2008-11-24 TKOHALA LLC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

two plus years after the fact, and essentially, legally, where we are is or the applicant is is exactly the same place we were when we started. We have a Change of Zone Ordinance that requires a time extension in order to be valid. The Planning Director uses that word, “valid” or “invalid” or “lapsed” or those types of word with the indication that the Change of Zone and the SMA Permit are somehow dead. That’s not the case. The Director says that the RS-15 zoning has lapsed; that’s an incorrect statement of law, and I think your Corporation Counsel can clarify that. During the initial hearing that we had on this matter is that I think that the words have been “put in limbo.” The Change of Zone is in limbo; it’s still effective, it’s still a law, it’s still the zoning for the property. And until such time as the Council takes action to rezone it to another zoning, then the RS-15 zoning still is in effect. Same thing with the SMA Permit. Until the Planning Commission takes final action to revise or revoke the SMA Permit, that also is in effect. These are the due process things that we’ve been talking about all these times. Turning to the particular question at hand is, you are on reconsideration of the initial April 18, 2008, Planning Commission’s failure to reach a decision either for the time extension or for the revocation of the SMA Permit. At the next Commission meeting on May 22, the parties and the Planning Commission agreed that we would further defer this to the final action on the Change of Zone. As you know, the Change of Zone went up and, as Mr. Darrow explained, was amended by the Council to a 15-acre zoning, and then subsequently vetoed by the Mayor, and the Council failed to override that veto. So like I said, again, we are back still with our RS-15 zoning for the property. And the applicant’s desire all the way through this even from day one has been to come in with a revised development proposal, and it will in all likelihood be less than 50 residential lots on that property; however, because we’ve had to basically fight for our life on this one, we just stopped the effort two plus years ago, and we have been fighting ever since. So that’s why I submit my letter to you of today, which basically ask that the Planning Commission again defer the final decision on the SMA Permit. And the reason why we want to do that is because we want to be able to work on the project proposal without having a threat of litigation or any type of formal action. I mean, the developer is, as Mr. Yuen says, the developer cannot do anything on the property without getting further permits. And the applicant feels that the best way to do that is to keep the status quo like we’ve had since two years ago and keep deferring this. Another big reason for a deferral, because the first reason why you deferred the decision on this reconsideration was in order to get a final determination on the zoning, and the Director has said to you that he intends to submit another change of zone or downzoning probably to the RA-5 acres zoning, and so that’s another reason why we ask that the Commission not make a final determination on the SMA Permit. What my anticipation is that, what the applicant is going to do is we’ll develop a project plan and come back in to the Planning Commission under the existing zoning and under the existing SMA Permit for something less than the 50 lots that’s in Special Management Area Permit 379 at this time. At that point in time – we don’t have to lose our zoning, we don’t have to lose our SMA Permit – we can come in and you can make the decision on what the appropriate development is on the property, and address all issues at that time, rather than have me on, you know, one hand fighting in court and on the other hand trying to develop the property here. EXHIBIT A 5