REP PC 049 2020/07/21 2018-2020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

PC -49 Page 3 July 21, 2020 Committee Member Aaron Chung, in whose council district the subject parcel is located, spoke in support of the bill. The Council is lenient in allowing for time extensions, because members know how difficult it is to get projects off the ground. Downzoning of a property is unusual, but in this case it is warranted because "based on what we have seen here, you really haven't been a good neighbor," he said. Rezoning requests should only be granted with reasonable expectations from the Council to the public. On another point, the contract with Backyard Monkey was only executed this year, but the pleas of neighbors to abate their concerns about unsafe flora have been ongoing for a lot longer time than that. Much of this could have been avoided if Mr. Tai had done what he was supposed to do, Mr. Chung said. With regard to the water commitment, the deposit was made in 2019, but the rezoning ordinance required it within 180 days of the effective date of the 2014 Ordinance. Further, not knowing about that requirement is not an excuse. Many of Mr. Tai's actions are coming on the back end to ward off the Director's downzoning, Mr. Chung said. Mr. Tai was not being a good neighbor to tell someone to "work with my insurance company," and it sounds very impersonal. All we have are broken promises to the neighbors, he said. Mr. Tai then promised he would keep Backyard Monkey on the maintenance contract for as long as he owned the property. He promised the company would take care of whatever needed to be cut, and the property management company needs to tell him what is going on. If neighbors objected to anything, Mr. Tai would tell Backyard Monkey to take care of it, and he would pay for it. Committee Member Maile David spoke in support of Mr. Chung's comments. She noted that Mr. Tai would not be prevented from reapplying to rezone or subdivide the property, should Bill 150 be approved. Committee Vice Chair Susan L. K. Lee Loy said the conditions of approval are added as guardrails to ensure the County is getting what is being promised. The decision was "very simple" to her in that it is based on not complying with the conditions of approval. She does not see the current action as a downzoning of the property, but rather a return to the original zoning. Other rezoned properties nearby may be in compliance with their conditions but this one is not. Ms. Lee Loy said she would be supporting the bill because the failure of compliance with the original conditions of approval. Ms. Lee Loy asks every rezoning application that comes before the Council whether the applicant has read and agreed to the conditions of approval. This bill is a result of a failure or a noncompliance of those conditions. Committee Member Karen Eoff, also speaking in support, said the Council wants to support good faith proposals and opportunities for affordable housing, but the Council also needs to make sure that a proposal being presented is actually the plan that is taken forward. There have been enough instances with this particular property have shown examples to the contrary, with no good faith and no movement; also, nonresponsive to neighbors. She was willing to move forward with a supportive recommendation. Chair Kierkiewicz closed by saying the lack of timely action when these ordinances were approved is at the crux of Bill No. 150. The landowner may be asking for another chance, but the existing Ordinance No. 14-056 is that promise. It is binding, and there was failure to act until the PC Report No.: 49