2007-01-19 tmartinage-nunn - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

GRAHAM: Thank you. And could you give your name and your address, and then go forward with your testimony? NORTHROP: Okay. My name is Cynthia Northrop and my address is, actually my mailing address is 82-5824B Napoopoo Road. I use my other address and I can’t think of what it is. GRAHAM: Go ahead with your testimony then. That’s fine. NORTHROP: Okay. I’m very much in favor of Greg and Michael’s B&B operations that they be granted the permit. Since I met them, I’ve been totally impressed with their integrity and their organizational skills and the aloha spirit they put into this project. And in terms of the location and the property itself, I think it’s just ideal and I think it would just be a sensational visitor experience for people who come to their operation, and I know that they would be very impressed with it. And the buffer zone around the property would not disturb other people, plus I think B&B guests are pretty low impact because they go to the beach all the time anyway. But it’s such a beautiful example of a country experience, and they have maintained the grounds of this property so impeccably that it is a property that should be shared with people, and I think it’s wonderful that they want to do it. So I am completely in favor and I don’t see any reason that it wouldn’t be wonderful for everybody. GRAHAM: Thank you for your comment. Do we have any questions from the Commissioners? All right, you can go back. I know some of you folks who testified you don’t hear anything from us, but you know, this was a tough vote for us at our last meeting so I’m sure we are all really weighing in our minds what we are hearing and what we are thinking, so you didn’t go unheard. Mr. Torigoe, how would you suggest I proceed right at this time then? TORIGOE: Well, as I said earlier, you closed the public hearing last time, and just as a matter of information, as far as the public testimony your Rule 4-21 does say that you have to afford all interested persons an opportunity to present testimony prior to the commencement of the hearing and prior to proceedings on any subsequent day to which the proceeding is continued. So I think we need to consider this as continued proceeding at this point, and so you did the right thing, I believe, in allowing the public testimony to go forth before doing anything else. Beyond that, I think it’s basically at your discretion at this point if you want to ask the parties to come forward and see if they have any further requests or anything else. Basically, though, in order to take further testimony you should formally reopen the hearing at this point. And then of course you can entertain any further motion or deliberation. If you are unable to come to a five-vote resolution one way or the other, then as a presiding officer you have the discretion to continue the matter until a later hearing. Bearing in mind that Rule 6 does contain a sixty-day post-hearing timeframe for making a decision, but it doesn’t spell out what happens if you don’t make that deadline. So basically I would say that if there was an agreement by the parties to allow for further consideration beyond the sixty days after the close of the hearing, then that would be within your discretion to do so. GRAHAM: Okay, I think what was most directly on my mind with my question was that since we did close the hearing last time, should we as Commission decide whether we want to reopen it or not before I invite any of the parties forward, or shall I invite the parties forward EXHIBIT A 5