Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0485.015 2012-2014 0 COUNTY CLERK COUNTY OF HAWAII RECEIVED Date 1 i* �, WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF MARK VAN PERNIS Re Proposed Amendments to Bill No. 144;An Ordinance Amending Section 25-8-3 (North Kona Zone Map),Article 8,Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawai'i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition,as Amended) By Changing the District Classification From Agricultural —Five Acres (A-5a) to Single-Family Residential — 15,000 Square Feet (RD-15) at Kahuluu 2nd, North Kona,Hawai'i Covered by Tax Map Key: 7-5-017:043 There is no question where the boundaries of the KCDP and LPUG maps are and that this Barrett property is not wholly included in an urban area and not entitled to the excessive density it wants. There is no question under the law generally or as applicable to the facts of this case that the opinion of a County employee such as the former Planning Director does not create any rights or any estoppel in favor of any applicant landowner who it trying to acquire new and additional rights, particularly when the opinion is wrong, wrong factually and wrong legally. If that was so, no Planning Commission or County Counsel would be needed — County employees issuing opinions would be all that's needed. I remind you that the former County Planning Director has been proven wrong in Court as to her opinion of the CDP. Only the action of the County Council with signature by the Mayor can create vested rights and estoppel. That hasn't happened for Mr. Barrett. Threats of litigation, hopeless litigation in this case, are attempts at intimidation that should be ignored. I'm hoping the Council finally sees the value and integrity of those Community plans, finally sees the error of the former Planning Director, finally sees the merit of the universal and extensive opposition to this proposal and its density, and sees that the duties of the Planning Department, Leeward Planning Commission, and County Council is not to enable developers to make greater and greater profits at public expense and in violation of valid community planning. Regarding Mr. Lim's February 11th letter: 1. Foremost, it is an admission that Mr. Barrett intends to avoid providing any of the required offsite improvements. His intention is to pay a bonding company a premium to post a bound for his LLC in a set amount in present day dollars for such improvements, develop his subdivision, sell the lots and take home the profits, then terminate his LLC, leaving the County to argue with the bonding company to try to get some of the past days' dollars for future days' expenses, with the County to pay the difference. This is what many predicted of the Hokulia '1 c( rS Comm. No, Ref.To: ���� Ref. Date I t U1$ entity when they developed the plan of posting a bond in 1998 dollars for a bypass road it never intended to build, sell as many lots as it could, take the money home, give the project to their creditors, and leave the County fifteen years later and $10,000,000 short or a much needed by pass road that hasn't even been started. 2. Ms. Ford's proposed amendments, if adopted, show the County won't be fooled and taken advantage of again.They insure the development's offsite improvements will be done. Her provisions for escalating amounts over time, costs and fees, and personal guarantees are nothing new and are the same as private construction bonds require. They are conventional terms. To not accept this is an admission that the developer intends not to build the offsite improvements, and to substitute a much cheaper bond and leave it to the County and its taxpayers.This is a statement that the County should get less than the private sector. This and other developments want to follow the Hokulia model. The County needs to see through this sham, and get the infrastructure the developer's project creates a need for concurrently from the developer, not fifteen years later at public expense. A developer's higher profit should not come at public expense. If Mr. Barrett wants to avoid an adjustable bond, set the bond at twice the original amount, and request completion by a set date, such as before the sale of some of the anticipated lots. Remember, every testifer was against this development and its density. There is no need for it or its density. There are thousands of already approved units in West Hawaii and more are coming before the Council regularly. Mr. Lim's threats of litigation or a slow down in the economy if his clients don't get their way are meant to intimidate you and the Planning Department, and are empty threats. Mr. Lim may be doing his job of trying to increase his client's bottom line, even if at the expense to the community. But you should not be discouraged from doing your job of representing and protecting the public.