Laserfiche WebLink
Communication 723 <br /> Bill 237 <br /> Page 3 <br /> and that in a perfect world we may be able to leave Hawaii in a much more beautiful state than it <br /> is now, however, growth was inevitable and the direction he's taking with this application <br /> request falls within guidelines of the Hawaii County General Plan. Mr. Raymond concluded <br /> that the desire of most residents in the azea and direction most residents would like it to go is to <br /> maintain a rural atmosphere and natural beauty but still allow for quality development. <br /> In answer to Council Member Jacobson's question as to how long his family would hold on to <br /> these 81ots, Mr. Raymond stated that all of his brothers and sisters do plan on moving back to <br /> Hawaii eventually and intend to build vacation homes for their family and children. Mr. <br /> Jacobson stated he is hesitant to support this (death by a thousand cuts argument), and felt <br /> approval of this application is going to lead to a number of rezonings in the area and thus could <br /> not support the measure at this time. <br /> Director Yuen advised an issue presented to this council with this application is how to handle <br /> affordable housing requirements in a situation where the applicant makes anon-market transfer <br /> of property and how to apply "in-lieu". Director Yuen knew this would be a potential wrinkle <br /> when the Chapter 11 Affordable Housing Bill was created that provides for in lieu fees based on <br /> "affordable" and "market" price, and 25% of the difference is paid "in lieu." Mr. Yuen said that <br /> works fine for a market sale, but the question is how would it be treated if transfer is to a family <br /> member and not at fair market value. <br /> Mr. Yuen stated that in Mr. Raymond's situation not assessing at fair market value is favored <br /> because it's a bonafide transfer to family members. However, keep in mind that developers have <br /> family members too and the possibility exists that a developer developing a subdivision on profit <br /> basis can then transfer a number of the subdivided lots to family members, avoid affordable <br /> housing requirements and then have family members sell the lots. This is a policy question <br /> raised by this particular application and is something that the depaztment has not faced before. <br /> Council Member Holschuh stated the concept of subdividing a piece of property with intent to <br /> <br /> transfer to children requiring a condition, restriction or rule that the property has to stay in that <br /> ownership for 20 years. Director Yuen explained a family subdivision law would make it easier <br /> <br /> to subdivide among family members and defer improvements. However, other laws state that <br /> <br /> you cannot limit the sale after the property has been divided but that a law could contain a <br /> <br /> restriction that it be divided among family members and held by the family for a particulaz <br /> <br /> number of yeazs. However, Mr. Yuen stated what's being discussed here would not have enabled <br /> <br /> Mr. Raymond to subdivide because he wouldn't have the zoning. <br /> <br /> Council Vice Chair Virginia Isbell stated since the scenario discussed by Director Yuen is not in <br /> <br /> effect, could this matter be deferred until a family subdivision law or an ordinance is created. <br /> <br /> Ms. Isbell stated if the council doesn't do it right at the outset, it will wish it had down the line <br /> <br /> because there would be others like Mr. Raymond wanting to do the same thing. Mr. Raymond <br /> <br /> stated the suggestion sounds fair and he did not mind deferring the matter if that's what the <br /> <br /> council preferred to do in this situation. <br /> PC REPORT NO. 70 <br /> <br />