My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015-11-05 Hearing Transcript - Cellco Partnership dba Verizon USE 15-055
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2015
>
2015-11-05 Hearing Transcript - Cellco Partnership dba Verizon USE 15-055
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/3/2015 2:54:00 PM
Creation date
12/3/2015 2:53:57 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Street, UH Properties and Joan Grill Trust, who also own adjoining properties to this, did not <br />want to cost share because they said they had pavement access from the subdivision roads at the <br />time. We maintained it, and gated our driveway for over 15 years. Subsequently, property <br />owners who have purchased land on this road have benefitted by the access, but it is not a public <br />nor available for commercial use. <br /> <br />If the County wishes to call my driveway Komo Street and provide public access, and assume <br />the liability, then they can simply reimburse me for my investment into this drive, driveway and <br />15 years of maintenance prior to any right-of-way. I believe that the County should respect the <br />land, and also I think they should honor Section 46-1.5, five of the Hawaiʽi Revised Status \[sic\], <br />and they should also honor Section 46-11.5 which obligates the County to provide for and <br />maintenance of channel streambeds. I guess you folks have copies of this, right? But, thank <br />you. <br /> <br />MIYASATO: Okay, applicant, do you have any objections to this petition? <br /> <br />SHAFFER: I—I was listening earlier, and it sounded like he didn’t meet the requirements for <br />standing, the seven days’ notice. Is that correct? <br /> <br />th <br />MCGUIRE: I didn’t receive notice until the 29— <br /> <br />HATA-FINLEY: --Microphone-- <br /> <br />MCGUIRE: --from David Lyman— <br /> <br />MIYASATO: Excuse me, use the microphone, please. <br /> <br />th <br />MCGUIRE: I did not receive notice until the 29, and I came into your office and talked to one <br />of your representatives at the Planning Department, and the lady said all I had to do was turn in a <br />letter, and I didn’t need to spend $200 to just to submit a letter because this was just a general <br />hearing. And, if I did have to file a legal petition, I will pay the $200. <br /> <br />MIYASATO: Okay, do you have anything further? <br /> <br />SHAFFER: No. <br /> <br />MIYASATO: Okay, staff do you have any? <br /> <br />SELF: Yes, we, on behalf of the Planning Director, we would object to this petition for standing. <br />He did file a petition for standing in a contested case hearing on the Department’s form. He filed <br />rd <br />it on November 3 which of course does not meet the seven-day deadline pursuant to Planning <br />Commission Rule 4-6(a). In addition, he did not pay the $200 filing fee that’s supposed to be <br />submitted along with the application. So, on that basis, we would object to his standing as an <br />intervenor. <br /> <br /> <br />5 <br />EXHIBIT E <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.