2007-01-05 tclark - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

GRAHAM: Chris, what I actually remember you telling me before was that even if the prior ordinance wasn’t fulfilled then the requirements, we treated the property now as if it was in the newly zoned ML district; and that you could if you wished initiate proceedings to revert to the old zoning but that was not necessary you felt. So we could just go forward from the ML district which is how it is currently carried on the books as the way you described it at the time. YUEN: Well, I think, it’s definitely true that they still carry it on the books so to speak in our zoning maps as being in the ML district; however, if the time requirements have not been met the property is in a bit of limbo as far as the actual development of the property. What happens is that say somebody then comes in with an industrial building under the ML zone and they need plan approval from the Planning Department, the staff who are working on plan approvals is supposed to look at the rezoning ordinance and notice that the time conditions have not been met. And therefore the applicant either has to, if it is still within the timeframe for getting an administrative time extension they would have to come in and ask for that administrative time extension; and if they’re beyond all the administrative time extensions then they have to come and ask the Planning Commission and then the Council for an extension of all those time conditions. An example of that would be the Takase office building on Kilauea Street next to the Mormon Church where all the time conditions had expired; and so to revive the CG zoning that they had there they had to come back and do that. Now in this case apparently they are, and I’m looking at the conditions, I don’t know whether a commitment payment was made in B, certainly construction had not been completed within five years; if they ask for an administrative time extension, example, on C, they could have an administrative time extension until July 2007; and those are the only time conditions. I think if we didn’t formally repeal Ord. 97-93 in the process of doing this kind of an application that it would be impliedly repealed by the new rezoning ordinance.I do think though as a matter of general practice we should process a repeal of the prior rezoning. You know, as I said, I think if you don’t do it, it is impliedly repealed by the new action. GRAHAM: So are you suggesting that we just carry forward then? YUEN: At this point I would just carry forward because I’m sure it has happened many, many times that rezonings have been, you know, you have one rezoning ordinance and then you rezone the property from the prior rezoning ordinance without actually repealing. I know it has been done many, many times. I just think that for the sake for clarity especially when there’s an issue that maybe the conditions of the prior ordinance have not been fulfilled that you ought to repeal the prior rezoning ordinance; but, you know, I don’t think it’s absolutely necessary from a legal point of view. GRAHAM: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Yeah, I’m wanting to chime in on that. And I’m wondering if, that ordinance that was drafted in 1997 has a Condition N to it, should any of the conditions not been met or substantially complied within a timely fashion the Director may initiate rezoning of the subject property to its original or more appropriate designation. So I’m wondering if we can hang our hat on that and skip the repeal issue and avoid any potential notice issues by doing so. EXHIBIT A 5