|
continue, weÓve got to continue, you know, for different reasons, to me it seems very
<br />highly irregular.
<br />The Planning DepartmentÓs position is that if the Council enacts the ordinance, that itÓs
<br />going to be different, it could be different for the SMA and so it really would necessitate
<br />the voidance of the permit. Well, that is true, that is true. But, again, every situation, if
<br />thatÓs the case, then what happens is that the Applicant has to come back again. If the, if
<br />whatever, if the Council, for example, if the Council passes the ordinance and they
<br />impose conditions that are substantially different than what has been represented here,
<br />what the Applicant can go through, vis-à-vis the SMA Permit, then obviously you have to
<br />go in for an amendment.
<br />On the other hand, if the County Council in its wisdom decides that the application
<br />should be denied, that is to say the zone change, then you donÓt have an SMA Permit.
<br />And thatÓs the way that an SMA Permit has always been structured in situations like this
<br />where you have the effective date of the SMA is the effective date of the zone change.
<br />So if donÓt get a zone change, then you wonÓt get a valid SMA, you donÓt have a valid
<br />SMA.
<br />If after the Council, letÓs assume positively that the Council passes the Project District
<br />ordinance; and if you need to have an amendment, then you go before the Planning
<br />Commission. If you donÓt need to have to go through, you know,
<br />amendment, then you just leave it and then you proceed based on the constraints thatÓs
<br />imposed on the Council, zone change conditions and/or the SMA co
<br />is more restrictive youÓd have to abide by. ItÓs the same way where you have the Land
<br />Use Commission and, also, like the County Zoning Code. If you have a restrictive
<br />condition that the Land Use Commission may impose over what the County requires,
<br />then you have to still comply.
<br />The DepartmentÓs position, so the question right now is, like, why do you necessarily
<br />have to mandate another round of hearing, another, you know, another opportunity for
<br />this matter to come before the same body on the fourth go-around
<br />The other point that was brought up and the reason was that it would not greatly
<br />inconvenience the Applicant. The Applicant strongly disagrees. It surely does, because
<br />otherwise we wouldnÓt be making this kind of position. But there is substantial costs
<br />associated with having to come before the Commission time after
<br />time, particularly when thereÓs very little public, you know, adverse public comments on
<br />that. You know, there are a few. But, you know, the Commissioners have seen a number
<br />of applications where youÓve had a whole wealth of, a whole litany of public testifiers
<br />coming before you that generate questions that must be answered.
<br />You know, the inconvenience comes not so much in terms of the costs that the Applicant
<br />has to withstand relative to having all these consultants coming in, but it also affects the
<br />cost relative to the delays in attracting interested investors, particularly in this climate
<br />when thereÓs so much anxiety over the status of permits.
<br />14
<br />
<br />
|