2005-05-20 EXHIBIT C HUGGETT PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

specifically asked the Commission, I said okay well do another mailing, well do another notice should I indicate whether they are contested case hearing rights and I was instructed that no, I should not. The last thing I would point out as far as changing ownership, land is a commodity. Many of my clients are developers, they buy land, sell land as investments. And, I would say that a high percentage of them sell the properties sometimes before, sometimes during and sometimes after applications that are pending. Most recently a rezoning application by the Deutsch sisters was sold, it was pending before the County Council. Ive never had any of these applications be required to re-hear them. One of the things I think youll find, youve probably seen enough of my applications by now, even some of the newer Commissioners. I never speak to who the Applicant is other than the Applicant is so and so, owner and fee of the property. You look at all of the applications we file with the County theres no representation of gee, is he a good guy, does he have the financial ability to perform, does he have past performance, that has never been an issue. The issue was always, is this the appropriate use of the property. Irregardless of who the applicant is. If the Commission or the Council wanted that information it wouldbeanintrigalpartoftheapplication.Itsimplyisnot.Sotocallthatasubstantialchange in an application is simply not true. Regarding Ms. Isbells request about driveway rules, it may or may not be changed. I think the Commission has before recommended conditions by the Director and in there we are required to apply or comply with all regulatory requirements. I think its Condition 11. So if a rule is changed it would be addressed at the time of plan approval and the driveway would have to meet any rules or recommendations made by the Council that become law. But to withhold that application pending something that may or may not happen I mean, it simply couldnt move forward. I would just say one last thing about the change of ownership. I mean to say that every time theres new owners they should be re-noticed and they have an opportunity to apply for contested case, quite simply Madame Chairman if you and I owned a unit at the condominium and we didnt want a project to happen we could simply change ownership every 60 days for $25, transfer of ownership and then ask for a new hearing. Its just absolutely unworkable so, those are all my comments at this time. SPRINGER:Thank you Mr. Mooers. Commissioners, any questions for Mr. Mooers? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Mr. Mooer did you also represent Mr. Soto in the original application? MOOERS:Yes I did. I prepared the application, the architect on the project, Mr. Corey Foulk was also the- developed the plan is also retained. So the project team remains the same. WATANABE: So, in regard to this straw man theory did he have any particular advantage in getting that? MOOERS:No. I mean the awards, theres no questions about who is Mr. Soto. I mean the idea that the straw man is a little bit ridiculous because if that was a strategy, if that was important then youd simply carry it through until you got the permit and then transfer the ownership at the end of that. But Mr. Soto had no advantage here. And as far as representations made by Mr. Soto, every representation thats made, any agreement thats made is in writing. You know it appears as a condition in the SMA. So for somebody to say okay well, we like the EXHIBIT C 11