2007-08-31 TSTANFORDCARR - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

DARROW: I’ve been requested by the – I’m going to keep this short and sweet – the applicant has requested -, they brought quite a bit of material so they will be giving a very detailed presentation. Basically I’ll kind of just summarize the project itself, and give you a location. The area of this application is within the South Kohala District.For reference, we are looking at Queen Kaahumanu Highway running in a north-south direction. We’re looking at the Waikoloa Beach Resort area, as well as the Mauna Lani Resort area. The application location is identified by this orange dot in this location. Access to this area is from Queen Kaahumanu Highway to Mauna Lani Drive, and you would come to the intersection of North Kaniku Drive, and then also the application runs along Ho‘ohana Street; and that’s identified in this particular area. This red line running in a north-south direction in the middle of Queen Kaahumanu Highway is the SMA line; everything makai of that line falls in the Special Management Area. The applicant, Stanford Carr Development, LLC, is requesting a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the development of 691 residential units, 284 hotel units, 3 golf holes and related support facilities. As you mentioned, Commissioner Graham, that we do have four petitions for standing in a contested case hearing that we’ve received. Exhibit No. 13 is a petition for standing from Richard Gilroy; Richard Gilroy is a resident of the Villages at Mauna Lani. We have Exhibit 14, which is a petition for standing from the Villages at Mauna Lani Association of Apartment Owners. We have a petition for standing from the Mauna Lani Resort Association; this was received on August 22, 2007, after the application was submitted to the Planning Commission. These three applications were received timely, notarized, as well as with the proper filing fee. Our last petition that we had received was from Mr. Robert Batinovich, and this was received on August 24, 2007; the petition was not notarized and it was filed without a proper filing fee. GRAHAM: Thank you, Jeff. I would also want to just make it known we do have four people signed up to give public testimony, we’ll be taking that shortly. And the applicant would like to make a little presentation to us here today, which I think we’ll probably also be able to accommodate. But our first item of business is to decide on the contested case requests which we have. Mr. Torigoe, could you give me any direction as to how we might process these four at this time, individually or whatever you think? TORIGOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you notice, it’s an SMA Use Permit application, which is considered a contested case, and so falls under your Rule 4 procedures. Your Rule 4-7 requires that upon receipt of a written request to intervene, the Commission, at the first meeting, shall hold a hearing on the matter, and if the movant can demonstrate that their interest is clearly distinguishable from that of the general public, or they have some property interest in the land or lawfully reside on the land, or if they do not have an interest different than the public generally, that the proposed action will cause them actual or threatened injury in fact, or if they are persons who are descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian islands prior to 1778, who practiced rights which were customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural or religious purposes, then they shall be admitted as parties. And the Commission will grant or deny such written request prior to any further action on the matter. And any denial is appealable to the Circuit Court. So after establishing the parties to the proceeding, the Commission can either proceed, or upon written request by any party and for EXHIBIT H 2