2005-04-22 tHuggett (fka Soto SMA 03-007)2

Home

assumption of the rules is that if you have an ongoing application then people who wanta Contested Case would come in no later than 7 days prior to the first hearing, they would make their application for intervention, if the Planning Commission decides that they have standing then they will be admitted as parties at that point and then the Contested Case will go on from that point with those parties being constantly, being given notice. But the surrounding landowners would not necessarily get new notice as the application and the Contested Case hearing goes on. In this case, there was, the Association was admitted as a party and they would have been getting continuing notice but I dont know that theres a rule that requires for the surrounding landowners to receive continuing mail notice of further hearings if they are not Contested Case parties and if it is an ongoing application. KIM:Yes, and let me be, if I wasnt clear, Commission Rule 9 and Commission Rule 4 would be triggered by a new application. If it is the Corporation Countys position and the Planning Directors position that the new application by the Huggetts as far as our position is, isnotanewapplicationandthattheContestedCasehearingisdeniedthenthatstheprerogative of the Commission. Thats your pitch to the members of the Commission and that denial triggers a right by my clients to take whatever redress and relief to the Courts to determine as to whether or not the new ownership does in fact defacto or as a matter of right create a new application. And so, all were asking and again you know we have the controversy here, all were asking for the Commission is to look at the facts, determine with your rules and make a decision and well take it from there. IWASHITA:Mr. Chair. GALDONES:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Was a letter in fact sent to the owners by the Applicant pursuant to that instructions in the letter Mr. Kim is talking about? KIM:May I address that? GALDONES:Sure. KIM:I did indicate and I can provide a copy that my client, my clients did receive a letter from Mr. Mooers dated March 31, 2005- Notice of Special Management Area Use Permit Application which does talk about a hearing on Friday, April 22 at 9 a.m. before this honorable body. And I do have a copy of the letter and so it was sent to my client however no Notice of the Right of Contested Case Hearing and other information as set forth in Mr. Yuens March 23, 2005 letter were included. IWASHITA:I have a follow up question for the Applicants representative. GALDONES:Proceed. IWASHITA:Why was not the instructions in Mr. Yuens letter followed in your letter? 14 EXHIBIT B