2008-11-24 TKOHALA LLC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

So that’s why we are asking for a deferral. We think that it doesn’t hurt either side. We think that the Commission has inherent ability to continue this one more time on a deferral, and that Rule 9-11 allows you to do that. So we ask for your consideration in deferring this matter until such time as we can come back in with a new development proposal and convince you, you know, where you can say yes or no; but basically we want to come back in without having a threat of the litigation, because that is the difficult part for us. Once we have the threat of litigation, you know, the developers would just, the applicant in this case, would just freeze; why would you go and spend a lot of money trying to, you know, do your project proposal when you have a threat of litigation? So that is our request. And we think that the Commission has a legal power to do that. You’ve done it before. And because of the pending downzoning that the Director may be filing before he leaves, it’s another reason to defer things. Thank you. WATANABE: Thank you, Mr. Lim. Do we have any questions of Mr. Lim? Seeing none, I do have -. Oh, Mr. Iwashita? IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess my concern is that from the planning perspective in my view the density for this property is inappropriate in the big picture, especially dealing with environmental concerns and all of those. And so what concerns me about your comments this morning is that you’ve indicated that any proposal that the owner is going to consider is basically looking at maintaining the existing zoning on the property. Did I mishear that? LIM: It’s kind of half and half. We want to maintain the existing zoning and the existing SMA Permit. But, like SMA Permit 379, we want to come in for an amendment to the Permit for something less in density, something that the Commission can accept, and that acknowledges the public access – and there’re a lot of archaeological sites on the property – so yes, we would like to come in. And this is not unusual; it’s very similar to what happened in the – if you look at the map there, the property one, two, we move from us to the, I guess it’s the south towards the Kawaihae side, you’ll see, I think that’s probably a brown color – that’s a multi-family zoning and that’s the Kohala Waterfront property, which was developed under multi-family zoning but they developed 1-acre lots generally in that property. And so we would like the same opportunity without loosing our legal rights to come in with a downsized proposal that the Planning Commission can accept for development of this property. IWASHITA: Well, I guess my concern would be that, from again the planning perspective and my view, that the zoning ought to match the nature of the development and not -. Because if you don’t change it to reflect whatever this new proposal you are talking about, then what it does is it allows the zoning that in my view is inappropriate at the present time to remain in place, and that can be used later for further development of the property. So my concern is as far as your request and what I’d like to get clarified is whether or not any proposed downsizing of the development would include, you know, a downzoning essentially. LIM: I haven’t asked my client specifically on that issue, but that has been done in the past by the Planning Commission and the County Council; we would consider that. Essentially what we would be doing is, you know, the way it’s happened before is the SMA EXHIBIT A 6