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

Home

HAYASHI:Thank you MadameChair, members of the Commission. As you recall at the last meeting in Kona this application was- this continued hearing was brought before you. This permit was originally submitted by Eric Soto for an SMA Use Permit. Mr. Soto had sold the property to Mr. Huggett. Mr. Huggett has informed us and the Commission that he intended to continue with the proposal that Mr. Soto had previously filed for. At the last Planning Commission hearing there was concerns relative to some of the petitions or request for contested case hearing that was filed by certain individuals. The Commission at that time continued the hearing in order to allow both legal counsel, the counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for I believe Mr. Haney and Mr. Buscemi, adjoining property owners to address the issue regarding the- certain issues that Mr. Torigoe had requested of. Mr. Kim representing Mr. Haney and Buscemi did submit a letter to the Planning Commission which all of you have a file- was provided a copy of. Mr. Randy Vitousek on behalf of the Applicant Mr. Huggett did submit a th memorandum in support of the application. This was received in the office on May 17. I just wanted to point out to you that in this memorandum that was submitted by Mr. Vitouseks office there are 2 exhibits, Exhibit C and F basically these are draft of thehearing transcript of the last meeting. The hearing transcript was not provided to the Planning Commission so I dont know what the legal aspect of that is. The Commission hasnt seen the draft nor has approved the hearing transcript. I just wanted to point that out for the record. th We also received a letter dated May 6 and the Planning Commission was also afforded a copy of that letter and that was submitted by Virginia Isbell as Vice Chair of the County Council. And basically indicating that they are working a new, revisions to the driveway ordinance and requested that the Commission continue this hearing until such time that ordinance has been adopted. th May 11 we also received a letter from Mr. Brian Haney requested that the Planning Commission continue the hearing as follow-up on Councilperson Virginia Isbells request. th We also have a letter dated May 4 by several individuals expressing their concerns regarding this particular project. I just wanted to point out what has been provided to the Planning Department and the Planning Commission relative to a request for a contested case hearing or letters. As previously indicated to you at the last meeting we did receive a letter from Mr. Brian Haney, Jack and Kelly Armstrong, Mark and Kim Spangler, Lowell Zimmerman and basically they had requested that the contested case hearing be held. They wanted to be a party to a contested case hearing. These were in letter form and not a formal petition. All of these individuals with the exception of Mr. Zimmerman did provide us with the $100 filing fee. We also received a note from Mr. Charles Buscemi along with a check, $100 filing fee, and I believe that his intent was to be a party also to nd the proceedings. Since that time, since the last meeting on April 22 we did receive from, a formalpetitionfromMr.CharlesBuscemiandthe$100filingfeetobeapartytothis proceeding. We also received the check from Mr. Brian Haney with no letter and no formal th petition.WealsoreceivedMay10aformalpetitionfromMarkandKimSpangleraswellas their $100 filing fee. So thats basically where we are regarding the petitions or letters requestingforstandingtoacontestedcasehearing.AtthelastmeetingtheCommissiondecided EXHIBIT C 2