COM 0314.001 2020-2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

evidently is in the deed as well and carries forward to the current owner. So if I can get a little clarity about that and what the status is. KAY: Probably appropriate for the applicants to respond to that. CARR.SMITH: Thank you. PIPAN: Me, too, thank you for the question. We submitted by letter our plans for the subdivision to the Ikedas, neighbors to the west; we received nothing in response. The agreed settlement adjustment of the lot lines is shown on the proposed subdivision map, and it's accounted for in the metes and bounds for both the rezone and the state land use boundary amendment. So we are assuming that they are going to be satisfied by those inclusions. Also, they were on call when I had the Zoom meeting with Ms. Funakoshi and several other community members, and they didn't provide any comments or concerns. CARR SMITH: Okay, but they are aware of what's going on. PIPAN: Yes, ma'am. CARR SMITH: Okay, thank you. I think I'm good, Mike,thank you. VITOUSEK: Okay, thank you. Any other commissioners, questions for staff or applicant? (No audible response) Jeff, Deputy Director Darrow. DARROW: Thank you, Chair. I'll just touch upon some of the issues that came up through the discussion. Number one, as far as items number I and 2 on Condition C "applicant,"that was a typo, so it should be"applicant" in Condition C. Condition N "unlikely,"that was something staff was going to bring up as well;`moving forward Council has asked that we remove the word "unlikely"in that condition so that it would say, "in the event." The last request from the applicants' representative, we hada similar change of zone in Waimea, this was some time ago, and it was a similar request, although it was Agricultural zoning,but it applies in this matter being that it has to do with a second dwelling. What happened was the applicant was requesting that the Planning Commission remove the condition of the restrictive covenants for the second dwelling. And so the commission placed in a condition that took out the restrictive covenants but said that the applicant—just pull it up here, that the, that, I'll just read it, in this case back then it was additional farm dwellings but we'll use `ohana dwellings in this case `ohana dwellings, "if approved by the Planning Department, shall be serviced by individual water meters as approved by the Department of Water Supply." In this particular case, there is only one additional water meter available, so it would only apply to one of the lots. There is an allowance to be able to have an `ohana dwelling, if your area has sufficient rainfall; unfortunately, this particular area does not meet that requirement, and so this condition, if changed in the ordinance, would just apply to that additional unit that it's available. So that's something for consideration by the commission. I did,just one I touch upon the matters that were brought up again by the testifiers, specifically, this issue of whether or not to allow the applicant the ability to preserve or to do data recovery. And so, you know, there is a lot— II DRAFT