2008-11-24 TKOHALA LLC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

there is not a final resolution to the issues. But the SMA Permit has to be consistent with the zoning. At the Council the issue was not, there were no votes in fact in favor of extending the RS 15,000-square foot zoning; that was defeated eight to nothing in Committee and seven to nothing at Council at first reading. The issue at Council is between being a 5-acre zoning and a 15-acre zoning. So given that the SMA Permit should be consistent with the zoning, I would urge the Commission to revoke it today. If the Commission cannot reach a decision, then both sides have to live with the consequences of what that means. There will have to be future Council action on the zoning. WATANABE: Okay. I have one further question for either of you from the legal standpoint. I agree that the SMA, however it’s approved or disapproved, must agree with the zoning that is in place, and the zoning is in question. But assuming the time extension for this particular SMA were granted, that would not imply that the SMA would continue subject to any zoning changes in its current state because it’s, shall we say, highly unlikely that RS-15 would remain the zoning of the property. Am I correct in that in which case it would need to be adjusted? YUEN: Well, actually to develop the property there are administrative permits that are necessary, and in my view those could not be granted under the present state of the zoning where they are not in compliance with the time conditions of the zoning, and the Council has refused to extend it. WATANABE: Okay. Do we have any further questions for staff? Then, well, before I forget, we don’t have anyone signed up from the public to testify on either of these matters, either Agenda Item 1 or 2. So Mr. Lim, may I call you up? And let me swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? LIM: I do. WATANABE: And for the record name and address, please. LIM: I’m Steve Lim from Carlsmith at 121 Waianuenue Avenue in Hilo. I represent Kohala LLC. WATANABE: Thank you. I apologize; I didn’t mean to enter into these discussions without having you available for comments. So I guess this will be a good time for you to put forth your views. LIM: Okay. Just a short wrap-up in terms of where we started probably some two years ago or so – or more. The applicant, Kohala LLC, was just at the point of coming off of a failed joint venture to develop the property, and was starting to have us work on the – you know, there were significant archaeological and access issues over there – so we were starting to work on the plan to come in with what was going to be a reduced density project down from the 50 lots that were allowed in the SMA Permit 379. It was at that point – before we started, we were starting to work on our annual report – at that point the Planning Director filed his notice with the Planning Commission to revoke the SMA Permit and the zoning. So here we are some EXHIBIT A 4