|
for a house, for a building permit for a house that’s outside the SMA at 600 feet from the water,
<br />it needs a building permit, this does not apply to that decision.
<br />The final thing I’d like to say on the issue of amendments, just this here is, like Ken was saying,
<br />this was something that was really talked about at the Steering Committee. It’s question of
<br />where, it’s a little funny to ask Ken because he was probably one of the ones who was saying,
<br />well, this should be softened up, a little bit more leeway be given on this on the Committee, and
<br />he’s in the position here and being a good soldier and defending what they came out with as a
<br />consensus. But he’s the Chair and this was their consensus.There were people who wanted, you
<br />know, something much more drastic. I tried to help come up with something that was workable
<br />that people could live with.He may individually from his own point of view be happy with
<br />different kinds of wording. The Steering Committee, you know, if a different wording is made it
<br />does have to go to the Steering Committee and it will be another discussion at the Steering
<br />Committee. I also have to mention that any substantive amendments made, the Planning
<br />Commission does have the power to recommend amendments to the County Council. The
<br />County Council is the only one that actually makes the amendment. If the County Council
<br />makes a substantive amendment to the plan, that is something that changes the meaning of the
<br />plan, that does then have to go back to the Steering Committee and to the Planning Commission
<br />and to the County Council. And I have to say that at this point there is no time to do that before
<br />the end of the Council term, unless the County Council were to have special meetings or
<br />otherwise expedite action.
<br />WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman?
<br />WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Woodward.
<br />WOODWARD: I have a little follow-up. Yeah, I understand all of that. And the only
<br />problem I have with this is this is going to be ordinance for the next 10 to 12 years; and while
<br />there may just be a few isolated properties that now fall under this category that are, you know,
<br />between 1000 and 1500 feet, wouldn’t it make more sense just to change it so we have any
<br />property that is deeper than 1500 feet have a 1000-foot setback? It wouldn’t seem to me like that
<br />would be a problem for the community if there are currently no properties that fit, you know, that
<br />are not more than a mile deep or whatever. But, you know, I have a problem with, and again,
<br />any of these things that come up have to come before us first as far as dividing properties or
<br />rezoning, and so on and so forth. It would seem to me that to have an ordinance that says if you
<br />have a property over 1000 feet you have a 1000-foot setback, that doesn’t make any sense to me
<br />at all. So you’ve got a property that’s a 1010 feet, you’ve lost the value of your property. I
<br />mean, and again this is going to be ordinance, it’s going to be law for the next 10 or 12 years,
<br />until the next development plan comes out, assuming that this is approved. So that’s the problem
<br />I have with it, not what is currently going on but what is going on in the future.
<br />WATANABE: Okay. I have a question for the Director. And I understand the timing
<br />issue, etc. and I understand that, you know, obviously you want to get this through to the
<br />Council, etc. And you did mention whether it’s a material change or not. And so my question
<br />would be, you know, here again we’re still looking at interpretation, and we’ve had the benefit of
<br />reading your letter to us indicating what it really means, what is mandatory, what isn’t. On the
<br /> EXHIBIT C
<br />9
<br />
<br />
|