Laserfiche WebLink
shouldn’t go forward. So that’s the solution we came up with, was to make it explicitly stated in the <br />ordinance that these amended conditions only apply to the four parcels and not to Parcel 3. <br /> <br />KERN: Thank you. Any questions, Commissioner Domingo? <br /> <br />DOMINGO: So that question that all the signatures have not signed on to it is not relevant to what <br />we’re contemplating acting upon? <br /> <br />SELF: In my opinion no because you’re not rezoning anything. But all five properties have already <br />been rezoned. The only thing that’s happening is that you are amending some of the conditions of that <br />rezoned ordinance, but none of those affect the property that, the subject property, the Parcel 3. So if it <br />was something you were, if it was an action that was going to be taken that would affect that property, <br />my opinion would be, yes, you need the consent of that owner. But that’s not what’s going on. The <br />conditions are not, the conditions that are being amended are only affecting those four parcels and not <br />Parcel 3. <br /> <br />DOMINGO: Because the original ordinance reflects upon all the properties, in the most extreme case <br />scenario if this is challenged, can the County defend its position by, as to what you elaborated upon? <br /> <br />SELF: Well, any legislative act is presumed by the Courts to be valid until otherwise proven. So even <br />if it were to be challenged in Court, there would be a presumption that it’s a valid act, a valid <br />legislative act. And then the Appellants would have the difficult burden of proof to show that they <br />were somehow arbitrary or capricious in the legislative act that they took, which is a difficult burden. <br />It’s a high burden of proof. <br /> <br />DOMINGO: Thank you. <br /> <br />KERN: Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you. You may have a seat. What I <br />would like to do is have staff give us just maybe a summary presentation, cause there are two different <br />things here that we’re dealing with. One is the amendment to the conditions and, secondly, the time <br />extensions which are all part of the same application but separate. Maybe you could just refresh us on <br />the nature of the requested amendments to the conditions and the time extension. Thank you. <br /> <br />COTTLE: Sure. Let me go ahead and direct your attention to the screen. I’ll just quickly refresh you <br />on the location of the property. The subject properties are outlined in black; and they’re shown in pink <br />which is the CN, Neighborhood Commercial, zoning. You have Kahaopea Street running east and <br />west at the top of the property. And then you have the highway running north and south along the <br />western boundary of the property. This is the General Plan designation, which is Low Density Urban <br />for the property. An aerial photo, the properties are in this area here. <br /> <br />And then the applicant’s requests: So the first request is for a time extension, a 5-year time extension <br />to secure final subdivision approval. The second request is to delay the installation of drainage <br />improvements to final plan approval or certificate of occupancy. Currently the drainage improvements <br />are required before subdivision approval. And then the third request is to delay the installation of <br />improvements to the property’s Kahaopea Street frontage, that would be curb, gutter and sidewalk <br />4 <br /> EXHIBIT E <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />