REP PC 008 2019/02/19 2018-2020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

PC-8 Page 2 February 19, 2019 Vice-Chair Susan Lee Loy thanked Mr. Fuke for his presentation and for "divorcing the two issues" of the rezone time extension request, which was under Council purview, from the approval and construction of a water bottling facility, which is before WPC and SCWRM. She noted that the rezone provides the landowner with a"suite of options" and creates more opportunities for the property. She asked Mr. Fuke if he was in agreement with the conditions of approval as outlined in the Windward Planning Commission's report,to which Mr. Fuke replied in the affirmative on behalf of both the landowner and the applicant. Council Member Valerie Poindexter wanted clarification on what would occur if the time-extension for the rezoning did not occur. Mr. Fuke explained that without the extension the landowner would not be able to utilize the property as Limited Industrial and would have to reapply for a new change of zone. Council Member Poindexter further noted that she was not comfortable approving the extension with the SMA permitting process for the water bottling plant pending. Council Member Karen Eoff stated that it was confusing that the SMA permitting process was occurring at the same time as the time extension request. She noted that Bill No. 16 had conditions specific to the bottling plant and believed it was premature to approve the time extension when the project itself had not yet been approved. She explained that 27 years had gone by since the original rezone request by Matsuno Enterprises and that it could be inappropriate to continue zoning the area as Limited Industrial as testimonyfrom constituents identified the area as beingused recreationally. She also wanted more Y clarification about time extension requests, the Council's role, and what occurs if extensions are not approved. Mr. Fuke responded that contract zoning, also known as spot zoning and involves "cherry picking" specific uses as the only allowable use for a property, has been ruled illegal by the courts and reiterated that the request before the Council was consistent with the community development plan. Planning Department Program Manager Jeff Darrow addressed time extension requests, acknowledging that more of them had been coming before both the County Council and the Planning Commission. He stated that the Planning Department reviews time extension requests against the General Plan, current zoning codes, and if the request is consistent with the original reasons for approval; conditions are updated to reflect current code and standards. He explained this was done with Bill No. 16, and although the project had changed it was still a similar industrial use allowed under the Limited Industrial zoning. Mr. Darrow noted that if a time extension was not approved the rezoning would be revoked and a new application would have to be submitted. Council Member Maile David asked if there was a timeline available for the SMA permitting process. Mr. Fuke stated that there was not as the scope of this project required multiple bodies' involvement, including the SCWRM, which would set public hearings and review state water needs and resources to evaluate whether or not the bottling plant was feasible. Council Member David noted she hoped that the Commission would be thorough in their review as water is a public trust resource. She stated that although the zoning of the property and the bottling plant were two separate matters, they are connected. Mr. Darrow clarified that the rezone and the permits for SMA and water well were independent of one another, but that without time extension approval on the rezoning the water bottling permitting processes, or any industrial project, could not move forward. Mr. Fuke stated that the Council had a right to defer voting on Bill No. 16, but that it would send a message to the Planning Commission, thereby possibly influencing the decision-making of what is supposed to be an independent body. PC Report No.: 8