|
UNGER: —and come back in front of us. Okay, so—
<br />
<br />DARROW: Yeah, so, yeah, any suggestion—
<br />
<br />UNGER: —yeah, we’ll see these again.
<br />
<br />DARROW: —would be very good at this time.
<br />
<br />KEALOHA: Okay, with that, the pragmatism would be, you know, understanding that
<br />extenuating circumstances happen, and to make someone start all over every single time may not
<br />be reasonable. What about language limiting administrative extensions to one five-year term? I
<br />mean, as an example, this last, you know, request, we were listening to testimony on today was
<br />on year 15 already, right? So if we limited administrative extensions to one term based on
<br />extenuating circumstances. And second possible recommendation would be limiting extension
<br />request to the original applicant only; so if the property changes hands, all prior approvals would
<br />expire. So that limits the potential to get entitlements to increase value and speculate the
<br />property; you are only looking for a serious request.
<br />
<br />DARROW: If I could address, if I could address Nancy’s concerns first, and then maybe I can
<br />address Commissioner, I’m sorry, Commissioner Nancy Carr Smith, and Commissioner
<br />Kealoha.
<br />
<br />So going back to Commissioner Carr Smith’s comments, so we spoke briefly about the fair share
<br />for commercial, so we can look into that. The filing fee, 250 dollars, we actually recently
<br />changed that. Our filing fee for applications was 100 dollars, we increased it to 500 dollars and
<br />250 for administrative time extensions. So that wasn’t that long ago that we increased that, but
<br />again, we can consider increasing that up to 500, similar to the cost of a new application to help
<br />cover administrative cost. I was a little shocked to hear how much it cost for publication of these
<br />hearings. It’s quite shocking. I’m not going to say it; we would have to call the ambulance, I
<br />think. Administrative time extensions, you are saying maybe not grant them, and Commissioner
<br />Kealoha is mentioning maybe we should grant just one. My understanding, looking at the record
<br />– and again, I shouldn’t be talking about an application we are looking at now – but, normally,
<br />the course of action is you have a time, your permit has a time limit, it’s normally five years, and
<br />one time extension for a period not exceed what was originally granted. They have to come back
<br />in at that time. There is no other administrative time extension after that. So whatever permit we
<br />were talking about, there wasn’t two administratives; there is only one time you can get. So if
<br />there is something being said that oh this applicant hasn’t come in for 15 years, what most likely
<br />happen is it expired after ten and they are coming back five years later, and, because they didn’t
<br />come back within the-. So let’s just be clear on that. This, there is, there is applicants – again,
<br />when we get to specific projects, we need to look at it because, we can guess, but it’s good to
<br />look in the file and find out exactly what happened – there is, we normally try to provide the
<br />Commission with history on each project. So when you look at these projects today, you’ll look
<br />at the chronologic history of it and you’ll see that there is some history to this project. There’s
<br />been some action before and there is now new action on it. And again, all those require public
<br />hearings and those kind of things.
<br />
<br />25
<br />EXHIBIT B
<br />
<br />
|