2005-06-17 HUGGETT SMA03-007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Approval. In Plan Approval theres a condition that says that existing traffic movements shall not be hindered or obstructed. So we try to work on these at Plan Approval. I dont know what is possible with respect to the flares. I believe that some accommodation could be made in the Alii Drive right-of-way but we would prefer not to put that as a condition of the SMA permit. GALDONES:Seeing no further questions. Mr. Buscemi. BUSCEMI:Good morning Commissioners. I wanted to say thank you for hearing my concerns. I havent seen many of you before. I testified here I guess about 2-years ago on the, I believe it was on the Soto project and there were different Commissioners at the time. I just wanted to say before I testify that some of my neighbors have heard comments about how we are, how the Sea Village folks are professional complainers, professional project stoppers etc. And I just wanted to say you know were not getting paid for this stuff I mean were not professionals. And weve both, both Brian and I have flown here on our own dime from New Orleanstwiceeach.Spentquiteabitofmoneyandtimeonthat.Thefactofthematteristhat th you know Mr. Mooers said and hes right you know this is the 8 time weve been here for this permit and I guess my question is why are we still sitting here with this permit. There are some issues that were brought up years ago that still have not been addressed and iftheyd be addressed Id certainly promise to stop showing up. In any case Im sure you all know that Mr. Haney has done a lot of work on the driveway and I appreciate all the work hes done and other people at Sea Village do. And I wanted to say that theres still a few other issues. It will take less time than Mr. Haney took but Id like to bring them up as this is probably our last chance to say anything since our contested cases were denied and I understand that from now on everything will be done in the Planning Department offices. These issues for the most part, these first2issuesdonthavetodospecificallywithMr.Huggettsproject.Ihaveaquestionforthe Planning Department I guess, now that our contested cases are denied we know now that if a building is conceived in 2002, its not built and its resurrected in 2005 that the neighbors of the project dont get a contested case. Okay. Suppose this project fails. Suppose its resurrected 5 years from now, do the people that live there in 2010 get a contested case? How about 2025? There are probably people who havent even been born yet that might have concerns about this project if its going to be- if the permit is going to be transferred from one owner to another at infinitum. I think this is an issue that the Planning Department needs to address and I think that the Commissioners would probably agree with me that this is a serious flaw. In fact if this SMA permit approval, if its approved were to be appealed I think the court would seriously consider that argument. Issue 2 in my little handout here is the Planning Department recommendation th that you have in front of you and Im going on the March 29 one now because I havent really th had time to look at the June 7 one but it contains false information. And it contains false information about the easement which is really one of the most important conditions that there are. I think its on page 2 or page 5. It says by letter dated January 13, 2005 Vacation Internationale has granted the applicants an additional minimum 4-foot wide easement for vehicular access and utilities for the project. I havent seen todays version but does that still say that? SIRACUSA:Yeah. BUSCEMI:Thats not true. And you know frankly Im not sure why this keeps EXHIBIT A 14