2021-03-18 Leeward Exh C (Discussion on proposed clause re time extension for permit)

Home

KERN: I think it could be actually a bit more difficult in one sense because then we are trying to, we are trying to potentially regulate that or have them notify on one level. We said it just, so if we said it just expireslet's, let's run this down for a little bit, right, we get a project, they are doing rezoning, let's say, it's a, you know, to create 49 residential house lots, and the 10 years goes by, they get, five years goes by, they get an administrative time extension, that entire 10 years they've been paying property taxes based on that zoning, at the end of the administrative time extension, if it just died right then, we would then need to go back to Real Property Tax, tell them, hey, the rezoning has been reverted back, it's ended, now charge them the lower property tax rate, and maybe notifying the landowner, applicant, or it's already known in their conditions, that's probably less of an issue, and then the five years goes by, and then the economy comes back around, somebody wants to resurrect the project, and they basically go through the same process they'd go through right now; they'd submit an application, we would review it for all the conditions, we'd say it has previously been zoned, and then we would go back to Real Prop- if it was approved, we would go back to Real Property Tax and have them do it. I'm just trying to understand what the true intent is around it, because, to me, if it expired and if it's basically in limbo, it has to go through this process. And if the Council deemed that that's no longer appropriate, and it's done at that point in time. Does that make sense? VITOUSEK: Commissioner Van Pernis. VAN PERNIS: Yes, the entire matter of real property taxes Mr. Kern refers to, is a shibai; the tax stays the same, the zoning stays the same, there is no reversion to Agriculture tax rates or anything else. So there is no change in the tax concerns. The applicant has delivered a huge benefit by the upgraded zoning, which he then sells or has the opportunity to develop. The county supposedly is supposed to get certain infrastructure; the county gets nothing out of these deferrals. You'll notice my suggested language says the zoning stays, the zoning stays; they don't, there is no reversion, there is no tax consideration. If an applicant wants to upgrade with millions in many cases, if not more, it's up to them to pay their taxes on that increased amount. That's what they are selling their property for or developing the property for. If they choose not to develop it or don't develop it for whatever reasons, the value of upgrade is still there. Let me ask you: When was the last time you saw the director downzone something from Multiple Residential or Commercial zoning to the Agricultural zoning? Never. It's not, doesn't happen. When was the last time you saw a developer sell his project on the basis of upgraded zoning and upgraded conditions? I would say it happens all the time. Now, does that make their job harder by adding a sunset provision? No, it makes it easier than VITOUSEK: (Indiscernible—simultaneous speech) if I can just stop you for one second there, Commissioner Van Pernis, I want to say that, you know, I agree with a lot of what you have put in here, and I think that what you have kind of stated in this proposed condition is actually very reflective of the practice that's happening now where the zoning is maintained but they have to re-evaluate as if it were new application in order to recondition it based on the changing environment of the time, and I don't think that necessarily the sunset clause is needed, if we are maintaining the zoning, but instead, if we are revising the language to reflect that, if the zoning, or the conditions of the zoning, are not met in the time that's allocated, that the conditions can be 4 EXHIBIT C