2006-02-24 TSmith_REZ05027 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

GRAHAM:Since we dont have anyone else from the public to testify will Mr. Mooers theapplicants representative please come forward again? And basically this is your opportunity to respond to whats come up since you were before us a few minutes ago. MOOERS:Well thank you Commissioner Graham. Much of what Mr. Gimpel has said Im in agreement with, it is a dangerous intersection. I think weve acknowledged that for some time. I do take issues with some of his proposed solutions. The government both State and the County have taken the position over the last couple of years that the solution to this intersection is to impose and collect impact related fees from the applicants in this area. And that has been the policy and that has been done. As far as I know every applicant who has received a change of zone and subsequently rezoned has paid his share the money has been collected. The problem that I have is to advocate a moratorium in Kaloko as far as rezonings is misplaced because its not the applicants or the landowners who are not doing their part. Its been the problem, the government has not come up with a agreed solution between the County andtheStateandwhatyouredoingnowisthatyouregoingtopenalizeanapplicantwhois basically agreeing with the County that there is a problem. It is agreeing with the County as far as what the solution is well pay our money. And now youre saying well no thats not good enough. Its certainly unreasonable to expect Mr. Smith to fix the intersection on his own. You are assessing him ineffectively $60,000 to go toward the cost of improving that intersection. And hes accepted that. I think the solution is to have you know government make those improvements. Previously I think about 5 years ago there was a change of zone application that was approved for a gentleman in Kaloko and there was a condition applied that said he would not be allowed to subdivide his property until that intersection was approved. And that condition is in effect at this time. It was accepted by that applicant because he was rezoning his property and more of an estate planning method for his children and he was not in any particular rush to have it done. But, in a situation like this I think we have to basically assess responsibility where it belongs. You know if the money is there and the applicants are paying their share they have stepped up and done their part. I think its the responsibility of the government to identify what the improvements will be and make those improvements. In this case Mr. Smith, hes probably 2 years away from having subdivided lots. Realistically once he finishes the change of zone application he would then have to file a subdivision application which are quite timely, time consuming I should say at this time. And once a tentative approval would be granted he would then have the engineer have those plans reviewed and the improvement for that roadway would have to be made before he would ever be able to create lots. And after that time and then youd have a situation of marking the lots, developing his one lot into a house, you know youre now looking at 3 possibly 4 years down the line before theres any additional traffic being generated. I think the solution identified by government has been that these people pay a fair share, theyve agreed to do that. I would hope the government would then do their part and take the money and spend it and install the signal at this drive. GRAHAM:Thank you Mr. Mooers. Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. Mooers in reference to the timeline that you had mentioned 3 to 4 years. Is that 3 to 4 years from if it is approved today is that going to be 3 to 4 years down? EXHIBIT A 7