2012-02-02 Windward Transcript Graphic

Home

nothing is going to happen. Now the owners of that property, whoever it is, have not come in and sought a time extension for that parcel. So it seems pretty clear to me that, you know, from both the functional, practical, as well as a legal standpoint, we are entitled to seek this extension of time, exclusive of Parcel 3. We didn’t come in seeking an extension for that particular parcel, but only as to the zoning entitlements that apply to the four parcels. So I do respectfully disagree currently with the Planning Director, but I understand that there is some hesitancy there. LEITHEAD TODD: Mr. Yeh -. YEH: Yes? LEITHEAD TODD: What I’m going to be asking Corporation Counsel is whether in an amendment to an existing ordinance the amendment can be made to just include the four parcels and to delete the disputed parcel where there is no property owner -. YEH: Understood. LEITHEAD TODD: Or whether it so fundamentally changes the existing ordinance that that can’t be done. So it’s not just a question of whether you can do a time extension for the five parcels with just the owners of four parcels or whether you can amend the original ordinance to just proceed with the four parcels and delete that fifth parcel from the original ordinance. And so it’s more than just, you know, that one issue. It’s you filed an application for four parcels, can the original ordinance be amended to just refer to those four parcels, you know, and that no time extension is granted to that fifth parcel? And it, kind of is it legal limbo because it does have that zoning but it doesn’t have a time extension to comply? And then the time extension conditions would only apply to the four parcels? So that’s the question we’re going to ask Corporation Counsel. Cause we’ve never, this is new territory. And it seems a little odd to me in the sense that normally you would want to preserve the interest of the Trust but you have someone who is probably a beneficiary of the Trust who is not interested in that and has not sought to seek that a trustee be appointed. So it’s a very strange situation but potentially repeatable. So we should probably weigh in on what do you do when you have an ordinance that originally, let’s say, had 300 acres and now through the passage of time the current property owner, the applicant has 250 acres out of the 300 and the other 50 is in legal limbo, what do you do? Can you proceed? Can you kind of bifurcate those four of it? So that’s what I’m going to be asking Corp. Counsel to take a look at. YEH: Yeah. And, you know, from a functional standpoint this is, in fact, like a request for an amendment to the Zoning Code that only applies to those four parcels, with the same kinds of conditions that would typically apply. So that’s how we would look at it. And, certainly, you know, from a timing perspective because, you know, there is a TIAR in place and those kinds of issues, we certainly want to try to get this issue resolved sooner rather than later. So if that’s going to be the wishes of the Commission -. Thank you. KERN: Are you agreeable to deferring? YEH: Well, I’m going to leave that to the Commission. I, you know, we still want to move on as stated. So, thanks. 14 EXHIBIT A