2009-08-28 TKOHALA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I really appreciate that and the fact that you are going to keep the public access in there. And it seems like basically all the features that we were trying to achieve are achievable now especially with the lower density. And so you know, where you might have concerns with the rooftop shall we say piercing through the vistas from the highway, I think you have a plan now based on the topography that could pretty much eliminate, reduce significantly if not eliminate, that problem. With regard to the agricultural part, you know, itÓs my understanding that the area is fairly arid, so IÓm not certain that even if one wanted to produce agriculture, if it would be feasible. I understand fully where you are coming from with regard to the, you know, lack of potential for agriculture, shall we say? And personally, as I had indicated in past discussions, I would prefer see us come to some type of agreement rather than see this proceed through the judicial system, and from that standpoint I think this is a very healthy compromise. Of course, IÓm just one vote, yeah? I realize that, you know, the light green area is 5-acre, and I donÓt have any particular strong preference between 5-acre or 3-acre, mainly because in my mind agriculture is not particularly feasible at this location. And so I guess thatÓs about the best that we can give you right now, unless thereÓs any other -. Any further comments, Mr. Housel? HOUSEL: Well, I had one more comment. IÓm sure you heard the discussion we had on gated communities prior, right? I certainly would encourage you not to put a gate, you know, on these roads to block access, you know, to the public. LIM: I think for shoreline properties like this in remote areas, I think the issues are different than what you do something in Keauhou. And so I canÓt tell you now that we wonÓt be putting a gate in, but I do know that they are providing for public access, and the State parcel to the north is an additional way to get down. So I heard what HOUSEL: Okay, thank you. WATANABE: Okay. IÓm sorry, I missed that part; I was kind of getting some legal advice here. LIM: So I guess our final request is, this is a status report, is that there is still pending SMA Permit 379, and the last time the Commission said ei request or you come up and give us a status report; so we are here giving you the status report. So I guess my request would be that the, like you did before, that the Chairman determine that we are making sufficient progress and to defer our request, the applicantÓs time extension request for SMA Permit No. 379 to the earlier of a new change of zone and SMA filing or one year from the date of todayÓs hearing to come back and report again. WATANABE: So you are looking for another year. The earlier of one year or -? LIM: ThatÓs correct. And we expect to be back much sooner than that. WATANABE: Yeah, thatÓs my concern here cause we are deferring quite a bit. And IÓm going to have to ask Counsel for some advice here because I have, I guess, utilized the position to make the decision in the past. Is this still considered a contested case so -? GONZALEZ: No. EXHIBIT B 10