whereby the appeal <br /> agency will be able to take its evidence to determine whether <br /> the action of the. . .the requested action should be granted or <br /> denied. In the case of, again, in the planning commission it <br /> is slightly different. Here, all variances go to the planning <br /> commission. At least, however, the testimony and evidence <br /> that is presented in that situation is taken down verbatim. <br /> So, at least, that action is appealed to the board of appeals <br /> and, at least, they have something to review. <br /> I think the review process should be consistent, <br /> whatsoever. What I would like to see is that if we are going <br /> to grant the director certain powers to deny requests , I <br /> believe, instead of going directly to the board of appeals, <br /> such an appeals to the director ' s action go directly to a fact <br /> finding board. . .an agency. . .in other words, a planning <br /> commission. Then the planning commission ' s record would be <br /> taken verbatim and a record would then be available to the <br /> board of. appeals. Something the board of appeals could review. <br /> MR. CADINHA: Who on the planning commission <br /> would be responsible for probing, for gathering facts? <br /> MR. ISHIDA: The planning the staff of the <br /> planning department. In other words, the applicant would be <br /> -23- <br />