Laserfiche WebLink
KANUHA: [Inaudible] language in there? <br /> VITOUSEK: Please use your microphone. <br /> KANUHA: Would you like to add a conditional language in there? <br /> VITOUSEK: No, I mean, like I said, I think that the language that was initially proposed is <br /> adequate where it clarifies that the County Council has that authority to delegate that authority or <br /> not,you know. They can keep it for themself if they think the project merits that, which I agree <br /> with, or if, you know,they exercise their discretion to say that we think this project is so beneficial <br /> for the community, we want to give it every opportunity to be successful that they can then decide <br /> to give that administrative time extension. So, as it's written and as we are reviewing it, I agree <br /> with it. <br /> KANUHA: Yeah, okay. <br /> VITOUSEK: I would, I would take it a step further; perhaps,the better opportunity for that would <br /> be in the code revision, which is apparently ongoing in actually clarifying what happens when <br /> these ordinances go stale, rather than the language as proposed about,that it may seek initiation of <br /> a change of zone. <br /> PAISHON-DUARTE: Chair,just— <br /> VITOUSEK: Yes. <br /> PAISHON-DUARTE: —for my understanding. Are you proposing that we have a possible code <br /> revision discussion at this point or, or how, yeah, timeline on that? <br /> VITOUSEK: I think personally that with the code revisions on a large scale happening, which, <br /> you know, we attended the meeting yesterday, the stated purpose is to do a comprehensive <br /> overhaul of the code in order to eliminate the piecemeal effect from the changes that have <br /> happened over the years. So, my concern is that, you know, with a lot of the piecemeal <br /> modifications to it happening right before we do the overall code, I think we have that discussion <br /> with the overall overhaul of the zoning codes, which are going ahead now. Now,this one, because <br /> it doesn't substantially change the process, it just clarifies the authority, I don't have a problem <br /> with this at all. <br /> INABA: So, if I may respond— <br /> VITOUSEK: Sure. <br /> INABE: —and this is what the Windward Planning Commission had the same bill before them, <br /> they forwarded a positive recommendation without language change but with the intention that the <br /> Director may not, or that language can't be added that grants the Planning Director that authority. <br /> So,that's what they did. You folks are going to do what you are going to do. When it comes to <br /> 16 <br /> EXHIBIT G(DRAFT) <br />