2008-01-11 TPDKOHALA LLC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

WATANABE: Okay, then the hearing is officially closed. Okay, we have options now. We can discuss to some degree a little more about the particulars of Agenda Item 4. Again, let’s focus on Agenda Item 4 first. Once we decide on that -. And I’m truly hoping that we will not punt. One way or another I’m hoping that we will make a decision. Yes, Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman, I’m really not comfortable. I have not been comfortable with this, the Director’s recommendation, from the beginning for a number of reasons that I have articulated in the past; and I’m not going to go over all of them again. But it comes down to, I think, a question of fairness on how, what interaction there has been between the Planning Department and the applicant. And the fact that downzoning properties just -. You know, we’re charged with generally reviewing people that are trying to put in new developments; and we really stick to our guns and I think we’re very hardnosed about it; and they really have to show us that they’re going to do a good job. But to downzone, that’s an entirely different matter. And if Mr. Lim is correct this is the first time this is happening in eight years, I’m a little concerned about that. And so I do have those concerns. . WATANABE: Thank you. Any further discussion? Yes, Mr. Graham. GRAHAM: Just speaking to that very understandable concern that Commissioner Woodward brought up, I do remember when I was brand new on the Planning Commission which was in 2003 and in my first meeting over in Hilo was April, we had a very similar situation where an applicant was asking to extend the time conditions which had expired a number of years before. And being new to the process I remember asking at that time, well, if the applicant didn’t complete his requirements, what is the current zoning of the property, is it the zoning that it used to be or is it the zoning that was given to him contingent on him completing the requirements? And Mr. Yuen went to explain to me at the time, he said it stays with the new zoning even though he didn’t complete the requirements. However, he says, you know, I have the opportunity as Planning Director to return it to its original zoning or suggest a more appropriate zoning, but if I’m going to do this, I have to initiate a new bill, and it has to go before the Commission and the Council. And then he kind of challenged me, well, do you have a more appropriate zoning you think I should apply for, you know; and I said no, you know, I was just trying to understand the law of the land. So all I’m saying by that is even though he had not initiated a rezoning against the will of the applicant or something he did certainly make it public in my first hearing that that option was there for him to take and that if I had a suggestion he’d do it, would I please go ahead and make it. So it’s not totally new terrain in that respect. WATANABE: Thank you. Any further comments? Well, I’m not trying to railroad this or anything. I too am having great difficultly with the taking. I think I’ve expressed my feelings at prior meetings. At the same time, like Commissioner Domingo, I had hoped that this could be worked out. Obviously it’s not going to be worked out unless we somehow step in. But we can’t do that until we decide on this and, or at least Agenda Item 4. And, you know, that’s why I brought up some of these other issues with regard to satisfying the fair housing requirement, you know, obtaining the easements for the underground utilities, which was an attempt to satisfy one of the conditions within the change of zone. And also now I guess we have an additional commitment that was made by the applicant to the Kohala Water Company which will cost them in the neighborhood of $600,000, irrespective of how many homes they put up. That said, while EXHIBIT C 16