2020-12-17 Leeward Exh D (Discussion re permit extension)

Home

DEFRANCO: Yeah, I just, I wanted to agree with Perry on that, you know. We don't always understand everything on the other side of how, how much money they've even invested and what's happened in the economy. There's so much going on to really understand going forward. But I like the spirit of all of us on this commission because the intent is to make it right for the community and to hold the investors and the developers responsible for what they've made their commitments to. So, I agree it would be nice to put a sunset on them, but we would only be able to do that if we understood the whole project, and a lot of times we don't. So, we get what they present to us, but we don't always have, or at least I don't have the background of how they got there in the first place. CARR SMITH: Thank you, Barbara. Max? NEWBERG: To echo what both Perry and Barbara mentioned, is it within the realms of sense to perhaps try to draft legis—draft language that says if you're granted a five-year plan initially, that if it goes to three times that initial request, in other words if you've been granted extensions twice on a five-year, or have had 15 years as the original owner, then it comes under different scrutiny at some point? CARR SMITH: Jeff, were you thinking about responding to that? DARROW: Right now, the way that our Code reads is there's a section that says permits run with the land, and so, when a particular permit that's issued by the Planning Commission is issued, it runs with the land. There's been discussion by the commission about trying to either change that code or put in the rules that this sunset date that's been spoken about, and as well as if the property changes ownership that they're required to come back. So, those are things we can look at as adding in during the rule amendments, but again, it may also require a code change which goes up to Council. The, you know, it's a, again, if this is the direction of the commission, we can present it. We're going to take both of these matters before the Windward Commission at our January hearing, and then we'll compile the suggestions from both commissions, try to put together particular rule changes and possible code changes. This thing, you know, it's not as simple as we would hope, you know, because we think we're on the right page but if we just agendize a joint meeting and presented this and, and both commissions came together and we, unless we can try to somehow vet it before we come together as a joint commission, it might be a futile effort. So, what we'll try to do is create the suggested rule changes, provide them to the commission for feedback to make sure we're on the same page, and then put it together to bring to a joint commission. But again, I, I hear what you're saying regarding the time period that's been discussed a number of times so, that's something we can try to present in the rule amendments. CARR SMITH: Very good. Thank you, Jeff. Mike? VITOUSEK: Sure, I just want to reiterate that the idea behind this language change is not about timing itself, and not about a sunset clause, but about considering the effects and how the effects change over time. So, it'll be a case-by-case thing where you'd be looking at a project and seeing that over the last years what changes have there been in the community that now need to be taken 7 EXHIBIT D