Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Claudia J. Rohr <br /> 369 Nene St. <br /> Hilo, Hawaii 96720 <br /> res.(808) 934-8040, cell 938-5446 <br /> home fax: 935-0940 <br /> <br /> <br /> November 9, 2004 <br /> <br /> Re: REZ ordinance 355 to rezone portions of Pepeekeo Point to residential to allow for <br /> an eleven lot subdivision in Continental Pacific, LLC's Pepeekeo Makai lands. <br /> <br /> I am here to urge you to take the time to consider the facts surrounding Continental <br /> Pacific's subdivision before you move forward from committee. Please take the time to <br /> develop a strategic plan to ensure this development is completed in a timely way with no <br /> outstanding issues of concern. Please consider this an opportunity to guide this project to <br /> a reasonable and rational conclusion. This may be the last chance to make sure things get <br /> taken care of correctly and the last chance to negotiate concessions in the public interest. <br /> <br /> So, now I want to talk about some items that need review to properly proceed: <br /> <br /> The County Council needs to review Continental Pacific's Board of Appeals Settlement <br /> Agreement. <br /> <br /> It is misrepresentation to characterize this Settlement Agreement as a compromise <br /> agreement for the dispute in the Board of Appeals. There is not sufficient nexus between <br /> what was noticed at the Board of Appeals, what was discussed and argued, and the <br /> resultant Settlement Agreement. <br /> <br /> The Settlement Agreement is clearly a Development Agreement and it violates HCC <br /> Chapter 30 and the Sunshine Law. You have an obligation to get this corrected by <br /> holding public hearings to review and approve Continental Pacific's Development <br /> Agreement to correct the irregularities. <br /> <br /> "County council approval by resolution is a precondition for execution of a development <br /> agreement by the mayor". <br /> <br /> Chapter 30 states: "No development agreement shall be entered into unless the County <br /> council shall have held a public hearing on the proposed development agreement in the <br /> council district where the subject property and development requirements are located". <br /> <br /> There was no proposal to eliminate the village's common elements and open space at <br /> Pepeekeo Point in the BOA case. There is not sufficient nexus between what was <br /> discussed and argued in the BOA case and CP's subdivision design which eliminates <br /> public use of the roads, the ball fields and adjacent shoreline open space. <br /> <br /> COMM. No. 8 24. <br /> Ref. To: Pr~a <br /> Ref. Date L cU <br />