|
financial issues about whether it was feasible or not feasible, you know, to actually proceed with
<br /> any project or not. That's kind of like my general understanding, Commissioner Vitousek.
<br /> To answer your other question about the unavailability of the owner himself, itself rather, or the
<br /> owner's representative, the owner's representative is watching the whole proceedings online.
<br /> And so if there is a need for specific communication within, I'm sure that one of, you know, the
<br /> three of, one of us can probably get a hold of the owner, owner's representative. His name is
<br /> Larry Oleck. He is currently based in Florida at this point in time. But he is, you know,
<br /> definitely engaged in the ongoings of today's proceedings.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Okay, awesome, I'd love for him to join, if he is available. So, you know, again,
<br /> moving back to the original point about the feasibility study, so we are in a situation where the
<br /> developer has designed a project that was then received plan approval in 2017, and then
<br /> subsequently they realized that, wow, we can't actually afford what we designed, and that's the
<br /> justification given for noncompliance with the timing of the condition. So, again, to me that
<br /> indicates that the noncompliance with the timing is not the result of factors that cannot be
<br /> foreseen by the developer but rather by the developer designing a structure that they can't afford.
<br /> FUKE: Well, I think that if you look at like,just like any residential construction, you know,
<br /> you have your home designed and maybe developed by,plans drawn by an architect, and then
<br /> you send it out to bid, and like, oops, I can't afford it. So what have you got to do? You've got
<br /> to go back and make some adjustments. And I think this is a little bit bigger project, and it's a
<br /> similar situation. I, you know, if you just
<br /> VITOUSEK: Right, but it's a project that they've had 20 years to develop and to understand the
<br /> idea behind and the fact that, you know, they put forward the plan approval in 2017 when the
<br /> development window closes in 2019 doesn't give them a lot of time to make those adjustments
<br /> that are needed. So, again, it's, it's the fault of the developer alone; it's not someone acting on
<br /> the outside that impacts the developer's ability to design their own project. You know, I think
<br /> that's, that's important that we consider moving forward. But I do want to continue you know,
<br /> there has been a lot of discussion about the, you know, litter removal from this structure, but I
<br /> want to make it very clear that in my opinion this structure is litter on the entire community, that
<br /> this derelict building that has stood here for 15-plus years is detrimental to the overall Kona
<br /> community. So, to me, the most important thing that we can do now is finding a way to cure
<br /> that, and if this developer is able to cure that within this amount of time, then I would be in
<br /> support of that. I have concerns because I don't believe that they have shown the ability to do
<br /> that to date.
<br /> I also have concerns with the schedule that's being proposed. I think that by waiting to 2000
<br /> and, or 2023, to submit for final plan approval, I think you are backloading the schedule and you
<br /> are putting yourself in a situation where it will be impossible to complete, because the timing
<br /> that's going to take to get plan approval will be months, and then after that the timing to get the
<br /> building permit, especially for a structure of this size the way that things are going now with
<br /> the county, a simple home takes about a year to get a building permit. So at that point you put
<br /> yourself in a situation where you want to start and finish construction of a 46-unit timeshare in
<br /> less than a year, which I personally don't believe is feasible.
<br /> 14
<br /> EXHIBIT B
<br />
|