Applicantʻs Statement on AOAO Colony 1 At Sea Mountain Petition

Home

III. ARGUMENT A. The Colony 1 petition fails to comply with Planning Commission rules since it is not signed by a representative of the Board of Directors of the AOAO, and there is no evidence the Board sanctioned or approved the filing of the petition. As a threshold matter, and for purposes of preserving the record on appeal, Applicant Black Sand Beach LLC submits that Colony 1 has failed to comply with PC Rule 4-6(a), since the real party in interest(here the AOAO Board) did not sign the petition, but instead had a member of Pacifica Realty Management Inc. of Kailua-Kona sign the request for intervention. Further, the record is barren of any affirmative representation that the AOAO Board has approved, sanctioned, or otherwise consented to the filing of the petition. These flaws are not simply clerical oversights,but material omissions that do not provide the Windward Planning Commission sufficient evidence and legal basis to sustain the entry of an interested parry who has standing to participate in a contested case hearing. For these reasons alone, the Colony 1 petition should be dismissed. B. In the event the Commission finds that Colony 1 has standing,Applicant is prepared to defend the proiect on the wealth of evidence that contradicts the claims made by Colony 1. The gravamen of Colony 1's reason for petitioning the Commission to intervene is "the dilapidated state of the Public Water System, Fire Suppression System, and Wastewater System." Ironically, Colony 1's objections to the project can best be described as "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face." Black Sand Beach LLC's project will create a robust infrastructure system that supports not only the project but will serve and benefit Colony 1 residents and owners as well. Presently,the existing water system complies with Federal and State regulations and confirmed via consumer confidence reports,which are prepared under State of Hawaii -5-