Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> Communication 998 <br /> Bill 237 <br /> Page 3 of 6 <br /> <br /> rezone it Agricultural 20-acres, which is consistent with the mass majority of other lands in the <br /> area. <br /> <br /> Planning Director Chris Yuen gave a brief chronology and explanation of the proposed zone <br /> change and repeal stating that initiating a rezone back to an Agricultural 5-acre minimum lot size <br /> designation would still permit development of the property into seven lots which is more suitable <br /> and consistent with that of the surrounding properties. <br /> <br /> Stephen Lim, attorney for the applicant Kohala LLC stated the repeal and rezone was a very <br /> serious and grave matter for the landowner noting it was the first time in 25 years that County <br /> has sought a voluntary downzone against an applicant's will. Mr. Lim explained a request for <br /> extension of time has been filed and is now before the Planning Commission and requested that a <br /> 30-day deferral be granted to the April 8, 2008 Planning meeting to allow the Planning <br /> Commission time to issue its final decision on the extension request before the Council takes <br /> action on the Director's proposal. Mr. Lim said the applicant does not contest the expiration but <br /> rather is like any other applicant who comes before the County with an extension request and <br /> believes that the Director's rezoning request is inconsistent with the General Plan. <br /> <br /> Director Yuen responded that had applicant requested an extension in 2004, it could have been <br /> granted. Mr. Lim, in responding to a request for details why such an extension request was never <br /> made, stated that the best thing to do at this point was to defer this matter to would allow time for <br /> the extension request to come before the Council. Council Chair Hoffmann noted there has been <br /> plenty of time for the applicant to have filed an extension request and follow the law and found it <br /> difficult to understand why a deferral is necessary and saw no reason for further delay. <br /> Councilmember Ford's concerns related to coastline development and soil runoff currently <br /> occurring in the area and the great need to protect the coastline resources, and she presented a <br /> floor amendment further lowering the density to Agricultural 15-acres, which she later withdrew. <br /> It was noted by Director Yuen that at the end of 1996, all "Unplanned" zones were changed to <br /> Agricultural 5-acres which included this property. In response to a question whether the Council <br /> would be exposed to greater risks as described in Mr. Lim's letter if the density was decreased to <br /> Agricultural 15-acre, Deputy Corporation Counsel Self responded this is a legislative decision <br /> which entitles the Council to legislative immunity as long as use of the property still has value. <br /> She did not believe the downzone constitutes a "taking," because it still left applicant with the <br /> ability to develop and subdivide. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Yagong's position and concern was that he did view downzoning as a "taking," <br /> and therefore was uncertain whether he could support the amendment. Council Chair Hoffmann <br /> stated he did not have an issue with a 5-acre designation since other areas are already zoned that <br /> way and a valid issue is that no further extensions should be granted to this application. With <br /> respect to "taking," Deputy Corporation Counsel Self stated it would depend on what the <br /> applicant could do with the land (should the Council proceed with the Director's proposal) and <br /> confirmed that the "taking" question is legally defensible. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PC Report No. 82 <br />