|
that they now had to meet the minimum lot size requirements for subdivision; in other words,
<br />even if itÓs a CPR, it has to meet the minimum lot size. And for this area, itÓs 7,500 square feet.
<br />And so we have the certain size and we have six units, and six 7,500-square foot units donÓt fit in
<br />that size. So we went into a process of trying to redesign it and trying to work with the owners.
<br />And the solution Î and fortunately we were able to reach that solution Î was that one of the
<br />owners sold to one of the other owners. And so thatÓs how we created A/B. And so Mr.
<br />MatsukawaÓs client and Mr. KaapuÓs clients were able to reach an agreement under which they
<br />were able to combine, reduce the number of units, and then we complied, we felt, with the 7,500-
<br />square foot minimum requirement. So please understand this is not a situation where a developer
<br />is trying to ask for favors, trying to cut corners, or trying to ask you to amend an old permit for
<br />an economic advantage; this is a situation where we are trying to preserve for the owners the
<br />values that they already paid for and that they were stood to lose, if we werenÓt able to reach this
<br />kind of a solution. So, you know, weÓve gotten an absolutely tremendous amount of cooperation
<br />from the Planning Department, from Planning Director Chris Yuen, from Planning Director
<br />Bobby Jean Leithead Todd and from the staff, because they realize this is a difficult situation.
<br />The court is still involved; the court still holds status conferences with all counsel about every
<br />sixty to ninety days to see how we are doing on getting this process completed. And because the
<br />two unit holders were able to make this agreement, we can finally move forward.
<br />So against that backdrop, the only Î weÓve read the conditions, the conditions are great Î the
<br />only concern we have about the conditions is the limitation on the ability to apply for variances.
<br />And the reason we have that concern is because we found that as we go through this process,
<br />issues come up that we have to try to deal with. Now, you know,
<br />needed some variances for Units C and E where the homes were built, because when we
<br />reconfigured the lots, the homes were too close to the lot lines. And so we are just afraid that as
<br />we go through this, that something else might come up that we need to apply for a variance for.
<br />Now, we are not asking that any variances be granted; we are just trying to say that if there is a
<br />way that we can preserve the process of applying for a variance, if something comes up that we
<br />havenÓt foreseen at this point, thatÓs what we would request. If we have to go forward with the
<br />condition as they are written, we can do it. But we just are hoping for some sort of saving clause
<br />that will allow us to apply for variances, if something that we havenÓt foreseen at this point
<br />comes up. But otherwise, the representatives of two of the owners are here, so in terms of
<br />compliance with the conditions, I defer to them. Are there any questions?
<br />HOUSEL: I had one question. Now, with the extension of time, that applies to all the units,
<br />right, so all must complete within that time frame, is that -?
<br />VITOUSEK: ThatÓs correct. That applies to the three units that have not been constructed. Yes,
<br />five years to complete construction.
<br />HOUSEL: Right, okay.
<br />VITOUSEK: And extended only by the Commission, I notice. Let me just, on the Stardust
<br />Road thing, you know, the problem with Stardust Road is simply that we donÓt own it; the
<br />owners of these units donÓt own or control Stardust Road. And I think itÓs one of those roads
<br />that were created as part of a partition decision way back when. So I think that there is not a lot
<br />8
<br />EXHIBIT B
<br />
<br />
|