My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005-05-06 Answering Brief Re Ainaola Development
PublicDocuments
>
Corporation Counsel
>
Court Documents
>
2003-2005
>
2005-05-06 Answering Brief Re Ainaola Development
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2011 4:41:01 PM
Creation date
7/15/2011 4:38:12 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
And in addition to that, in light of the applicant's then ability to share <br /> what, what he perceived as being what he doesn't have, some measure of reduction <br /> to the—what was previously committed into the County —to the community which <br /> was codified as conditions of approval with the—in conjunction with the use permit <br /> and the special permit. <br /> And specifically, this relates to—in lieu of constructing the Ainaloa Boulevard <br /> to County dedicable standard,you know, to contribute a million dollars of,you know, <br /> to the County or whoever owns the road,you know, to improve Ainaloa Boulevard <br /> along that line. <br /> CCTr, ROA-E at 129-130. The Boulevard improvements were also promised in writing. See, <br /> ROA-A, pp. 161, 204-205, 212-213 (See Appendix"1"). County Planner Norman Hayashi <br /> testified that"because the community relied on the representations" they were made conditions <br /> of the permit. CCTr, p. 181, ROA-E at 181. The 1992 Use Permit No. 106 expressly found that <br /> these commitments were part of the basis for the granting of the permit, incorporating them into <br /> conditions: <br /> All essential utilities and services required for the development of a golf <br /> course and related facilities are or will be made available. Conditions of approval <br /> relative to the provision of such services are being proposed. These include off-site <br /> roadway improvements and other community benefit assessments meeting with the <br /> approval with the Department of Planning and affected agencies. In the area of roads, . . . <br /> Ainaloa Boulevard shall be upgraded to County-dedicable standards from the Keaau- <br /> Pahoa road intersection to the proposed entrance of the project. Also required shall be <br /> installation of stop signs and street lights at road intersections that front Ainaloa <br /> Boulevard with an existing power pole. All roadway improvements shall be installed <br /> prior to occupancy. <br /> Use Permit No. 106, Nov. 9, 1992, p. 4 (ADC Opening Brief, Appendix 2-4). <br /> ADC representative, Mr. Fuke, testified that the same 1992 rules and findings still apply: <br /> And the last criteria for considering time extension was whether the reasons, <br /> you know, the relationship to the use permit and the special permit. And they have, <br /> to my knowledge; there has been no changes or amendments to the criteria for issuing <br /> a use permit or special permit. And so I think that the Commission's findings back in <br /> 1992 also apply to today. <br /> CCTr, ROA-E at 131-132. <br /> 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.