COM 0438.027 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Ms. Barbara Scott Page 2 Apri15, 2004 previously approved boundary amendments and rezonings for Lots 1 and 4. You are, in essence, saying that the present action concerning Lot 6 should be considered as part of the prior actions involving Lot 1 and/or Lot 4, and hence that this is a boundary amendment that exceeds the 15-acre county limit. (Lot 6 is just under 15 acres in size.) Although you have presented a great deal of detailed and interesting information, for the purposes of the present analysis it is sufficient to note that the owners and applicants for the boundary amendment of Lot 4 were Walter and Susan Welton. I have no information that shows that they are mere nominal owners for other parties or are involved in the ownership of Lot 1, Lot 6, or any other lot. The subdivision that you refer to where the owners of Lot 4 and Lot 5 adjusted their boundaries is the kind of thing that can occur between independent but cooperating landowners. Thus, we cannot conclude that the pending boundary amendment for Lot 6 should be considered in conjunction with the amendment for Lot 4. It appears they involve separate owners; the lots are not contiguous; and the two areas are not tied together by immediate access roads. For the same reasons, we cannot conclude that the boundary amendment for Lots 1 and 4 should have been considered as one. You have uncovered evidence that Lots 1 and 6 may share common owners. Lot 1 is about 2800' from Lot 6 and separated from it by Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5. The two boundary amendments, Lot 1 and 6, cannot be considered to be a segmentation, regardless of ownership, because of the considerable physical separation, and the fact that the actual subdivision and development of Lots 1 and 6 could proceed independently. The information that Daniel Bolton applied for the archaeological mitigation plan for all six lots, has business ties with the owners of some of the lots, and may be a part owner of some of the lots (although there is no information indicating his ownership of Lot 4, as discussed above) does not change the conclusion that the Lot 4 boundary amendment can properly be looked at as a separate action from the pending Lot 6 amendment. If two owners use the same contractor or agent it should not change whether they can get a boundary amendment at the county level rather than the state level. You expressed some concern that a number of agencies did not comment on the Lot 1 and Lot 4 boundary amendments, and make a statement that because these do not go to the LUC, it "results in some agencies deferring to the County of Hawaii approval process authority for issues relating to the property development." [don't think it is correct that these agencies will respond if the application goes to the LUC, but not to the county. We do try to solicit comments from all of these agencies.