REP PC 044 11/08/2005 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Communication 230 13111 89 Page 3 3. The Kelly v. Oceanside 1250 Partners decision (Hokulia decision) called into question the legitimacy of establishing residential subdivisions on properties within the State Land Use Agricultural district. Homes built on the proposed one-acre lots cannot be anticipated to serve as "farm dwellings" accessory to legitimate agricultural use of the lots. Therefore, the Planning Director recommended that the subject property should be reclassified to the Rural or Urban State Land Use district prior to granting final subdivision approval for any lots in the project. Communication No. 230 states the following concern regarding the importance of obtaining a district amendment prior to final subdivision approval, '7f the develop~nen~ goes ahead, it roufd be ~~hallenged in court. If this happens after- final suhdivision approval. i( could affect the rights of mane individual lot owners (as happened ire HokulraJ. " 4. The Planning Director concurred that the granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons fiir granting the change of zone. The Planning Director felt that the proposed residential development is "still a more feasible alternative" than agriculture on the "non-productive lands" under consideration. 5. The Director has recommended that existing conditions in the ordinance be revised to retlect the current standard language for conditions of approval, and that a fair share contribution condition be added. Bill No. R9 contains twelve conditions that outline specific requirements for the proposed project. Prior to the November R'~' Planning Committee meeting, Sidney Fuke, representative for the applicant, distributed a new Draft 2 of Bill No. 89. Draft 2 omits the amendment to Condition 1, which was included in Communication No. 230.7, and includes the following proposed amendment to Condition H of Bill Nu. 89: "fl. Betbre final subdivision approval, applicant must obtain reclassitication of the RA-la zoned area from the State Land Use Commission to the Rural or Urban district. Prior to the submittal of plans for a grading or anv associated permit for a golf course to the County for review and approval, the applicant shall consult with the Waikoloa Village Association and the County Council relative to the timing and proprietyof such a use. This condition, except for the consultation reuuirement for an~golf course, may be waived by the Planning Director, after consultation with Corporation Counsel, if an appellate judicial decision, or substantive change to Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes, clearly establishes the legality of this project in the Agricultural State Land Use district, including the residential uses of the lots;' Mr. John '1'arsin, General Manager of the Waikoloa Village Association testitied in person at the November H meeting, in oppositiun to Bill No. 89. Mr. Tarsin stated that there is no need for an additional golf course in the Waikoloa Village area at this time. He felt that a second golf course would have adverse tinancial effects on the Waikoloa Village Association. He also expressed that the new landowner has not contacted the Waikoloa Village Association regarding the proposed fair share contributions. He felt that the landowner should he working with the Village Association with regard to these conditions. PC RI:POR'1' NO. 44