|
Planning staff or the Planning Director behave that. But, nevertheless, the applicant has, has
<br /> concerns, and they just want to make sure that the process is fair to all.
<br /> Finally, you know, we heard like, too, whether it's to this application or other applications, Planning
<br /> Commission, you know, like they don't necessarily want to have these administrative plans because,
<br /> you know, it can go on and on and on. And you want to be able to, you know, to look at the
<br /> situation, being that I was doing a time extension for Kona Country Club, the residential project by
<br /> the gold course, and I think Commissioner Vitousek raised an issue, what about the SMA because
<br /> they want to seethe project and not just kind of like let it go very reasonable. So we are proposing
<br /> to say like, no, it's not going to be any administrative extensions such that if it cannot comply with
<br /> the conditions, then it's got to come back to public review through the Planning Commission and the
<br /> County Council. Who makes a decision in determining substantial plan compliance? The Planning
<br /> Director has the authority. He can review it untilI know, I just view that, you know, you're having
<br /> only like there is some kind of nails in the project,that's not substantial they can make that, and we
<br /> are going to have to make our case before this body to say, yes, it is substantial, no, it's not
<br /> substantial enough.
<br /> So, I guess like the bottom line is saying that knowing that, you know, like the what we are doing,
<br /> we've kind of like restored back the affordable housing condition, all of the phase, and we are saying
<br /> that we are going to do a master plan, and we've eliminated administrative decision[sic]. From our
<br /> standpoint, the applicants' standpoint, I think that we've addressed as much as we can, reasonably
<br /> can, you know, all of the concerns raised by the Department, as well as the Commission throughout
<br /> the hearings. We are kind of hoping that the Planning Commission would look at the proposed
<br /> recommendations and conditions that we prepared, the favorable one, and, you know, - - - at the end
<br /> of the day vote to recommend its approval. I realize that if you take the position and accept the
<br /> Director's, accept the applicants' position on the conditions, as well as some of Planning's, that there
<br /> may be a need to make some editorial things, and if it comes to that, we would have no objection to
<br /> having - - -the stuff,just to make sure that these editorial kind of comments on both the conditions
<br /> and the Planning's - - - are kind of like consistent with the final action of the Commission. Thank
<br /> you very much.
<br /> CARR SMITH: Thank you, sir. Question? Mr. Vitousek.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Yes, for Sid, my question is if the applicant would be willing to consider the rezoning
<br /> as proposed by the County, the Neighborhood Commercial.
<br /> FUKE: - - - one property is proposed like, the existing, the Puaa property is currently zoned CN, and
<br /> the Suffolk property is currently zoned RM. So, are you suggesting if the applicant would have any
<br /> objection to having the designation on the Suffolk property changed from RM to CN? And if that's
<br /> the question, the answer is no. We - - -not having to go back to square one.
<br /> VITOUSEK: It seems
<br /> FUKE: If it could be done, you know, like right now, then that would be, you know, we would have
<br /> no objection, and all of the conditions can still be the same.
<br /> 21
<br /> EXHIBIT C
<br />
|