|
language could be adjusted and we did our best, I believe, to try to honor the vision and intent of
<br />the original CDP but to also, you know, make it workable.
<br />
<br />VITOUSEK: So it was a challenge to a development—
<br />
<br />KIM: Yes.
<br />
<br />VITOUSEK: —that the development didn’t necessarily meet the conditions of the CDP to the T?
<br />Is that where it came from?
<br />
<br />PLUNKETT: Yeah, I believe it was, and I could be, between one and two but I believe it was a
<br />PUD permit. It was a PUD permit and the Misslers were I believe neighbors to this property, and
<br />they were saying that, so at that time – I forget what year, it was a different director, but – the
<br />Department approved the permit, and the case of the Misslers’ was if you read the Kona CDP, it’s
<br />saying that you didn’t process the permit according to the value, or the protections, of land use in
<br />the area. But that, and which brought up the case of the legality, the rule of law, that the CDP
<br />carries. And so even though that was only one issue, the whole document now had to be
<br />re-evaluated for language that would put the County in conflict with itself.
<br />
<br />VITOUSEK: I understand that. And then, is it something that can be added to the document
<br />itself, indicating that, you know, this is for guideline purposes so that it serves the intent of what it
<br />was created without having to go through and revise piece by piece on what should be a “should”
<br />and what should be a “shall?” Is there blanket language that can be added instead of that?
<br />
<br />KIM: Not, when you look at the original CDP, it wouldn’t read well, if you, well, given the
<br />court’s ruling, we’d have to change the language basically, because just putting that statement in
<br />as a blanket, it wouldn’t really cover us, because some of the language that we changed was when
<br />you read it, it sounds very compelling and very mandatory actually.
<br />
<br />UNGER: To clarify, the amendment we are looking at here incorporates this letter or does not
<br />incorporate the suggestions in this letter? It does not—
<br />
<br />KIM: Does not.
<br />
<br />UNGER: Okay, this isn’t a side document, okay. So, it’s important, we may have to break for
<br />executive session to figure out how to make a motion to agree or not agree to incorporate this
<br />letter into, into the proposal today. So, okay, Commissioners, any other questions?
<br />
<br />VITOUSEK: I reserve questions for after public testimony.
<br />
<br />UNGER: Okay.
<br />
<br />CARR SMITH: Just on this document, though, are we to assume that, on the Planning
<br />Department letter, so I see that the red responses are to each of the concerns, and then there’s a
<br />couple that are bolded and say “Policy.” So, are those the ones that the Department suggests to be
<br />added?
<br />7
<br />EXHIBIT B
<br />
<br />
|