Laserfiche WebLink
corrected the background report, page 6, Item 37, as comments have been received from <br />the departments of Public Works and Water Supply, which are reflected as Exhibits B <br />and D in the information submitted to the Commission. <br />The applicantÓs representative, Gregory Mooers, stated he did receive a copy of the <br />DepartmentÓs background report and recommendation and agreed with the proposed <br />conditions. <br />In response to Commissioner KubotaÓs inquiry, Mr. Mooers said the applicant intends to <br />build a home on a portion of the property and retain the remaining area in forest, which is <br />incorporated as part of the conditions and were consistent with the County CouncilÓs <br />resolution to preserve as much of the native forest as possible. <br />Commissioner Graham noted it seemed fairly clear that the applicants were willing to <br />have the impact fees designated for improving the intersection of the road; however, the <br />wording in the ordinance seems like the fees are not direct only <br />improvements, questioning how this has been handled in other rez <br />Mr. Mooers said his understanding is that impact fees have been collected at the time of <br />subdivision and not at the rezoning stage; and that there seems to be some disparity in <br />change of zone applications, as some seem to direct all of the impact related fees to the <br />intersection where others, such as this one, seem to disburse those fees over the range of <br />County services. He felt this impact fee disbursement was a valid question and the <br />Council needed to decide whether they want to dedicate all of those funds for that <br />intersection or just a portion of those funds. <br />Commissioner Kubota pointed out the problem of the State and the County both saying it <br />was the other governmental agencyÓs jurisdiction, noting the State is saying these <br />improvements will be implemented by the County at no cost to the State. Mr. Yuen said <br />he thought the State DOT has always said that they were not going to put anything into <br />the intersection and that it was a County issue, noting the situation of a State Highway <br />with a County road coming into it. He said his understanding is that there is <br />approximately $150,000 collected for road improvements to the intersection, adding there <br />was a rezoning where the applicant was required to do a study of what could be <br />implemented at the intersection. <br />In response to Mr. YuenÓs inquiry and after the staffÓs checking previous rezonings, <br />Mr. Hayashi said the last two rezonings did not specify that the impact fee funds <br />collected from the developer were earmarked for the road intersection improvements. <br />Mr. Hayashi then proposed a new condition be inserted as Condition K and the remaining <br />conditions relaphabetized accordingly. He also made a correction to Condition J <br />regarding a solid waste management plan meeting with the approval of the Department of <br />Environmental Management instead of the Department of Public Wor <br />Mr. Mooers had no objections to the new Condition K as he felt the funds should be <br />going to intersection improvements. <br />2 <br /> <br />