Laserfiche WebLink
PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you. This question is for the County staff. I just want to know, <br /> what is the benefit to the County of Hawaii to omit Condition J? <br /> JACKSON: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte, I would say there is no benefit necessarily or <br /> detriment, either. We are doing it because we have not placed a restriction to secure a building <br /> permit on any of the other lots in Kaloko Mauka that have received rezoning, so it's somewhat a <br /> matter of fairness that for some reason the County Council put this restriction on this particular <br /> lot several years ago, but they haven't done that since, and so it's a matter of fairness to allow <br /> these folks to develop the same way others have within the subdivision. <br /> PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you. <br /> VIOTUSEK: I just wanted to point out the language in Condition J; it doesn't require that the <br /> landowner complete these infrastructure improvements but rather indicates that building permits <br /> could not be issued until the infrastructure improvements are completed, and then it goes on to <br /> say that if the infrastructure improvements are not completed within 24 months of the adoption <br /> of the ordinance, the applicant can proceed with the building permit. So the idea being that <br /> someone else, appears as though, someone else would be doing these infrastructure <br /> improvements, likely the County through the collection of fair share, but this, building permits <br /> wouldn't be issued until improvements are done; if that didn't work out after 24 months, they <br /> could proceed. So I don't see that this language actually required the landowner to complete <br /> those;just put a restriction on when they could get a building permit. <br /> Any other questions from Commissioners? Commissioner Knowles. <br /> KNOWLES: I'm just curious about what—this is for the applicant and for Mr. FukeI'm just <br /> curious about what the status of the working group is, if you have any information—or for you, <br /> Maija that was laid out with respect to the fair share fund balance and dealing with the <br /> improvements to the roadways there. <br /> FUKE: Commissioner Knowles, I will have to defer that to the staff because, you know, it's <br /> really, the State DOT has kind of recommended it that they get together, you know, together with <br /> the County, and whether that has materialized—it appears at this point in time nothing has <br /> materialized, you know, regrettably. And I think that having like three quarters of a million <br /> dollars, I think you can do quite a bit of improvements, you know, to that area. So I'll defer to <br /> the Director and the staff on this question. <br /> JACKSON: Commissioner Knowles, the working group has not been formed to date as far as I <br /> know, and I think perhaps the rep from Department of Public Works, Robyn Matsumoto, can <br /> respond to that a little better than I can. <br /> MATSUMOTO: Commissioner, from what I'm told we haven't done a working group for this <br /> intersection. I know a lot of people think, right, three, you know, three quarters of a million <br /> dollars is a lot of money; I asked a colleague how much intersection improvement would cost for <br /> traffic signals, and it's a crazy amount of money, it's approximately three million for a full <br /> intersection signal. I realize that area is smaller, it may be less, but, you know, with the cost of <br /> 6 <br /> EXHIBIT C <br />