COM 1078.000 2018-2020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Aaron S.Y. Chung, Council Chair and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii Page 7 of the properties immediately surrounding the subject property, including TMK: 7-5- 017:001, TMK: 7-5-017:023, TMK: 7-5-017:026 and TMK: 7-5-017:039, which totals 46.87 acres. Adding the land area of the subject parcel would create a total of 61.74 acres between parcels owned by these two connected entities. As further discussed below, the Director feels that given the shared ownership interest of the subject and surrounding parcels, there is sufficient land area to accommodate the minimum land area required for Project District zoning. Another negative factor for this unfavorable recommendation is the past segmentation of this are in securing planning entitlements. Subdivision No. 7814 was approved in 2004, to create a five (5) -lot subdivision, in which four (4) of the lots resulted in an area just under 15 acres in size. Please note, the State Land Use Commission rather than County Council must approve State Land Use Boundary Amendments for properties 15 acres or more in size. In 2005, both Pua`a Development, LLC and Suffolk Investment, LLC applied for and received approval for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from an Agricultural to an Urban designation for their respective properties. At the time of processing, these applications did not go to the Land Use Commission as they were represented by the applicants as separate entities and were under 15 acres in size. The Land Use Commission commented that while they had no specific objections to the proposed project, they had strong objections to the manner in which they were being processed under HRS §205-3.1 (Amendments to district boundaries). They believed that both the Village Center (Pua`a) and the rental housing project (Suffolk) were part of the same Pualani Makai master planned community and the permitting was deliberately incrementalized to evade the jurisdiction of the Land Use Commission. Although the original 2005 boundary amendments were approved in an incrementalized manner, in order to implement the TOD concept and Project District Zoning recommended by the CDP, the applicant will be required to seek a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from an Agricultural to an Urban district for the surrounding properties that under joint ownership from the State Land Use Commission. The proposed time extension and amendments do not comply with General Plan Policy 14.5.3 (e) of the Land Use — Multiple -Family section, which states, "To assure the use of multiple residential zoned areas and to curb speculation and resale of undeveloped lots only, the County may impose incremental and conditional zoning, which shall be based on performance requirements. " In the case of the subject, RM -zoned parcel, the applicant has gone well beyond the time performance requirements of the existing ordinance, which required completion of the development within five (5) years (by August 5, 2010). The applicant did not apply