2012-02-02 Windward Transcript Graphic

Home

KERN: Okay, can I get the applicant or their representative to please come forward. Good morning. I’ll get you all to raise your right hands, whoever is going to speak today. Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. KERN: Very good. For a matter of process, I think it would be important to look at the roadway lot, or the lot that is in question first, maybe speak to that first and see if there’s a, how that could be resolved; and then we’ll move on to the rest of it. If you wouldn’t mind? YEH: Sure thing. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, good morning. KERN: And give me your name and address. YEH: And then my name is Thomas Yeh, I’m the legal representative for the applicant. You know as the staff noted, you know, this is somewhat of a unique situation. What had happened is the original applicant, of course, had owned all these properties, including that small road lot which is really, if you take a look at it from a functional standpoint it’s a total of, I think, 4500 square feet, 30 feet in width. It doesn’t really have any real practical use to it. And then what happened, I guess, is when Tri- Electric owned the property it then had a mortgage or something on the property, and then Graphic Images thereafter acquired the four larger lots. So we take a look at it from the standpoint of an owner’s perspective. If I was to buy one of those lots, which could have been done because there were already four separate lots, and you buy those entitlements with it, and you also then seek to obtain a time extension and still be willing to comply with all the various conditions of the zoning ordinance, I think as a landowner I would have the expectation that I would be able to do that if an absent, the joining of all the other lot owners. Now in this particular instance we have the owner of all the four real developable properties seeking the extension of time and being willing to comply with whatever conditions the County imposes that are appropriate. So from a, you know, just looking at it from a standard due process kind of standpoint, you know, it’s pretty clear to me that as a landowner having the right under the Zoning Code as a property owner to apply for the rezoning extensions, time extensions, that the Code does give you a right to do that. It doesn’t prevent you from getting that zoning extension, whatever applicable conditions apply to those properties that are appropriate to that development. There’s nothing that prevents you from doing that, whether we’re in the context of a rezoning, or time extension, or even a new zoning application for that matter. And that’s how we’re looking at it at this point, is because the road lot that we’re talking about is not a necessary component of this development, it’s not going to be affected by it. There has been no objection. The previous consent was given by the prior trustee. Some of the beneficiaries to that trust do have notice of this proposed extension and have not issued any objection. And so, you know, from a legal standpoint, yes, we certainly believe that we’re entitled to move forward with this extension request. Whether it’s in the context of this extension request, a new zoning application, they are separate parcels, not part of the same property. So that’s kind of the analysis that 6 EXHIBIT A