Laserfiche WebLink
Communication 763 <br /> Bill 247 <br /> Page 4 of 5 <br /> Committee Vice Chair Pete Hoffmann stated he was not objecting to the new Condition J but had a <br /> problem with the language in Draft 3 with respect to use of the word "may" instead of "shall". Mr. <br /> Hoffmann stated that "may" does not mean anything, whereas "shall" would require that something be <br /> done. <br /> Council Vice Chair Virginia Isbell stated the problem she has with use of the word "shall" is that the State <br /> may not agree with putting in a traffic signal there or agree with what the county plans to do. Use of the <br /> word "may" allows flexibility, but would obviously have to include what is acceptable with the State even <br /> though the state does not want to make the improvements on their own. Ms. Isbell said we need to be <br /> sure we don't include a "shall" that would require installation of a traffic signal if that's not the best thing <br /> for that particular road. <br /> Mr. Hoffmann questioned whether language would be acceptable if it stated that improvements shall <br /> include the following, but adding that the improvements would be subject to approval by the State <br /> Department of Transportation. Mr. Hoffmann believes that in this particular application as well as others <br /> before this, the state has already indicated what type of improvements should be made and that all that <br /> was being done was to restate what the Department of Transportation requires. <br /> Committee Chair Pilago interjected that no further amendments could be entertained and called for the <br /> question as to Draft 3. <br /> Director Yuen stated he did not want the word "shall" used because he did not believe that an engineering <br /> study (Warrant Study) has been conducted to determine if a signal light was justified at the Kaloko <br /> Drive/Mamalahoa Highway intersection. <br /> Mr. Hoffmann said he had problems with additional carving up of this property and the continuance of <br /> home building in what is supposed to be a watershed area and said if we were wrong before it does not <br /> mean that this wrong should be continued into the future. <br /> Greg Mooers, applicant's consultant was present along with applicant Dennis Smith. Mr. Mooers <br /> discussed the elements of the application, expressed his position that if not allowing further rezonings in <br /> <br /> the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision is the desire of the council and is necessary to protect the watershed area, <br /> <br /> then the standing Resolutions should be removed. <br /> Mr. Smith stated that for 25 years he wanted to buy property in Kaloko Mauka and with the assistance of <br /> his attorney, Joe Fagundes followed the law and did his due diligence with Mr. Moores and attorney <br /> <br /> Fagundes providing him guidance. Mr. Smith asked that the Council use the same statutes and <br /> <br /> resolutions in deciding this matter. <br /> <br /> Council Member Bob Jacobson informed Mr. Smith that there have been negative votes throughout the <br /> <br /> years for requests such as his. Mr. Smith stated that in his due diligence, the fact that there had been <br /> negative votes in the past was not brought to his attention. <br /> <br /> Council Vice Chair Virginia Isbell confirmed with Mr. Raymond that he understood that 67% of an entire <br /> lot area has to be retained in forest which meant that of the three acres one acre could be cleared but that <br /> <br /> two acres would have to be retained in forest. With respect to Ms. Isbell's inquiry whether monitoring of <br /> <br /> this requirement is being done, Director Yuen stated violators were cited in 2001/2002 but he is unaware <br /> if the Department has been up to the Kaloko Mauka area since receiving a complaint last year. Mr. Yuen <br /> PC REPORT NO. 71 <br /> <br />