|
<br />Also, in relation to that is that over the years, they’ve been several appeals on PUD approvals,
<br />and you know, these have been administrative, that’s why it doesn’t come to the Commission.
<br />It’s just done by the Department. But, on those appeals, and more recently, those appeals were
<br />based on non-compliance with the CDP’s because they were ordinances. So, this bill is an
<br />attempt to try and at least put that all in the, you know, the same compartment. What was your
<br />second question again, Don?
<br />
<br />IKEDA: Well, my concern was that if no decision was made, it was considered approved, and I
<br />have problem with that.
<br />
<br />KANUHA: Throughout our Codes, we have differing languages, you know, some in, in some
<br />areas if no action is taken within the certain period of time, then the application is deemed to be
<br />denied. In other areas, if no action is taken within a certain period of time, then the—the
<br />application is deemed to be approved.
<br />
<br />However, the legislature passed an amendment to Chapter 91 in 2007, I believe, which basically
<br />requires that if any administrative permit is not approved within a certain time period, then it’s to
<br />be deemed approved, so we’ve got really no choice in that. The difficulty we have is that our
<br />Codes haven’t, we haven’t been able to revise our Codes to keep up with changes in the State
<br />statute.
<br />
<br />I think we all have reservations about that, but you know, that’s, that’s the way the statute reads
<br />at the current time.
<br />
<br />The other thing that I wanted to add--again, this is from a historical perspective--is that when the
<br />Zoning Code was first adopted and being implemented, the PUD, the Planning Unit
<br />Development component, was always in the Zoning Code. But, at that time, based on the
<br />County Charter, the Planning Commission made—heard and made decisions on variances,
<br />variances from the Zoning Code. And because the PUD is most considered a form of a variance,
<br />back in the day, the Planning Commission at that point in time used to be the ones that issued
<br />PUD’s. There was a charter amendment—I forget when it was, probably in 1990 or so—which
<br />basically took variances away from the Planning Commission and gave it to the Planning
<br />Department. So, that’s why PUD’s went over to the Planning Department as well.
<br />
<br />But, again, fast forwarding to where we are now, it’s becoming, it’s becoming a vehicle that’s
<br />becoming contentious because of, you know again in my opinion, a real lack of understanding of
<br />what it is. You know, people think that, that landowners and developers are using the PUD as a
<br />rezoning process when actually it’s not. The public believes even though the statutes are pretty
<br />clear, that there’s no density increase through a PUD, but they still think there is, you know,
<br />there’s some kind of density increase. And you know, and—and, because of those situations, the
<br />Council had actually tried to initiate several bills to bring this process all the way back to the
<br />Council instead. You know, they wanted some, some mechanism where the public had an
<br />opportunity to testify and comment such as they did this morning. Whereas, the process now is
<br />just written notification, publication, and so many times, you know, they’re not aware of it until
<br />the action is, you know, is, is either passed and then those have tended to go to the Board of
<br />5
<br />EXHIBIT C
<br />
<br />
<br />
|