2020-06-18 Leeward Exh B (AMEND REZ 09-098)

Home

would they be in a position to get an assessment of compliance without their being alerted to, you know, alerted to what the developer has or has not done through the APR? CARR SMITH: Mike. VITOUSEK: So, I mean, to me personally, my concern is not the compliance with the conditions of the SMA, but with the project that's begin proposed under the SMA permit. So, you know, the conditions of the permit approval are going to stay the same, but if the project that's being proposed under those conditions is changing, then I feel like the Commission should be reviewing those changes. CARR SMITH: Rather than what sounded like maybe an internal policy that if it's a lesser density, then they don't worry about it so much? Is that what you mean? VITOUSEK: Well CARR SMITH: Or the fact that it may change again? VITOUSEK: Basically, that this,just the fact that it may change again into triplexes from what's originally proposed, you know, and given the passage of time, you know, if we are, if we are looking at it in terms of another five-year extension, then you're looking at like twenty years from the original approval, and that's a significant amount of time to kind of change and grow in different directions under a permit, which is supposed to be for a specific set of plans in my understanding. So, if we're extending this zoning ordinance that basically carries the SMA with it, then I feel like we need to have the opportunity to review the substance of that SMA, which is the proposed construction plans. CARR SMITH: Christian. KAY: Yeah, I was just going to comment that APRs, or annual progress reports, do generally lay out the progress of whatever development there is, so, that information would be available to the Commission to review, if we changed the language in the condition to just say, "to the Planning Director and the Leeward Planning Commission." And then you have that as, distributed to you for review. CARR SMITH: Jeff. DARROW: So I, I mean, I think we all understand Mike's point, I mean Commissioner Vitousek. The reality is this project still is able to build 60 units; even though right now there's talk of 29 units, the reality is the zoning and the SMA still clearly allow for 60 units. So the concern is that down the line they legally could build a different project than what's being proposed right now. So a condition can be placed in the ordinance, excuse me, that said, "If the project expands beyond what was, what is being currently represented" I don't know if that condition is in there now, Christian, but if it isn't, that would be what may resolve this—"that they have to come back to the Commission and Council." 16 EXHIBIT B