REP PC 054 02/14/2006 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Communication 362 Bill 123 Page 9 of 13 just planning ahead. Committee Chair Pilago stated this TMK goes back to the 1940's showing transfers and that in 1966 a zoning or subdivision ordinance was created affecting large blocks of land, Applicant's included. The 1984 SMA permit was granted for 48 units and now Applicant comes in on the same SMA but asking for commercial zoning. Chair Pilago inquired whether this would make the SMA invalid. Ms. Nee explained they had to apply for a new SMA for the project. The Planning Director issued the SMA on condition that this change of zone would be approved and then the old SMA would be nullified. However, there was an entirely new SMA application filed as well as the exisitng SMA for the 48 units that will remain in effect unless this council passes the change of zone ordinance. At that time, the new SMA which has already been approved by the Planning Commission will then go into effect. That's the language of the SMA. Committee Chair Pilago asked Director Yuen to explain how the Subdivision Ordinance came about in 1966 that did Block subdivision rezoning for an area. Director Yuen stated there were 2 big actions in 1967, one is the subdivision ordinance we currently operate under that was passed in 1967 and a prior weaker subdivision ordinance. The new 1967 subdivision ordinance was more appealing to overall zoning around island. Director Yuen believes zoning of this property goes back to the zoning of the whole island and is quite common to go back to the old zoning map. Mr. Pilago stated therein lies the problem for this current council because these zoning ordinances date way back then created complications for this Committee and well-intentioned Applicants like the Nees. He asked whether there are other zonings such as this that will affect Applicants like the Nee family, in the future. Director Yuen said the old zonings are valid zonings and are part of the legal landscape he has to work with. Committee Chair Pilago stated he didn't think it is fair to the Nees or other Applicants in same situation, but neither is it fair for the community. He stated the Applicant as well as the Planning Director must present a very compelling argument to get the full support of this Council. As it stands we have an Applicant that will not do a road, a project with no impact fees or assessments and no affordable housing. There is nothing for the community out of this. From 1948 to the time of the public hearing there have been discussions of development rights but no development has taken place. Committee Chair Pilago sees this as speculation and cannot support it at this time. Council Member Safarik questioned Director Yuen's support of the application when road reserve dedicated to County for free but won't take place because KSBE won't deal. Director Yuen stated that in comparison to what would happen if the project was denied, we would get a road reserve dedicated to the county for free with minimal additional development being allowed. Council Member Safarik said the road, presumably for free, is not really going to take place because KSBE is not going to deal well or deal at all with the Applicant. Sees this as short- sighted with approval being sought on a wish and a promise. Director Yuen stated it's up to us and the County to implement the road. Dedicatian of the property is being given and the developer is not getting anything. The dedication is a reasonable concession and that's all he can expect out of this Applicant. If the County is determined to build, it has the power to obtain the land from KSBE. In the meantime, if we want to preserve the possibility of building a road, we don't want Applicant to place their building in the middle of it. If Applicant had gone ahead with PC REPORT NO. 54