2007-08-31 TALIIGARDENS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

GRAHAM: Thank you, Jeff. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: I have a question; this probably is more for the Director, though. Let’s assume the interpretation now is correct that there is no legal means, and so you’re going to, like we are playing damage control. Is there any other options such as -, they would have to go for rezoning then or something to that effect in order to meet that legal use of the property? YUEN: Yes, there are legislative means that would go to the County Council, like a rezoning, like an amendment to the Zoning Code to expand the list of things that can be done with a Use Permit in the zone that they are in. I do not see administrative means. GRAHAM: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: This is to Mr. Director. I guess the applicant’s claim is that the Department didn’t spot this Permit 142 as inadequate 10 years ago or a little over 10 years ago. Does the Department fail to spot other -? Is this common or uncommon or -? YUEN: I’d say this type of mistake is quite uncommon; I can’t think of something parallel to it where a Use Permit was granted for something that could not be Use Permit. There are other kinds of mistakes that happen certainly, but not this type certainly. ALAMEDA: Okay, thank you. GRAHAM: Other questions from Commissioners? WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Well, it’s not really a question, just a comment. I feel bad about this, I really do. I mean this was a mistake that has been overlooked for 10 years. And now the person is going to suffer damages, not us. You know, I think we ought to come up with some remedy whereby we can live by the original agreement, whether that be rezoning, whether that be a variance. You know, we are taking it out on this poor guy for a mistake we made 10 years ago and didn’t recognize until now. That’s not right, that’s just not right. GRAHAM: Further comments from the Commissioners? I might say in my own sense and from the kind of fairness point of view, I have some of the same feelings that Commissioner Woodward says. If we were asked for some new part of the permitting that had been done, then I could certainly see that would be inappropriate. But we don’t have public here saying that this is a problem. I don’t know of any conditions that have changed since the original Permit went out that would make us want to act differently based on just the substance of what’s there. So, and our applicant has obviously invested money and has an operation, and planned this whole operation with expectations these thing would come about in the future. So even though he didn’t meet the time frame within which he planned to do that, he certainly was using that in his planning. So my fairness sense kind of leads me to think that we should try to accommodate him. Mr. Torigoe, have you looked at this closely also? EXHIBIT I 3