|
VITOUSEK: - - - I mean I feel like the, what they would be rezoning it to was already stated, a
<br />Neighborhood Commercial zoning, which they think is more appropriate.
<br />CARR SMITH: Are you going to say something, Sid?
<br />FUKE: I guess they could do it, but, you know, I haven't seen a situation where you have like an
<br />inverse, stuff like that, eminent domain or inverse condemnation of land use, in essence that the
<br />County zones the property and the developer saying, no, no, no, no, I don't want to do that, or the
<br />landowner saying, no, no, no, I don't want to do that. I've seen like inverse condemnation in terms
<br />of acquisition of property where ultimately the County buys it... But now you have the private owner,
<br />you know, the landowners, you know, being forced to do something that the government wants to
<br />have done through the zoning, I think that - - - legally questionable.
<br />CARR SMITH: Jeff.
<br />DARROW: So this, this is a unique situation in which we find ourselves --here. We had a lengthy
<br />discussion with the Planning Commissions regarding projects that have;"that,,come back before the
<br />Commission and Council with a time extension when_,the project basically stopped some time
<br />previously. So the direction of the Commissions were different; but the Leeward Planning
<br />Commission was very clear that they wanted to see something change, and it sounded like the
<br />change they wanted to see was instead of granting a time extension, they wanted to see the project
<br />come back, almost to be resubmitted as:; new -project, so that.they could evaluate the entire project
<br />again as a brand new proj pct._ 4.
<br />In this particular case;since this was originally`approved till this time, there's been a massive
<br />change, and that was the Kona CDP in which identifies this property as one of the, in the center of
<br />one of the TODs. So that'lias been,a big change"when we are looking at this particular project. And
<br />again, you asked -for. comptoniise; the Director to work with the applicant, and I think it is agreeable
<br />that going; forward_with this amount of land r'ea.,at this time would be a CN zoning, looks like it
<br />d
<br />woulmeet'the intent `of what we are,trying to get to. But still, the Commission has the opportunity
<br />to vote in the way it is; we have an -unfavorable recommendation that's being brought before the
<br />Commission'to ;be voted on.'� .That could; happen with any project. It, you know, that just happens. If
<br />that happens, `then. the project goes up to the County Council with an unfavorable recommendation,
<br />and it's addressed atjhe Council. It's just the way it is, unfortunately.
<br />CARR SMITH: Mr. Newberg.
<br />,9
<br />NEWBERG: Just wanted to -=add that I do stand by my motion, and I think it's hard, you know, don't
<br />want to get into personal reasons; I was raised that the only person I can control ourselves is
<br />ourselves. You were granted what you requested in 2005, which was an incredible peak in the
<br />construction industry, and unfortunately, that wasn't taken advantage of by the owners.
<br />CARR SMITH: Things, life changes; we don't have control over everything, but. Mr. Van Perris.
<br />VAN PERNIS: Let me say that the project was abandoned for 15 years, so they have no one but
<br />themselves to blame - - -
<br />42
<br />DRAFT
<br />
|