2003-10-02 TSOTO - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

VITOUSEK:Yeah, Randy Vitousek. IÓm representing the applicant relative to the petition for standing. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Mr. Tsukazaki? TSUKAZAKI:Ben Tsukazaki. My address is 142 Kapaa Street, Hilo. representing the Apartment Owners of Sea Village, Inc., the association of condominium owners next door to this project. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Mr. Vitousek, you want to start off? VITOUSEK:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My understanding is this matt before the Commission on a petition to intervene in a contested case hearing; and the position of the Applicant is that this is, that there was no properly-filed Petition for Standing. In other words, the rules are very clear. Rule 4-7 of the Planning Commission Rules say that a Petition for Standing in the form provided in Appendix A to the Rules must be filed no less than seven days before the, no less than seven calendar days before the first hearing in the matter; and that simply wasnÓt done. The form prescribes, thatÓs attached Exhibit A, prescribes that it has to be, what the content has to be; and that it has to be a notarized application, and this just wasnÓt a notarized application. In other words, they submitted a petition, it was not notarized and just plain didnÓt meet the requirements of the statute, IÓm sorry, requirements of the rule. So itÓs just, you know, I mean, even though the Court is clear that, that standing is to be liberally construed, the Commission has complete authority to enforce its own rules. And, so, if a petition is received that doesnÓt meet the requirements of the rules, it doesnÓt exist. Now, they recognized that this was a flaw, obviously, because th th amended petition that was mailed to the Commission on August 4, which was after the st first hearing on this matter. August 1 was the first hearing. And so the applicant and, the petitioner obviously recognized that they had not complied with the rules; and they submitted a notarized amended form after the first hearing, and thatÓs not timely. In other words, they didnÓt submit a timely proper petition. The first petition was not complete, it was improper. The second petition, which was notarized, was unt really a matter thatÓs, you know, open to a lot of interpretation. So itÓs the applicantÓs position that no proper timely request had been received and that there is no reason to initiate contested case hearing procedures. WeÓre talking about a condominium association which is a corporation, which is represented by counsel who is obviously very competent and very knowledgeable in terms of the rules. This is not a case where weÓre dealing with some community group that may be unsophisticated or rules or not have the funds available. This is, they just didnÓt do it right. I mean, they had every resource to do it right and didnÓt; and so thereÓs no reason to give them a break. I mean, itÓs not a situation where thereÓs any unfairness to anyone. The rules are obvious and well known and easy to follow, so thatÓs the position of the Applicant. FUJIKAWA:Mr. Tsukazaki? 3