2007-12-12 TKOHALA LLC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Department’s alternative. And if the Planning Commission is not able to come to a decision on that by a 5-member vote, there is, the procedure under the ordinance is that the Commission has 60 days to make a recommendation to the Council on a Director initiated rezoning. And my suggestion is that – and depending on whether you count that there was a period of a voluntary deferral by the parties, which I would not count against the 60 days, however, this rezoning is supposed to move up from the Planning Commission to the County Council within the timeframe th – so my suggestion is that we, the Commission act on that on the January 11 meeting, and if it is not able to act on it, then that would move up to the County Council. I have certainly no objection as well to the rezoning request from Kohala LLC also moving up to the Council at the same time. And then following the suggestion on the schedule for the SMA permit, which in any event is only valid if the Council enacts Kohala -, Kohala LLC’s request for an extension of their SMA permit is only valid anyway, if the Council does rezone the property. GRAHAM: Mr. Lim, do you have a response -? LIM: Yeah, obviously we have an objection ’cause it accomplishes the same thing; it forces us into hurrying up. I mean that was the whole point of my last letter is I’m trying to give the applicant an opportunity and a fair opportunity to the Planning Commission to review all the legal arguments and make a reasoned decision on both matters. I think everybody recognizes that this change of zone and the SMA permit are intertwined, and to send one up without the other is nonsensical to me. We would object to that. GRAHAM: All right. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Yeah, I have a question for Ivan. Now the Rules as far as if we cannot arrive at a majority decision for a change of zone, then it implies that we send up a negative recommendation. Is that correct? TORIGOE: Right. If you look at your Rule 11-3(c), which is consistent with the Zoning Code, there is actually a couple of things going on: If you have the Planning Director initiated one and if you look at Rule 11-3(c)(B), it says that within 60 days after receipt of the amendment, then the Commission shall transmit the proposed amendment with its recommendation to the Council, and in the event the Commission fails to act on the amendment within the 60-day period, such inaction shall be considered as unfavorable recommendation by the Commission. You also have the request by the applicant for an extension of time, the amendment to Condition C of the change of zone ordinance, that would also be handled as an amendment and there is a, as you know, most of the time amendments are initiated by property owners; and your Rule 11-3(b)(2) says within 90 days – it’s a longer period – after receipt of the application from the Director, unless a longer period is agreed to by the applicant, the Commission shall transmit the proposed change of zone ordinance together with its recommendations; and similarly in the event that the Commission fails to act on the application within the 90-day period, the application shall be considered an unfavorable recommendation. So in either the property owner initiated or the Director initiated, if you fail to act within the prescribed period, then it goes up with a default negative recommendation. I want to note this one thing – and this is probably something that the applicant and the Director may want to respond to or give some recommendation on – there is a difference. As I noted, for the property owner initiated ones, it says that’s 90 days unless a longer period is agreed to by the EXHIBIT A 12