2008-03-20 TKOHALA LLC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

essentially their time to, of their zoning has expired and they need a time extension. If you look at the very last paragraph of the ordinance that granted the RS-15 zoning back in 1997, it says that if the time conditions are not met, the Director may initiate rezoning of the property to its original or more appropriate classification. That’s in the same ordinance that has the RS-15 zoning. So what the applicant’s attorney keeps saying is it’s not fair to do exactly what the ordinance says the Planning Director can do. This is what it says in the ordinance and this is just -, it links with the rest of the ordinance. I don’t look at this action as being punitive in a sense of the applicant was bad, they didn’t do what they were supposed to do, they dropped the ball; it’s really not a question of that. How much investment the applicant has put into a project can influence the question of fairness on a time extension. If you think back – let me give you an example – we had a situation a few months ago on the Commission with the Volcano Golf Course Subdivision where they needed a time extension. They’d not gotten final subdivision approval. They’d gotten tentative subdivision approval. They needed the time extension. They had -, at that point, though, they had almost finished the subdivision. They built the roads, they put almost everything in; they were almost ready and completed. And I said sure, you know. You would look at that level of investment as an issue on the fairness of whether or not to grant a time extension. In this situation they really have not done a great deal since 1997. The basic archeological work had been done. The reports that you saw that came with our letter in early March is really about the extent of it; and that was getting approval of what sites would be preserved and really having a minimal amount of work connected with the preservation of those sites. So this is really a question -, and I look at it as a question of land use; and it was not a question of being punitive or being negative to the owner. What is the right use of this land? Whether you have 25 lots there, or you have 7 lots, you have 50 lots, the land is going to be used for basically a residential, highly upscale development. In Kohala Waterfront, which would be similar to the 50-lot type of development – the Kohala Waterfront being the brown area that’s about 3,000 feet from this property – the lots are being offered at $1 Million to $1.5 Million each, and then people put homes on them. So this is not any kind of housing opportunity for people. So in that context, the opportunity to have more open space to be able to control where the houses go is really something that -, there is a lot more opportunity to create and to work to be able to fit houses in the landscape and not cause environmental problems in a 7-lot development than a 50- or 25-lot development. On the question of the General Plan, a rezoning or zoning has to be consistent with both the LUPAG Map and policies and goals of the General Plan that is the text of the General Plan. The policies and goals, you know, as I’ve said before, there are often competing policies and goals, and people can have differences of opinion about whether it fits or not. The LUPAG Map really serves as a filter in it; it serves as a limitation. You can develop in an area like this, for example, you can -, the General Plan LUPAG Map permits a housing development of or the density of that proposed or even of a greater density. But when you come to the zoning decision, you have to make a site specific and careful decision about what really should happen on the property. When the LUPAG Map is done, it’s done on – the term that’s used in the General Plan is broad brush – it’s done without looking at the specific issues that may be there on a piece of property like the archaeological sites, like the drainage ways, like the viewplanes; it’s really looking at broad areas on the map. And then at the zoning decision you have to make a specific decision about whether EXHIBIT A 24