2005-03-18 TWAIKOLOA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I believe we do have some significant disagreements with the content of the Recommendations. Some of those have been touched upon today. The first one I would like to raise for purposes of discussion is the issue of the time length of the extension that we are requesting. We submitted our application requesting a 10-year extension of time. The Recommendation has come back for a 5-year extension of time, but also to delete the administrative extension provision. And I was here and I was listening to the earlier discussion with the Kamehameha Investments application, I understand. I would like to reiterate my request for a 10-year extension of time and reinstatement of that provision that has been deleted in the Directors Recommendation. GALDONES:Are there any other issues that you would like to speak to? BAIL:There are several I would like to speak to. I think as a threshold matter,youknow,thecommentwasmadeaminuteagothatanextensionoftimeisan opportunity to impose new conditions on the permit. I wanted to explain so that everybody has an understanding of the circumstances that lead us here today for an extension of time. This is a development that was planned many years ago. The development will be financed through the sales of the lots themselves. And without the profitable market to do that, its created the delay that was unforeseeable and has resulted in a delay beyond our control in proceeding with the development. I think the difference of opinion that we have with the Recommendation Report as a general or as a threshold matter is that I do not believe that its proper to change the conditions on a permit when the request is for an extension of time. I dont believe that the Recommendation identifies any additional impacts resulting from the extension of time and, therefore, believe under the Federal case law of Nollan and Dolan that there is not an essential nexus between the condition and the purpose served by denying the request. The conditions are unrelated in nature and extent to any impact resulting from this extension of time. This is a rezoning request, its an old rezoning request that went in many years ago. It was scrutinized, conditions were imposed; and I would not agree as a threshold matter that new conditions can be imposed at this point in time. Our specific objections that I stated in my letter of Wednesday afternoon to the Recommendation are to Paragraphs B as in boy, D as in dog, G, H and I. We request that those Recommendations not be adopted; and we do ask for a 10-year extension of time. Regarding the affordable housing requirement, I think through our exchange of correspondence, we realize a disagreement with the Planning Departments Recommendation on affordable housing. I certainly do acknowledge the significance of that issue to this island and to this Commission. The history of this project, however, has been that there never has been an affordable housing requirement imposed on Waikoloa Highlands. Unlike other Waikoloa developments, for example, when the beach resort was constructed, there was an affordable housing requirement and an acknowledgment of that 300 acres of land was dedicated to the County in Waikoloa Village for affordable housing purposes. 8