2008-05-08 TSULLIVAN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

procedures when it comes here are the same as under Section 9-11.B through D. And under that rule that basically is the, you know, your usual SMA Permit procedures which requires that notice be given, including posting of signs and deliverance of mailed notice, to the owners of properties and others within a certain perimeter boundary of the affected property, as well as public notice given by the Commission. Because, again, this is kind of an unusual situation. If you just go in for the SMA Minor Permit application you don’t need to give all that kind of notice. So this went through, you know, it was filed as an SMA Minor Permit. Apparently the time limit for administration action was not met and so it’s being forwarded to you; but along the way I guess nobody really realized that they had to do the formal notice to the surrounding property owners as well as the public notice. So I guess this was all discussed in the last couple of days; and by that time the applicants had made plans to come out here and be present for the hearing today. And so they are here today. And basically the tail end of this rule 9-11.D says “Any failure to mail or to receive the public notice shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided further that the proceedings conform to the requirements of Chapter 91, HRS, as amended.” I think that clearly applies to the public notice that has to be given by the Commission. You know, how that applies to the actual mail notice to the surrounding properties owners is a bit more of a question. So at this point, you know, the applicants are here. I believe they want to come up and provide at least an initial presentation to the Commission. Probably the ideal situation or the ideal treatment would be if you have a notice issue, you know, just to put it off to allow for notice to be given before you even have any kind of presentation on the matter. Here where the applicants have traveled specifically to be here and they want to present their evidence, you know, you can consider, allow them to go ahead and do that, as long as they are fully informed that there are certain risks involved in doing that. For instance, if one of the surrounding property owners later comes up and says, “You know what, I should have gotten timely notice and if I had gotten timely notice I would have filed for a contested case on this.” That’s the sort of thing that could pop up. But basically I think if the applicants are fully aware of those possibilities, and they still want to go ahead today, you know, then it’s within your discretion to allow for that to happen; and then you can probably look at trying to cure any other issues that may arise afterwards. WATANABE: With a subsequent notice, at some subsequent meeting? TORIGOE: Right. WATANABE: Assuming that no conclusions are arrived at during the course of this meeting? TORIGOE: Right. And I would advise, you know, not going any further today than basically hearing out -. WATANABE: Accepting their testimony? TORIGOE: Yeah, the applicants. EXHIBIT A 2