2024-11-18 Lancer Keeling - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

From: Kaeo Keeling To: LPCtestimonv Subject: Sma21000078 Mysin Special Management Area Use Permit Date: Monday, November 18,2024 4:10:31 PM Aloha Honorable Members of the Planning Commission, I am writing to formally oppose the approval of the JEKATERINA MYSIN SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREA USE PERMIT APPLICATION (SMA 21- 000078), which is set for review at the upcoming Leeward Planning Commission meeting on November 21, 2024. After thorough review and careful consideration of the multiple, evolving proposals submitted by the applicant, it is clear that this project has become mired in confusion, inconsistency, and substantial deviation from the originally agreed-upon plans. There are serious concerns surrounding the handling of the permit application, the shifting nature of the intended use of the property, and the overall impact of this development on the local community. I urge the Planning Commission to postpone this review until the applicant provides a clear, coherent, and consistent plan for the proposed project. Confusion and Chaos Due to Multiple Site Plan Updates The process for reviewing this permit has been beset by a disturbing level of inconsistency and confusion. Since its original application in December 2020, the applicant, Ms. Jekaterina Mysin, has submitted numerous updated site plans that contradict one another and significantly alter the scope of the proposed development. To date, there are multiple versions of the site plans, including changes submitted in May 2021, April 2022, October 2023, and most recently, an extensive 40- page addendum added in November 2024—just days before the Planning Commission's scheduled hearing. These frequent updates have created an environment where it is impossible for the public or the Commission to properly evaluate the full scope of the proposal. It is also important to note that these revisions were submitted after mediation took place in 2022. The mediation agreement outlined certain parameters that were agreed upon by all parties involved, yet subsequent changes to the plans have not only ignored these parameters but in many cases, directly contradicted the prior agreements. For example, the background report issued in May 2021 indicated that the property would be developed for residential use, specifically six residential condominium units. Yet, in August 2021, the applicant shifted the