Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> MaY-13-05 14:06 Frnm-000DSILL ANDCRSON +9085475880 T-804 P Di F-005 <br /> GOODSILL ANDERSON QUiNN & STIFEL <br /> /',,L:MITE~LIAtlILR"i LAw PA 0.7NEFSHIF LLP <br /> LISA A. BAIL ALIT PLACL $UI7E I8D0 • ID99 ALAKEA $ltEET <br /> Houo W w, Hn~rn;19ti813 <br /> I~MII ADDA955: P.O. Dox 3196 <br /> HOIVOwLU, klnarnn 94601 <br /> T'eLsrno~e (808} 547.5600 • FAx (6067 547.5880 <br /> infa(y~Cnodstll.com • wa~w.goodsill.com <br /> May l3, zoos <br /> VIA FACSIMILE NO. (808) 887-2072 <br /> Pete Hoffman <br /> Council Member. District 9 <br /> Hawaii Cottnty Council <br /> 25 Aupuni Street <br /> Roam 209 <br /> Hilo, Hawaii 9(x720 <br /> Re: Gomm. 230: (>3i1189) <br /> A~Ort y~~tce Amending Ordinance 95-51 <br /> Dear Mr. Hoffman: <br /> This letter is submitted on behalf of Waikoloa Development Company <br /> ("Waikoloa") for the Hawaii County Council Committee on Planning Meeting on fay <br /> 17, 2005 at 1:00 p.m. regarding Comm. 230: (Bill 89), an Ordinance Amending <br /> Ordinance No. 95-51. Waikoloa concurs with the Planning Commission's amendments <br /> to Conditions B, C, F, K and L, and objects to the amendments to Conditions D, G, H,1 <br /> and I for the following reasons. <br /> General Objections to Planning Commission's Recommendation <br /> Waikoloa did not submit a request for new zoning of its property. Instead, <br /> Waikoloa's request was for an extension of time to comply with conditions which have <br /> already been imposed. The Planning Department Found that Waikoloa has made a good <br /> faith effort in complying wish the conditions of Change of 2onc Ordinance 95-51 and that <br /> Waikoloa's non-performance was due to unforeseeable conditions which were beyond <br /> Waikoloa's control. Planning .Department Recommendation at p. 2. Neither the <br /> Planning Department nor the Planning Commission have identi£zed any public interest <br /> that would be impacted by extending the time for Waikoloa to obtain final suhdivisian <br /> approval. As such, there is no "essential nexus" between the conditions and any purpose <br /> that would be served by denying Waikoloa's request, as required by ~lollan v. California <br /> Crtal Cotmission, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987). Moreover. the Planning Department has <br /> 9sz3aa.l <br /> <br />