HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0694.006 2022-2024,P po to
511 191
C Ox 1 H ( Y C1Iopt
%
C [) `t' MI OF
f1 i't VVi
July 9, 2024 - Comments on ProposQ'!Bj1Vh27P fi4 «: 02
Aloha Members of the Policy Committee on Land Use, and Development:
Council correspondence 694.5 provides the background from the conversations with the two
Planning Commissions regarding proposed Bill 127. The five comments are:
1. Prepare an Informed Development Timing Matrix.
2. Add provisions to allow exemptions from timing condition requirements in certain
situations.
3. Strengthen/clarify standard performance conditions.
4. Add tolling language to timed conditions.
5. Add a "sunset" condition to revert land to the previous zoning designation when a timed
condition expires.
I'd ask the Committee to direct the Planning Department to prepare written examples of items
1-4 before such language is forwarded on to the full Council. Is the new language for items 1-4
to be codified as part of Bill 127 or will these be conditions of approval that are added to
projects as needed and as part of a "best practices" binder for Planning staff? If it's the later, it
would be helpful to see this language as part of a new folder and webpage as part of the
Planning Department's homepage so the public can view this new information. I'm particularly
interested in what the language for #2 would be, as exemptions are often a very slippery slope.
As to item #5, 1 remind the Committee that language exists in Section 25-2-44(e) of the Zoning
Code which gives the Planning Director the discretion to take action to revert the zoning of a
property when conditions of approval are not implemented. As part of Bill 127, the Committee
may wish to formally amend the language of Section 25-2-44(e) below from "may" initiate to
"shall" initiate. .
If the applicant fails to fulfill any conditions of the zone change within the specified
time limitations, the director or council may initiate the process for enactment of an
ordinance reverting the affected property back to its original zoning designation or
a more appropriate zoning designation in accordance with section 25-2-43.
Within the past two years, a handful of zoning reversions have been brought before the two
Commissions and Council. These have all been small projects, and all have been at the request
of the property owner. Why haven't larger, long overdue projects that have been on the books
as "paper projects" not been brought before the Commissions and Council for reversion? Are
the annual progress reports not submitted by the developer, as required with the inclusion of a
condition of approval? Is there follow up from staff about these progress reports? I again ask
for an audit of the Planning Department about its administrative and, more importantly, cultural
and organizational shortcomings.
With the passage of several Bills in the past several years, the County Council has been trying
to reign in the stale development projects within the Planning Department, provide more clarity
about the roles of this Department's Management staff, and telegraph clearer deadlines and
consequences to developers. If the Committee and Council is going to look at reversion issues
holistically, the larger languishing projects should know that they, too, have only so much time
to launch a project.
Mahalo for your time.
Elizabeth Dunn