COM 0331.001 2020-2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

REPLOGLE: Anybody else? If not, I have, I read the thing and I have a comment that concerns me more than anything, I guess. It appears that it's like twenty-nine(29) years since this project first hatched if you will and we're here again for another 7-year time extension. It feels off to me. I will go along with it,but something doesn't you know it just seems so long and as Mr. Au pointed out we definitely need housing in Hilo. It's more a comment for me than a question or anything but let's proceed is there any, anybody else have anything? If not, I will entertain a motion. GALIMBA: I'll make a motion and— REPLOGLE: Thank you. GALIMBA: —I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application to amend Change of Zone Ordinance No. 13 98, based on the Planning Director's recommendations, which shall be adopted. AGUINALDO: I second. REPLOGLE: It's been moved and seconded. Staff will you do the roll call please. ANDREWS: Yes, certainly, I just want to verify the— REPLOGLE: Oh, one moment, we have a last minute, Mr. Clarkson? CLARKSON: Yes, I would like to discuss the motion. REPLOGLE: Oh, okay, good idea. CLARKSON: Yes, I would actually like to propose an amendment to the motion that the time limit, the 7-year time limit be deleted and the time limit for the fair share be similar to other conditions where it's triggered on final subdivision approval or final plan approval whichever is appropriate. And the reason I'm making this motion is that it appears to me that the area is definitely well underway to being converted to single-family residential. There's a commercial property right next door, I think it would be wrong to suppose that this property should revert to agriculture and knowing what little I know about the owners I suggest that if they as property developers find themselves not capable of doing the subdivision that they would rapidly find someone was and would wish to buy the property. I simply think that the original rezone was reasonable and like other zoned properties that are reasonable for their area there shouldn't be any time extensions. These guys should be able do it or not do it as economic circumstances dictate. If this property had been originally zoned residential there would be no time extent, there would be no time limit and I think it's just fair to just remove the time limit. Just my suggestion but, I'm proposing that amendment. AU: Commissioner Clarkson, what was the second amendment that you're proposing? 6 EXHIBIT C(DRAFT)