COM 0438.033 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Christopher Yuen Page 3 April 30, 2001 The applications list Walter and Susan Welton as the fee owners of Lot 1 and lists CL&D One. LLC (signed be Dan Bolton) as the fee owner of Lot 5. The (SLU 02-007/REZ 02-017) applications date was August 8. 2002. The Gomes Famiy Ltd PTP and CLbLD One. LLC sold Lot 1 [o the Weltons on Mav 7. 2002; the same date [hat [he Gomes Family Ltd PTP sold Lot 5 to Robert D. Triantos. I[ does not fallow that CL&D One. LLC (Dan Bolton) can enter a boundan' adjustment agreement imoh'ing Lo[ ~ when the Lot ~ property did not belong to him on August 8, 2002. unless the new owner is working as his Agent for that specific property. The applications ($LU 02-007/REZ U2-017) for TMK 7-5-1U:U52 were approved on February 20. 2003. The most recent activity on Lots 1 & 5. dated July 8, 2003, is the Proposed Consolidation of Lots 1 & which includes Lot 1 (fMK 7-5-10:052) and Lot 5 (TMK 7-5-10:065), and the Resubdivision into Lats I to 16. Inclusive. Lots 5-4 & 5-B. and Lots R-1 & R-2 (Road Lots), TMK: 7-5-10:052 & 065 (SUB 2003-0067). The subdivider listed on the application is CL&D Nine. LLC (Dan Bolton), et al. The Iul} 8. 2003 Planning Department letter acknowledges the receipt of the preliminary plat map and filing fee for the referenced application for 20 lots. which adds three lots to the original SLU/REZ submitted b7 the Weltons and CLAD One, LLC under the separate TMK 7-5-10952 application (SLU 02-007/REZ OZ-017). The additional S.U11 acres. from Lot 5. will produce a combined/consolidated Lot 1 and Lot 5 area of 15.031 acres, which would require a LUC approval if the original application represented this acreage. According to information from the County of Hawaii Real Propem Tax abstract section and Website. Lot 5 has already acquired a zone change from A-Sa to RS-2U. [wonder how that happened without State Land Use Boundary Amendment or Change of Zone applications and County approvals. The original PC&R application (SUB 2000-0066). created the six lots that are currently in the section. The PC&R application (SUB 2003-0067) to incorporate all of Lot 5 into the already approved application (SLU 02-007/REZ 02-017) is indicative of segmentation. The only logical reason [o approach development approvals in this manner is to avoid the strict criteria required by the LUC process. The Lot 6 Nani Kona Aina. LLC (Dan Bolton) propem is adjacent to the Lot 1 & 5 PC&R and completes the current segmentation picture -even without considering the implications presented in the new application for Lot 3 (SLU 01-006/REZ 01-009). Please note the following segmentation references: OFF c- ~ F E:~r: x.::.~a,T:,L Qr.,L, ~r C ~t:TSCL ST~-F ~:F FL=~.vait April 2004 Avoid Project Segmentation The proposed action must be described in ns zntirety and camtot be brakzn up into component pans w hich, if each is taken sepazately. may pace mmintal impact on the environment. Szgmznting a project in this incremental wa} [o avoid the preparation of an environmental impact statement is against the lacy. If a project includes a later phase that cannot be fiilh described in the current EA becituse it is only likely [o be implzmented in the distant furore. the EA shotild disclose as much detail as possible about the furore phasz. Should the future phase of such a project e~entualh bz proposed. a new environmental reriew document will bz required at that tune. The En~v(ironmental Notice A SESn-lV 1OVrttI,Y BLLLETN OF TF3E OFFICE OF EvvmOtv„>EVraL Ql ALrrY CONIACL SErrE~mEx 23. 1999 Supreme Court Says No to Segmentation, Again!! The Hawaii Supreme Court has once again ruled that segmentation is illeeal. In Citizens for the Protection of the North Kohala Coastline vs. County of Hawaii the justices reiterated their previous statements in Kahana Sunset Owners Association vs. Cotmty of Maui concerning segmentation. In both cases the court opined that isolating a component of a development for environmental assessment wotild be segmentation of the project. At issue was whether a ]azger project (independenfly no[ a HRS 313 trigger) [ha[ requires an easement over a counh or state road (a HRS 313 trigger) should prepare an environmental assessment. The two rulings above clearly indicate that all components of a project need to be evaluated in its entirety to determine whether HRS 313 is applicable to the