COM 0330.005 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Ji~N-16-97 MON 11 IS AM RALPH LENNEN 898 850 1303 F. 03 and logical way to handle [his matter, and it also precludes some developer in the future from paying his brother-in-law an exorbitant amount for localized improvements, with nothing left over for what was supposed to be the real purpose of the traffic impact fee. We therefore recommend that the amounts specified in Condition P, Item 5 be set at whatever the DOT says is the appropriate amount to cover impacts in Kawaihae and elsewhere in the region, that the wording "not directly tied to the needs of the project itself' be added to the end of Item 5, and that the reference to Condition F in the subsequent paragraph be deleted 0. Condition to be inserted following Condition U. "A provision shall be included in the restrictive covenants in the deeds of all proposed residential lots within the subject property clarifying that covenants instituted directly or indirectly pursuant to the conditions here enumerated may not be removed or amended by vote of the lot owners or their community association." 1 I. Condition to be inserted following the item above: "Reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred by a party in attempting to enforce compliance with the conditions imposed in connection with this rezoning or any other approval related to the subject property or any portion of it shall be recoverable from any property owner(s) responsible and/or from the subdivision's community association. Any citizen who frequently passes by the project area and any group or member of a group with a legitimate interest in some aspect of the development shall have standing for purposes of this provision." To their credit, the spokespersons for this project seem very willing to listen to input from the public and to accept changes in the wording of the ordinance in order to give reassurance that the development will proceed as presented. We believe it is important to make such changes to the wording, since anything that is not in the ordinance is not binding. And no matter how we feel about whom we are dealing with today, we can never be sure whom we might be dealing with tomorrow. Too often developers get away with saying "The County didn't require that," no matter what was promised Since the public welfare is always cited as the highest good in all these proceedings, w~e urge you not only to give the coastline the added bit of protection it deserves, but also to put your assumptions in writing in the ordinance, even where you don't really think it's necessary. If the developer is operating in good faith, he shouldn't object, and if not, he shouldn't be heeded. Thank you.