2020-06-18 Leeward Exh D (AMEND REZ 2004-024 & AMEND REZ 2004-025)

Home

documents. So there was an administrative time extension that was granted to 2015; however, with that said, the applicants waited over four years to attempt to revive stale ordinances and is now doing so to either sell the properties or secure a development partner. And in fact, if you look back at the transcript from the last meeting, the applicant themselves, or their representatives, stated that it didn't make sense to try and ask for a time extension before the time that they did when they didn't have anybody on board to develop. Unfortunately, the ordinances do have those time frames in place, and our code does require requests of time extensions prior to those expiration dates. So in this case, the applicant is requesting kind of a large time extension to commence construction within ten years and complete construction within 20 years. So what they are asking for is an amendment to commence construction within five years and complete construction within ten, but they are also asking for the ability to have an administrative time extension, which could multiply that up to ten years to start and 20 years to complete. And in the case of Puaa, they are asking for another change to say that completion of construction should be for either the commercial component or the residential component and not both, as is currently represented in the condition. The applicants have not demonstrated to the Director's satisfaction that they have a plan to complete construction in the requested time frames nor have they demonstrated any recent efforts to comply with numerous conditions of approval. As we stated last time, and very early on we met with the applicants' representative and let them know that we were leaning toward an unfavorable recommendation for many of the reasons we've stated here, and asked them to provide us with a detailed construction schedule outlining how they could meet their requirements of the ordinances or what they were proposing within the time frames designated. What they did provide to us unfortunately was just the name of their possible development partner, Spring Capital, and at the last hearing they handed out kind of a CV of some of the projects that Spring Capital had done, but other than that, even to this point four months later they have not provided us with any kind of a detailed plan showing that they can actually develop the property as is being represented. So at this point it's hard for us to find the Director's satisfaction that they can actually complete within the time frame that they are asking for. Secondly, within the last 15 years the applicant has had an opportunity to comply with other conditions of approval. They stated that they had done some roadway designs and some drainage designs and things like that; however, there are several other conditions of approval, such as the requirement to complete sewer studies; a requirement to do water calculations and get water commitments, which they haven't done for 15 years; completing archaeological plans beyond just the archaeological inventory survey; and then in the case of Suffolk, they were required to pay their fair share for multiple-family residential units either prior to plan approval or within five years of the effective date of the ordinance, and they have not done that, either. So, you know, we, the last, there was a couple of applications we heard today, both Parker School and then Kona Country Club, where it was stated that, you know, in the case of Parker School, they'd really shown a concerted effort to comply with conditions of approval, and even in Kona Country Club it was stated by the applicant and some of the Commissioners that they've been able to see that there was kind of a concerted effort to actually comply with conditions. You know, in the case of these two ordinances, however, outside of some really smaller types of condition compliance, there really hasn't been much in the way of a lot of these other studies. And that's, the applicants' stated reason for needing all this additional time is we need the time to do all of these studies, when in fact they could have been doing this in the last 15 years, but they have not done so. Next is the previous segmentation of the area in securing planning entitlements is inconsistent with State Law. Subdivision 7814, which we showed before, was approved in 2004 and created a five-lot 8 EXHIBIT D