CHC 1979-06-12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

impeachment provisions of the Honolulu City and County Charter for your information ; also attached is the reapportionment commission proposal which I was asked to put together for discussion, and also attached are_ some draft proposals regarding the Planning Department and the Planning Commission as well as the Board of Appeals. Anything that I have put in brackets are suggested deletions, and anything underlined are new additions. What I did, Mr. Chairman, is with regard to the Board of Appeals, I put it under the Miscellaneous Chapter 6, for purposes of consolidating. It can go on page 14 after the Safety Coordinator provision. I added, as part of the Board of Appeals, a board that very few people know about its function in this county, and that is there is another Board of Appeals for the Public Works Department that was created by ordinance. People don ' t know about it because nothing wa.s-written about it-except there is an ordinance somewhere floating around that was created. They hear appeals from the actions of the Public Works Director regarding plumbing, electrical and building code violations. So, what I did is rather than have that board meet once or twice a year, I combined the appeals under one Board of Appeals for both Planning Department and Public Works Department and giving that Board of Appeals the consolidated function. MR. TRULSON : And you also enlarged the board from five to seven. MR. ODA: Right. The reason for that is that under the original Board of Appeals for the Public Works Department we have a certified electrician, plumber, and building expert on it. Not necessarily required, but with this plan if we are going to expand its functions I thought it might be wise to expand the number of people so you can have some extras on it , if you want. Numbers are not that critical. And I also took out the provisions in the Board -of Appeals where Mr. Fuke was mentioning, where they can only act upon the appeals under certain types of limited situations. I removed that completely. Let them hear the facts of the case and make a determination on •the facts as they hear it without being tied down to whether the Planning Director acted arbitrarily only or on procedural grounds and things like that. Right now, that is all it is. Under the new proposed setup they will hear all the evidence and make their own decisions, just like the layman ' s court. MR. TRULSON: So I see Section 5-4.4 would be dropped completely, in its entirety. MR. ODA: Right. That will be deleted in its entirety and in place I 'm recommending. . . MR. TRULSON: The new Chapter 6. MR. ODA: The new Chapter 5. . .Section 5-6.3 under Chapter 6, page 14. -16-