My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2020-02-20 Leeward Exh D (AMEND REZ 2004-024 & AMEND REZ 2004-025)
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2020
>
2020-02-20 Leeward Exh D (AMEND REZ 2004-024 & AMEND REZ 2004-025)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/18/2020 5:45:00 PM
Creation date
6/18/2020 5:44:27 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
FUKE: Well, the administrative extension was up until 2015, that is correct. So the request right <br /> now is to request for an extension retroactive to that period. <br /> VAN PERNIS: What penalty is there for not completing construction by 2015? <br /> FUKE: The penalty is that you can't move forward. <br /> VAN PERNIS: What are <br /> FUKE: You can't, you can't do anything. I don't know if there is any fiscal assessment or <br /> whatever have you, you know, unlike other violations like for an SMA or a special, excuse me, <br /> building permit, but to me, I think the major penalty is like you can't move. <br /> VAN PERNIS: The property has been reclassified from Agriculture to Urban, correct? <br /> FUKE: Back in 2005, correct. <br /> VAN PERNIS: So the Planning Director can take this property and rezone it or downzone it to <br /> Agriculture. <br /> FUKE: It would be a separate legislative action to achieve that. <br /> VAN PERNIS: Now, all of the things that you are asking to waive here in these applications <br /> were promises made by the developer in exchange for the valuable upzoning, right? <br /> FUKE: Not all. Some of them was like, you know, for example on the school, that was a <br /> concern raised, and so Mr. Cook at that point in time made the concession to say, you know, <br /> we'll provide it, you know, recognizing that their intent was to do something for the community, <br /> and if the Council at that time felt that a school would be doing something for the community <br /> and if it's something that they could live with <br /> VAN PERNIS: What about the other conditions, other than the school <br /> FUKE: —it's the same thing to have a representation that the 225 or 250, you know, housing <br /> project would be exclusively reserved for rental, that was a commitment that they had made, <br /> that's a commitment that they continue to make today for the Suffolk property. <br /> VAN PERNIS: Is that affordable rental or just rental? <br /> FUKE: It's rental—at that time when the Council had approved it, they wanted to stipulate, you <br /> know, so many percentage be like at 80 percent or 90 percent or whatever have you—what we <br /> are proposing here is that they be kept in rental and let the prevailing housing code prevail and <br /> not to have like special legislation. <br /> VAN PERNIS: And it may be up to 55 years from 2005 before we see the completion of <br /> construction. <br /> 23 <br /> EXHIBIT D <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.