2007-11-16 TKILGORE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

YEH: The answer to that, I believe, is yes. YUEN: Mail notice, yes. TORIGOE: Mail notice, yeah. YEH: Yes. TORIGOE: So, you know, we would obviously recommend that those people do get timely mail notice to prevent the possibility of their coming in and claiming that they were denied the right to come in and intervene. HAYASHI: If the applicant needs to submit those notification 20 days prior to the nd meeting date, that would fall under the 22. So there would be time for them to notify. It’s just a matter of us doing an amendment to the agenda, so that they can notify the surrounding property owners as to the time of the meeting. WATANABE: Is it then agreed that it’s, potentially we could continue this matter to th December 12, the next Kona meeting? KILGORE: Sure. WATANABE: Let me ask counsel then that, seeing that the applicant has acknowledged that’s possible, do we, I guess we do need a motion from the Commission to that effect, yeah? TORIGOE: Well, you know -. WATANABE: So that the applicant would have the opportunity to provide a public notice. TORIGOE: Although, you know, again this is under Rule 4, Contested Case matter, the presiding officer has the authority to continue a matter. If you want to take a motion, you can, but you know, I think under Rule 4 you are able to just continue it. WATANABE: Well, what’s your pleasure? Anybody wants to make a motion, or -? IWASHITA: We’ll rely on you, Mr. Chair. WATANABE: Okay, then in light of the discussion, then I would suggest that we th continue this to the December 12 meeting, and I hope that you would then be able to show that you did provide disclosure. YEH: We’ll make every possible effort to do the right thing, yes. WATANABE: Thank you. Are there any objections that this will be continued to the next -? DOMINGO: No objections. EXHIBIT B 16