|
"ALOHA: I'd like to kind of echo what Max said, but add that I guess what I recognize is the
<br />good faith efforts to put in place. And, you know, I, I work within a great organization with
<br />land, and many times, even with best intentions, the development doesn't happen, and when you
<br />put in your good faith efforts to, to provide the entitlements that were required, and then we stop
<br />the process, reintroducing the process in the future will come with its own set with new
<br />entitlements and additional burdens. So, I think recognizing the effort that has been in place to
<br />comply with the County's needs, I think it's an important part when we examine whether or not
<br />to extend, as we are.
<br />CARR SMITH: Thank you. Good points. It seems as though we, we don't know what we're
<br />going to be looking at going forward in terms of repercussions from the virus, so, hard to know.
<br />Any further comments? Mike, go ahead.
<br />VITOUSEK: Yeah, I mean just a couple things. I think, like in this case where we are looking
<br />at a project that's gone through an upcycle in the market and basically missed that because of
<br />their own inaction, I think that, you know, it wouldn't be unreasonable for us to, if we do agree
<br />to extend this, to request the opportunity that in the event that it comes back for extension, it can
<br />be reconditioned, because it seems to me like it's kind of like a rolling target, so to speak, with
<br />this development, where, you know, they're initially coming in requesting 60 and then dropping
<br />it down to 29, and now it could go back to, you know, triplexes or something like that. So the
<br />idea is that, you know, if they don't meet this next extension that we're going to, we may grant
<br />them, should we grant them the additional extension, that at that point, you know, it can be
<br />re-examined and reconditioned, if necessary.
<br />The next thing is kind of more of a specific item for the conditioning that's in place on this, on
<br />this extension. The deletion of Conditions N and O, to me, I think that those Conditions should
<br />be left in place. I think that the idea behind deleting them is that they're completed, but the
<br />continued compliance with those conditions would kind of keep the County permitting married
<br />with the State Historic Preservation compliance, so the developer can't separate them. And
<br />basically, you know, if they become in violation of the mitigation plans or anything like that,
<br />then they would only be incompliance, only be outside of compliance with SHPD and not with
<br />their permitting, so then the County is losing some teeth on that.
<br />CARR SMITH: That's a good point. Mr. Fuke, do you have any comments on Item N and O?
<br />Conditions N and O?
<br />FUKE: I don't believe like the applicant would have any, any objections to their retention. And
<br />I believe that the staff had probably recommended their deletion, you know, because thinking
<br />that it would have been, it's an item that has been addressed. So, it's an item, those two
<br />conditions were not conditions that the applicant had requested that they be deleted, as such, if
<br />the commissioners believe that it should be reinstated, we would have no objections.
<br />CARR SMITH: Christian?
<br />KAY: I, I can confirm that that's the case. Again, it was not requested by the applicant; we just
<br />looked at the completion. We don't have any problem retaining them. There is the catch-all
<br />9
<br />DRAFT
<br />
|