Laserfiche WebLink
Ted H.S. Hong <br />Attorne y at Law <br />Employment, Workplace Law & Litigation <br />Sue Lee Loy <br />Planner and Legal Assistant <br />July 8, 2013 <br />VIA F. -MAID. <br />Patti Pinto, Chair <br />Puna Community Development Plan Action Committee <br />Aupuni Center <br />101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 <br />Hilo, HI 96720 <br />Communication No. 2013 -42 <br />Re: Amendment to Special Permit No. 1122 (Docket No. 01- 000013) <br />Hawaii's Volcano Circus, Ltd. <br />Dear Ms. Pinto, <br />Please note that undersigned counsel represents S.P.A.C.E. and Hawaii's Volcano Circus, <br />Ltd. in their amendment to Special Permit No. 1122. This letter is intended to express my <br />concern with your committee's draft correspondence dated July 9, 2013 to Planning Director <br />Duane Kanuha that is up for discussion at your meeting tomorrow. <br />Firstly, the Puna Community Development Plan Action Committee ( "Action <br />Committee ") failed to provide this office or my client with notice that your consideration of the <br />Amendment to Special Permit No. 1 122 would be on your July 9, 2013 agenda. Similarly, we <br />did not receive notice of your May 14, 2013 meeting, wherein you took public testimony <br />regarding the application but not testimony from the applicant itself so that it could present its <br />case or so that it could respond to questions or concerns from the Action Committee or members <br />of the community. Nothing in the Hawaii County Code or Planning Department Rules and <br />Regulations requires a special permit applicant to check CDP action committee agendas while its <br />application is pending review by the Planning Commission. As such, it would seem that it was <br />the Action Committee's responsibility and/or duty to inform my client that it intended to discuss <br />the special permit amendment application and subsequently take and consider public testimony <br />regarding same. The lack of proper notice to this office or my client (contact information was <br />provided for in the application itself) raises an issue that our client was not provided with an <br />opportunity to discuss the current version of its special permit amendment application and the <br />work it is pursuing to address concerns from the County of Hawaii and surrounding property <br />owners, despite the fact the Action Committee considered the testimony of others. <br />Please note that we only heard of tomorrow's meeting from a local resident. Had it not <br />been for this individual, your Action Committee would have ruled on this recommendation based <br />upon an outdated application, a handful of public testimony from neighbors without the most <br />current or accurate information regarding the Hawaii's Volcano Circus project, and without <br />considering a single word from the applicant aside from the application itself. The Action <br />Committee's failure to provide this office or the applicant with notice of this meeting or the <br />previous meeting in advance is unreasonable and unfair at best and a potential violation of due <br />process at worst. <br />P.o. Sox 4217 Fula, Hawaii 96720 Phvne: (808) 960 -3156 email: tedOtedhvnglaw.cnm <br />