2005-11-18 TPARKERSCHOOL - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

TORIGOE:Thank you Mr. Chairman. Based on that why dont we do this, what if we go ahead and allow Mr. Woodell to make his argument and if there seems to be an objectionable injection of testimony then the other parties can object how does that sound? GALDONES:Do the parties have any objection to that process? LEITHEAD-TODD:The County has no objection. VITOUSEK:We have no objection to Mr. Woodell offering argument thats what were here for. GALDONES:Mr. Woodell proceed. WOODELL:Iwanttodescribetoyouwhatbothersmeaboutthiscase.Thatis,andits continued on today. Its a continual description of benefits of the school, which we do not deny. I mean I think every school is good. The benefits of the trailways, which presumably are good but certainly I see no, I dont see any connection between the trailways and the trailways has nothing to do that I can see, with the granting of this use permit. Of this permit app-, use permit application. The issue is what the state or the zoning ordinance says about use permits. And the issue is its on paragraph 2 of 25-2-55; the granting of the proposed use shall not be determined detrimental to the public welfare nor cause substantial adverse impact to the communitys character to the surrounding properties. And there-, I cannot find anything in the ordinances that says if the special good, especially good well if youre going grant trailways that you can have, that theres a different, theres a different standard. The standard is really, you know its very cryptic and very clear and you know with all due respect to your planning director I heard him discuss with you whether the hearings officer should be brought here for this hearing and he said well this is all at your discretion. But this isnt discretionary. You know its absolutely clear that if the applicant cannot show that there is no substantial adverse impact to the communitys character or to the surrounding properties legally you cannot grant this permit. And my concern you know, Im sure that the hearings officer was a very-. I assume shes a very, I think she is, Ive heard shes a very capable lawyer. But, she bought hook, line and sinker this argument about well; we need to have schools. You know and this school is good and they brought all these high maka maks in to tell her how good this school was and how important it was. But that is not the issue. You know the issue is traffic. Lets talk about what we have on the table for traffic. You know the neighborhood did this amateur survey. And all we did, you know its very clear the hearings officer did not include any of the, she very clearly dis-, did not include any of the statements that were taken. But what she did do, what she did do was admit the numbers, we counted and thats all we were trying to do really was just count. How many pedestrians, how many, what was the traffic? And we submitted that and she accepted it. But she gave, but in her hearing she said well she gave it little weight. Now what else was what other traffic information was there? You know you see in my exhibit, the exhibit, the exhibit where the witness was, that the applicant submitted all their list of witnesses and its in here as exhibits. And their, their, their list of exhibits showed. Theres exhibit O in their list of exhibits. This is, Im looking at, my exhibit 13. This is their, the applicants list of exhibits. And number O is traffic data for Waimea and under O says this exhibit will be submitted when its available. Thats the extent of EXHIBIT A 16