2003-11-07 TSOTO - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

standing for the Association. We are the only Intervenors in this case. If it is granted then I would request that a hearings officer be appointed and that the necessary time period, as far as scheduling, be allowed. SPRINGER:Thank you, Mr. Kim. Do you have any, does your client have anything to add? GILFDORF:I donÓt believe I have anything to add. SPRINGER:Thank you. Mr. Mooers, do you have a response? MOOERS:Yes, I do. I apologize as Mr. Vitousek is not able to join us today, heÓs on the mainland. But I will restate some of the statements hearing. IÓm not an attorney. IÓm a land use planner representing the Applicant. I prepared the application and processed that through the department. th The neighbors were notified on the first notice on June 16 that this project would take place. This is over six weeks prior to the deadline for which then to file an application. I requested at the initial hearing that they provide evidence that a meeting had occurred that authorized the Board to take the action requesting the contested case; and weÓve seen nothing to that date, although Mr. Tsukazaki at the last meeting said that that took place in July. ThereÓs no question that the application for standing, for contested case was defective. In fact, Mr. Moore at the first hearing admitted that it was defect going to try to remedy that within the next couple of days; and, in fact, they did. Now we hear today that the reason they could not provide a notarized application was because the president was in Canada, when, in fact, the notarized application that came in three days after the fact was signed by another individual. In fact, the Association could have authorized Mr. Tsukaza -, Mr. Tsukazaki, their attorney, to sign the application representing them. So they certainly had knowledge of the application process. They had professional representation and the application was defective. Now we have no question that AOAO has standing, absolutely, no question. But thereÓs absolutely no question that their application was defective. I was happy to hear that Ms. Kubota was talking about the fairness in the application of the Commission rules so that thereÓd be predictability by the developers and consultants on how to advise their clients, and that is that we have to obey the rules. Judge Ibarra in his recent Conclusions of Law in the case of Wayne Leslie versus the Board of Appeals of the County of Hawaii states, ÐWhere the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous and a specific requirement must be met, it is mandatory and not merely directory.Ñ We would propose that they did not comply with the CommissionÓs 3