|
VAN PERNIS: My name is Mark Van Pernis. I live in North Kona, in Makalei. I’m a retired
<br />attorney and I’ve said it extensively, precedents may apply to this case and to the extension issue
<br />generally. This project was first approved over ten years ago. I suggest that you do not change
<br />the zoning or even consider changing the zoning, because that may run afoul of legal precedents,
<br />but change the conditions of the approval. You have the authority to reject the five-year
<br />extension, and I suggest you do so and require public, new public input on this issue of over ten
<br />years of age. With all due respect to Mr. Yee, his predecessors and his successors, they did not
<br />live in Kona nor work in Kona, and I suggest they are not familiar with the issues of
<br />infrastructure that have to be considered in this respect. As I said, you have the authority to turn
<br />things down while preserving the zoning and not run afoul of any legal precedent.
<br />
<br />Things have changed over the last ten years, and will change again over the next five years. So
<br />they need, we need public input, a new application to allow for public input. I suggest that five
<br />years is too much. I suggest three years and a new application, and there should be no more
<br />automatic extensions by the Planning Director whoever that may be at the time. We need public
<br />input. Thank you.
<br />
<br />UNGER: Thank you. Pass the mic, please. Please state your name and place of residence.
<br />
<br />HOXSIE: Aloha, I’m Bob Hoxsie. I live on Hualālai Road in Kona. I do also own a property at
<br />Banyan Tree Condominiums next door. So I’m sure many others will passionately, you know,
<br />oppose this, and I probably share many of their concerns, but I’m going to focus on reasons
<br />similar to Mr. Van Pernis, and so, give some reasons why I think legally and procedurally that
<br />this extension should not be granted.
<br />
<br />And to the notice issue also, I mean, I’ve owned this Banyan Tree since 2002; I don’t recall ever
<br />being notified about any of these applications previously, and I wasn’t notified about the last
<br />extension meeting, I mean, I found out about it and so I showed up, and it got continued, you
<br />know, and I think I was maybe the only testifier at that one. But certainly, notification, I was
<br />really surprised not to have received notification for this originally. I did receive notification last
<br />week, so that was, that was good to see. But, being, you know, literally next door, I would
<br />expect to be notified when applications are, you know, are being proposed.
<br />
<br />So, anyway, I don’t know how this proposal was approved in 2007, I mean, a significant
<br />development on a, on a very small property. I don’t know how it got extended in 2012. Maybe
<br />it was administratively, yeah. And, but the extension expired in 2017. So I don’t see how the
<br />developer has any right to extend an already expired application. They should have applied for
<br />an extension, if they were going to do so, prior to the expiration. I know they, probably they
<br />didn’t own it at that time, but the previous owner should have, should have done that.
<br />
<br />So they do have a legal right to develop something here, but it should be a new application
<br />subject to today’s requirements and with community input. And so, that’s my comments. Thank
<br />you.
<br />
<br />UNGER: Great, thank you.
<br />
<br />2
<br />EXHIBIT A
<br />
<br />
<br />
|