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

Home

buying at the Sea Villages over the last 2years you know they had an opportunity to due diligence on the property and see that there was a pending SMA in the land right next door. You know these new owners made a decision to buy and at this point they dont have a standing to request. And really you have to look at the slippery slope of this, every time somebody buys a property next to on standing application if the Commission were to now allow them to then say that they have a right a contested case hearing, it would just, you know you have to look at it administratively too. The rules need to be followed and they had a right to, you know they knew about this if they had done their due diligence. I guess lastly Id like to wrap up some comments on the notice issue. The essential purpose of the notice requirements in this case has been satisfied many times over. As to the letters that may have been misaddressed prior to the April 22 hearing we did another notice. Everyone who wants to come and speak about this project is now on notice and they can do so. But we dont believe that that creates a contested case hearing. The point of notice requirement is to protect therightsoftheindividualtocomeintotheCommissionandtotelltheCommissionwhatthey feel about the project. Its not to allow you know perpetual delay or perpetual continuance of this action. That its purpose of notices is to put them on notice of the project and I think the record is clear that theres been a lot of notice as to this project. This project should not be dragged indefinitely. The Planning Director and the Department have recommended approval on the project and we would like that their recommendations be taken up by this Committee. So in conclusion you know, a new applicant its simply irrelevant that theres a new applicant here. The criteria is does the project meet HRS 205(a) and does it follow Rule 9 of the Planning Commission rules and this project meets those requirements. Accordingly we respect the request that this Commission deny standing as Intervenors to the various parties now seeking to intervene. SPRINGER:Thank you Mr. Schultz. Commissioners any questions for Mr. Schultz? I have a question for the Planning Director. In past practices is it accurate to say that when properties change ownership the applications that are in process continue. YUEN:Thats a general. I can say that with confidence as being a rule of law. I cant, Im not certain as to there being changes in ownership while Ive been, in projects that have been pending while Ive been the Director. Mr. Hayashi has more lengthy experience in this than I do. HAYASHI:Off hand during Mr. Yuens tenure as the Planning Director I dont know whether if weve done it but weve done it on many occasions in the past. SPRINGER:Are there any examples of change in ownership constituting a review, a reexamination of an active application? HAYASHI:Im sorry I was playing with the cord there, I didnt quite get the question. SPRINGER:Are there any examples of changes in ownership causing an application that was open and under review to be redressed as if starting over? EXHIBIT C 6