2008-04-18 TKOHALA LLC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

WOODWARD: The only choice we have left. WATANABE: Yeah, exactly. I would entertain a motion. WOODWARD: All right. Well, with regard to Item No. 1, Kohala LLC (REZ 866), I would move that we recommend to the Council that rezoning extension be provided. DOMINGO: Second. WATANABE: Okay. It has been moved and seconded. This is based on the original, though, yeah, for clarification purposes. Because we have had other motions to this effect where we discussed limiting the amount of residences and the other – what is it – alterations to other conditions. WOODWARD: Yeah, exactly. The main condition here would be what Mr. Lim and his clients have agreed to, and that is -, a main condition would be that it would be limited to 25 lots. WATANABE: Okay. So you are proposing that we forward a favorable recommendation to Council based on the previously submitted terms and conditions by Mr. Lim WOODWARD: Right. From the last meeting, yes. WATANABE: Okay. And you are in agreement to that, Mr. Domingo? DOMINGO: Yes, Mr. Chairman. WATANABE: Okay. So we have a motion that is live. Any discussion on this matter? WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman. WATANABE: Yes. WOODWARD: If I might. You know, I’ve expressed my concerns about the way this has been handled from the beginning. Basically, I think a lot of what Mr. Lim has put out in his th April 7 letter is valid, that is illegal taking, a number of other items. And I think what we are doing here is using the Planning Commission to try and forward a political agenda. And that agenda is some people feel that there was a mistake made back in 1997 when this was originally approved to allow smaller lot size along the Kohala Coast, and now the prevailing political opinion is, well, it all ought to be 20 acres.I don’t think that’s the part of the Planning Commission. Now, admittedly there have been, you know, a few -, they’ve dropped the ball, I mean, as far as various filings that had to be made in a timely manner. But those are relatively minor items that we generally tend to work around. But in this case I think we have been kind of a prejudicial attitude against this particular property, and again I think it’s because of a political agenda. And so that’s why -, I think we should not be the people that are going to, you know, downzone a small subdivision. If that has to be done, I think that should be done at the County EXHIBIT A 14