2019-03-21 Leeward Exh B (Discussion on condition deadlines)

Home

UNGER: Please wrap it up because I know Mr. Childs— DAVID BLANCETT-MADDOCK: I, I am, I am wrapping it up. UNGER: —has to— DAVID BLANCETT-MADDOCK: But I’ve got to make clear, it’s delegated authority, you have to take that seriously, you have to take the intent that was given to you with and the parameters that was given to you with. And this is just unreasonable for people to sit 42 years on some approval that’s no longer valid. Okay? Thank you. UNGER: Thank you. \[Applause from the audience.\] CHILDS: Aloha, I’m Keola Childs. I reside in Pua‘a just north of Hōlualoa in the Kula Belt. A couple questions, maybe rhetorical, and a couple comments. One is about the time extension filing deadline. If I understand what I read in the rule, it said that, for a permit, the applicant seeking a time extension shall file within either 90 or 60 days prior to the extension deadline. So the question I have is if in any particular case the applicant, the request for a time extension comes in later than that prior to, since this is a rule, is it, uh, gee, a guideline, and, gee, we are sorry you are late but we can handle it, we’ll take a look at it, yeah, we’ll put it on the agenda and we’ll pretend or ignore that, or is a rule a rule, a rule a rule? Is there any flexibility? Does the Commission have the power under its rule to accept without immediate rejection that application – or the Department staff on the Commission’s behalf because they are all part of the Planning Department – is that even, is that even something you can hear? Are you entitled to hear by law an extension request, if the deadline was not filed, met? And I believe there are some current applications and recent ones where they have been filed past the deadline. I’m not going to mention any particular ones. Second one is the requirement to be consistent with the General Plan for time extension. We know by ruling of the State’s Intermediate Court of Appeals that the Kona Community Development Plan is a component of the County General Plan. That’s an ICA decision and it’s incontrovertible because the Supreme Court denial, it denied the appeal. If that’s the case, then a CDP test is critical. There have been, so, in the CDP it contains a condition that time extensions shall be treated in the same manner for compliance with the CDP as a new change of zone request. It provides that one of the requirements is to meet the Kona CDP’s, Community Development Plan, condition for concurrency, and the concurrency is set forth in various zones. We heard an example today of a site, earlier testimony on a site that’s located in certain concurrency zones, for which the CDP says certain roads shall be built prior to any new zoning, at least where area mitigation is required. And this is one of the many gray, gray areas of the CDP as to what the law really is. If concurrency pertains, and if area mitigation is required in particular – area mitigation means things not just like a left-turn lane into your project but just that the whole area needs better circulation – does, can a time extension be legally approved, if that CDP condition is not met? Also my two question areas. 14 EXHIBIT B