|
So this site is zone X, outside of any floodways; flooding is not anticipated. Department of
<br /> Public Works grubbing permit has been closed, and any further land disturbance will conform to
<br /> Chapter 10, Grubbing and Grading. And the drainage pattern of lots will have to be maintained.
<br /> All the residences will be serviced by Department of Health permitted and approved individual
<br /> wastewater systems, so that will largely mitigate any potential water quality impacts.
<br /> As for the archaeological sites, yes, the previous landowner did some unpermitted work. As I
<br /> understand, it was an excavator-mounted mulching attachment, so not a bulldozer as contended
<br /> by some of the testimony. And if you look at the definition of grubbing as opposed to grading,
<br /> grubbing is removal of vegetation that actually disturbs the soil. So I think the previous owner
<br /> was trying to follow that path, but they didn't account for the,ground disturbance that was going
<br /> to be caused by the excavator itself. So, that's water under the bridge. Haun&Associates in
<br /> 2013 prepared an AIS, an inventory survey, for the property, and this was accepted by the State
<br /> Historic Preservation Division in 2016. And the plan at that point in the AIS was for data
<br /> recovery for the two sites, the lava tube and the terrace. So the previous owner, instead of
<br /> pursuing data recovery, and presumably to save;some money, opted to preserve the sites in place,
<br /> and that preservation plan that resulted from that was approved by the SHPD in October of 2016.
<br /> So with all of that background in mind, we propose to adhere to the proposed conditions of the
<br /> rezone and the state land use boundary amendment. There are a few changes that we would like
<br /> to request or suggest. I can go over those now or we can take questions at this point. Thank you
<br /> very much.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Yes, please go over the revisions you would like to request.
<br /> PIPAN: The first is a minor typographical, Condition C reads, "the application"—of the
<br /> rezone—so the second, or, sorry, third to last line of C, it says, "the application shall be
<br /> responsible; I think that should read"the applicants"should be, shall be responsible, so
<br /> "application"into"applicants." That was one.
<br /> Also, Condition N, stemming from a Planning Committee of the County Council meeting on
<br /> Tuesday, Councilman Inaba had requested conditions in the standard language be changed to
<br /> remove the word"unlikely,"just to make it more general, not presuming the finding of
<br /> subsurface or surface historic resources be unlikely, so we would be fine with that changed, too.
<br /> And the last change to the conditions that we would request to be considered would be Condition
<br /> J, and this one is pertaining to additional dwellings on any of the lots. So generally, this is tied to
<br /> water availability and traffic impacts. And in this case, the lot has seven available water units, so
<br /> we would request that one of the lots would be allowed to do an `ohana dwelling according to the
<br /> regular practice and procedure of the Planning Department. So the amended language with that
<br /> one, "with exception of the proposed lot" I think it would be 6 or 5, we can go over that
<br /> specifically,but—"with exception of one proposed lot" and then the"restrictive covenants in the
<br /> deeds" all the rest will be the same.
<br /> VITOUSEK: Okay, thank you for your recommendations. At this point I'd like to open the
<br /> floor to the planning commissioners to ask questions of the staff and of the applicant, with each
<br /> commissioner up to 10 minutes to ask questions and get answers to any questions they have.
<br /> 6
<br /> DRAFT
<br />
|