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

Home

water tastes salty. Remember chemistrys my area I can taste salt. And they said, well yes, we do have salt water encroachment. And I said well yes, what are you going to do about it? And they told me 10 years ago that theyre going to mix fresh water from above with the salt water below. And I said oh, great solution. Unfortunately 10 years have gone by, no mixing has occurred and I dont think, I could be wrong, I can be wrong, I dont think its going to happen in the next 10 years either. So what were doing is building all along Alii Drive, using up the fresh water thats there, allowing more and more salt water encroachment. There will come a time when we will say, water water everywhere but not a dropto drink. Thank you very much. GALDONES:Commissioners any questions of Ms. Meyerson? Thank you maam. Sir? KNISS:Yes, Im Mike Kniss, 75-5990 Alii Drive in Kona and Ill let Mr. Kim make comments for me. KIM:ThankyouMr.ChairmanandmembersoftheCommission.Irepresent Mr. Buscemi and Mr. Haney in this matter. What Id like to address first is the issue regarding the Contested Case hearing on March 23, 2005. Mr. Yuen by and through Mr. Norman Hayashi sent to all, had sent to Mr. Mooers on behalf of the Huggetts a letter in which they were informed that pursuant to Planning Commission Rules that they were to inform landowners and lessees of record that they have a right to request a Contested Case hearing and that should they seek to intervene they could do so. On March 31, 2005, Mooers Enterprises signed by Gregory Mooers had sent a letter to various landowners indicating a Notice of Special Management Area Use Permit Application. In that document there was no mention as directed by the Planning Director rd in the March 23 2005 letter to Mr. Mooers regarding the right to a Contested Case hearing. Fortunately for my clients the Planning Director had ccd Mr. Buscemi and Mr. Haney on his original correspondence. As a result of that, my clients timely filed a request for Contested Case hearing. In the presentation by the Planning Department they had indicated that these documents and fees which were properly submitted to the Department were untimely. I would humbly urge you that that decision is not to be made procedurally and under the law by the Planning Department. That decision must be made by the Planning Commission pursuant to your own Rules.AndinfactthatfoundationalbasisisestablishedbyMr.Yuensownletterandtherefore preliminarily I would ask the Commission to make ruling on the application for the Contested Casehearingsasamatterofeithermotionorbywhateverotherdecisionmakingformyouselect so that we can address that matter with the proper authority should you deny that request. My argument is as follows, the application pursuant to this SMA permit by the Huggetts is a new application as indicated in the letter by the Planning Director and as far as our position is concerned. We have the right as adjoining landowners when there is a new application and it is our argument that the application by substituting owners constitutes a new application. Thats our legal position. So we would ask you based upon our rights under the law for a Contested Case hearing to make a determination as to whether or not my clients and others have, will be able to obtain the right to a Contested Case hearing or is the Commission denying their right to a Contested Case hearing and the reasons therefore so we may have a record upon which we can seek redress. And, I say that because it appeared to me, and I could be wrong ladies and gentlemen of the Commission that the Planning Commissions, the Planning Departments position is that you need not rule on it. That basically they have determined, unilaterally, without submission to this Commission that it is untimely. And I dont think they have the legal 9 EXHIBIT B