HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0818.003 2022-2024 •
P/Coufci
Bill 01
(DM14.318
From: Elizabeth Dunn - > =c;,
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 8:58 AM :
To: Council Testimony C��
Subject: County Council Action on Bill 151 a c
•
Aloha County Council: -c=
My email discusses Bill 151, a request to delete five(5) Conditions of Approval for PL-REZ-2023-000051.
ask that you deny this request, or continue this matter for Council consideration until the Leeward and
Windward Planning Commissions provide comments to the Council about proposed Bill 127 and
potentially Bill 138.A third option is to amend the request, and shorten the deadlines of the Conditions of
Approval. This tells the applicant/property owner that there is a time limit to previous approvals; if the
timelines cannot be met, then the request expires.
This .87 acre parcel is a remnant piece of land that was intended for right-of-way purposes.The Planning
Department's staff report includes a September 2023 letter by the applicant's planning representative.
The representative states that there has been development interest in the parcel,though nothing has
materialized. In this same paragraph,the representative states that the property
owner/applicant believes it is only a "matter of time before it is developed".
This parcel and development potential dates back to 1967; it has been rezoned three times,first as MG-
1 a (General Industrial), Open (0) and finally CV-10 (Village Commercial) zoning designations, in 1967,
1971 and 1991, respectively. Other Council or Administrative actions by previous Planning Directors
have allowed this project to remain "active" since 2010.
The request by this applicant reads like a "blank check" and a permanent approval for a potential project
where there is little to no market interest. If a developer thought money could be made by developing and
leasing the site, this would have happened by now. If development hasn't occurred since 1991,with the
rezoning to CV-10, how is more time going to make this site attractive to developers? Isn't this a perfect
example of what proposed legislation, Bill 127 and Bill 138, are intended to do? If so,then this request to
eliminate the Conditions of Approval for PL-REZ-2023-000051 should be denied.
I suspect the real issue is that there is a level of market saturation for retail shops, or the correct mix of
retail shops, and services, and there's little interest in developing a parcel of.87 acres. Given the
financial depth of the applicant, perhaps land assembly or partnership with a master developer should
be pursued. I was at the KTA on Palani on Saturday and noticed several small retail spaces for lease. If
small businesses can't be successful with a grocery store anchor, how realistic is it that a .87 acre parcel
to the north of Palani will attract development interest?
Please deny this request, and let the applicant/property owner return to the Planning Department with a
real development proposal. Extending the current proposal for a parcel that was established 57 years
ago seems to demonstrate that this site isn't shovel ready.
Comm. o D
Thank you for your consideration. Ref. To:
Ref. Date
r 5
1
Elizabeth Dunn
2