My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
REP PC 008 2019/02/19 2018-2020
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Reports
>
2018-2020
>
Planning Committee (PC)
>
REP PC 008 2019/02/19 2018-2020
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/14/2019 3:24:11 PM
Creation date
2/26/2019 8:28:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Reports
Reports - Type
REP
Reports - Council Term
2018-2020
Report
008
Committee
PC
Meeting date
2019-02-19
Document Relationships
AGE COUNCIL 2019-03-28 2018-2020
(Related To)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2018-2020\Council
BIL 016 Draft 01 2018-2020
(Related To)
Path:
\Council Records\Bills\2018-2020
COM 0064.000 2018-2020
(Related To)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\2018-2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
PC-8 Page 3 February 19, 2019 <br /> Council Member Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, thanked everyone for the conversation and stated that <br /> the issue the Council needed to focus on was the landowner and their right to request the time extension. <br /> He noted that the Council has an obligation to the landowner to move forward on their request and that <br /> the bottling plant is a separate issue that will still need to be addressed by other processes. <br /> Council Member Rebecca Villegas noted that separating the time extension request from the bottling <br /> plant was "a game"that disempowers the Council and loses the public's trust in them. She felt there was <br /> wisdom to wait and revisit the zoning at a later date. She questioned the wisdom of the landowner_and <br /> why the applicant for this request was listed as Piilani Partners, LLC. Mr. Fuke noted that anyone could <br /> be the applicant, including himself. <br /> Council Chair Aaron S.Y. Chung explained that he understood how individuals could confuse and <br /> connect the two issues, but that they were two separate issues nonetheless and it was the responsibility <br /> of the Council to vote on the matter before them. He went on to say that voting against or voting to defer <br /> the time extension was a backhanded way of downgrading the project and the Council cannot engage in <br /> spot zoning. He noted that the proposed project was in his district and that his mother lived near the <br /> property since 1970. He reiterated the need for private landowners to have access to industrial zoning in <br /> Hilo and stated he strongly supported the extension. <br /> Council Member Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder wanted to make sure guidelines within the bill itself were <br /> being adhered to,particularly in the areas of public health and safety. Mr. Fuke explained again that the <br /> zoning was consistent with the General Plan and that any public health and safety matters would be <br /> addressed through conditions of approval at a later date. Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder <br /> wondered what was stopping the landowner from development and received clarification that rezoning <br /> is done by ordinance only, and at no time does zoning automatically revert back to what it once may <br /> have been. <br /> Planning Chair Ashley L. Kierkiewicz clarified that the landowner was not Suisan Company, Ltd., but <br /> rather Matsuno Enterprises, LTD. She reiterated that before the Council was a request for a time <br /> extension on a rezone and was hopeful that the WPC and the SCWRM would do a thorough <br /> investigation of the public trust doctrine as it relates to creating a water well and a water bottling facility. <br /> She went over the Council's possible options as discussed to handle Bill No. 16, urging against deferring <br /> the vote and creating a"zone in limbo" situation,which had been described earlier by Mr. Fuke,that <br /> would prevent the landowner from doing anything with the property other than pay an industrial <br /> property tax rate. Council Member Villegas pointed out that Suisan, LTD and Matsuno Enterprises, Ltd., <br /> included some of the same owners. <br /> The vote was then taken on the motion to move this measure to council with a positive recommendation <br /> and passed with seven"ayes"and two "noes." <br /> PC Report No.: 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.