Laserfiche WebLink
on these proposed rule changes. And, if you have any questions about the PUD rule, I'm happy <br />to take those now. <br />CLARKSON: How many are there per year or per decade typically? <br />KAY: That's a good question. It varies. Do you, do you happen to know? [Turning to Mafia <br />Jackson. ] <br />JACKSON: Three or four. <br />KAY: Maybe three or four a year. There's generally one or two guys that do PUD's. It's kind <br />of their bread and butter. And, the majority of them are over on the west side. So, it's not to say <br />that you'll never see something come to you, but historically, they've been more over on the <br />Kona side, and, yeah, so it's not a lot. Again, in my conversations with the planners that <br />generally—residential or agricultural subdivisions or developments with their residential <br />component, and it's just a way to, again, to more of a comprehensive site planning that gives <br />them the ability to not have to meet all of the Code requirements for setbacks and height <br />requirements and curb, gutter, sidewalk—those types of things. <br />I've talked with Malia about appropriate training, again, since we don't have any applications <br />right now. We have three or four that are in queue but as they are currently constituted, they <br />wouldn't meet the minimum requirements to accept a completed application since the rule <br />highlights further requirements so, but in the near term, maybe in the next couple of months, we <br />may have some coming to, to the Commission. So, what we wanted to try and do is when we <br />have a small agenda, is maybe stay after for an hour or so and go over, kind of this is what you <br />can expect to see in a PUD application and talk a little bit about that so that when we get one <br />come in, we'll be ready to deal with it and process it. Any other questions? <br />HENKEL: I have a questions, but I think it relates to the contested case hearing procedure so <br />that would be Maija. <br />KAY: Tagging you back in. All right. <br />HENKEL: You know, in the, for transparency, I don't see it written down anywhere here, but on <br />the, on the—on your presentation, it showed that the public wouldn't be allowed to participate in <br />a contested case hearing, but also they wouldn't be allowed to even observe it, and I feel that in <br />the interest of transparency, that they should be able to observe it even though I understand that <br />if everybody just allowed participation, it might become, you know, it might overburden the <br />whole proceeding. But, I don't know why people couldn't be present to watch what's going on, <br />and I'd kind of like to see the language change to reflect that personally. <br />HO: [inaudible] <br />JACKSON: It's silent. <br />HENKEL: Well, you said it was up to the discretion of the hearing officer. <br />EXHIBIT C <br />9 <br />