2020-02-20 Leeward Exh D (AMEND REZ 2004-024 & AMEND REZ 2004-025)

Home

KAY: Sorry. CARR SMITH: All right. Mr. Van Pernis, do you have a question? VAN PERNIS: Yes, sorry, I have several questions, because I'm concerned the County has been deceived in the diction to what it's already analyzed. This was approved in 2004 originally, right? KAY: The application came in 2004, the ordinances were approved in August 2005. VAN PERNIS: All right, so it has been approximately 15 years that they have not met the requirements they are now seeking to waive. Is that right? KAY: That's correct. So, with the grated administrative time extension for the time conditions around construction and payment of water commitments, they would have had, and other time conditions, they would have had until 2010, pardon me, 2015, to come in and complete construction and satisfy those time requirements. They didn't come in to apply for the amendments until late last year. VAN PERNIS: And the County has no record of the time extension requests. KAY: We were unable to find time extension requests to complete construction for the Suffolk rezone ordinance. There was a time extension request for the school site condition; however, again, according to the applicant, they have those time extension letters here that they can provide to you. VAN PERNIS: Now they are seeking up to another 20 years? KAY: That's correct. So they are asking for a five-year time extension to commence construction and then a ten-year from the date of the amended ordinance to complete construction; however, they are also asking for the standard administrative time extension condition that would allow them up to an additional five years to start and an additional ten years to complete. VAN PERNIS: So they are asking for a total of possible 55 years from the original application to, without any review or additional conditions imposed. KAY: In their applications, they recommended several amendments to conditions of approval, as well as indicated that they would comply with others that they weren't asking for amendments to. So if the Director had recommended a favorable recommendation, we would have included conditions of approval; we would have done our analysis of their requests and either agreed with them or made our own recommendations for conditions of approval based on agency comments, public testimony and the like. Because we have sent up an unfavorable recommendation, we did not include any conditions of approval. 8 EXHIBIT D