My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0013.000 2018-2020
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2018-2020
>
COM 0013.000 2018-2020
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2019 12:29:42 PM
Creation date
12/12/2018 1:23:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2018-2020
Communication
0013
Point
000
Author
Harry Kim, Mayor
Communications - Referred To
PC
Document Relationships
AGE COUNCIL 2019-01-23 2018-2020
(Related To)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2018-2020\Council
AGE FC 2019/01/08 2018-2020
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2018-2020\Finance Committee (FC)
AGE PC 2019/01/08 2018-2020
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2018-2020\Planning Committee (PC)
BIL 001 Draft 01 2018-2020
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Bills\2018-2020
REP PC 001 2019/01/08 2018-2020
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Reports\2018-2020\Planning Committee (PC)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
128
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
was April 10, 1999, thus the twenty(20) year development timeline culminates on <br /> April 10, 2019. <br /> 2. Reasons for the Request: According to the applicants, the 20-year development period <br /> for the Kaupulehu Project District comes from a representation made in the Project <br /> District Application in 1998 that, "Full buildouts of the project is expected over 20 <br /> years..." The applicants believe that the inclusion of the 20-year development period <br /> condition was likely only intended to allow the Planning Department, Planning <br /> Commission and County Council an opportunity to review the overall progress of the <br /> development of the project after 20 years as required by Condition BB of Project District <br /> Ordinance No. 99 42, which reads: <br /> "Twenty (20)years from the effective date of the Kaupulehu Project District <br /> Ordinance, the applicant shall submit an overall status report of the project, <br /> including the percentage of completed development. The Planning Director shall <br /> also provide an assessment of the.development of the Project District and its <br /> compliance with conditions of approval for transmittal to the Planning <br /> Commission for their review and recommendation and then forwarded to the <br /> County Council for their review and action. " <br /> The applicants believe that if the Planning Department, the Planning Commission and <br /> County Council, intended for the applicants to apply for a formal time extension of the <br /> 20-year development period, Condition BB of Project District Ordinance No. 99 42, <br /> would not have been included as a condition of approval. Rather, the ordinance would <br /> have specifically required the processing of a formal time extension request before the <br /> Planning Commission and County Council, instead of requiring the submittal of an <br /> overall progress report for review and consideration. Furthermore, the applicants note <br /> that Project District Ordinance No. 99 42 lacks the standard condition of approval <br /> generally afforded to all new Change of Zone/Project District Ordinances, which <br /> provides an applicant a one-time opportunity to apply for an administrative time <br /> extension by the Planning Director, in the event that non-performance with the stated <br /> conditions of approval was the result of conditions that could have not been foreseen, or <br /> were beyond the control of the applicant, and was not the result of the applicant's fault or <br /> negligence. The applicants believe that this condition was omitted inadvertently, citing <br /> -2- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.