REP PC 070 05/01/2006 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Communication 723 Bill 237 Page 4 Director Yuen stated that a family subdivision law would not override the zoning and that he would not support a family subdivision law that did override the zoning. What Director Yuen has in mind would not help with Mr. Raymond's application. Instead, the idea behind the Maui family subdivision law is that if you have the zoning to subdivide but can't afford to put in improvements necessary for the subdivision a person could still subdivide and allow family members to have title to their own pazcel, but defer the requirement for improvements. In Maui improvements are deferred until any building permit is issued or until any sale of the property occurs. This has been useful for estate planning situations but does not affect or apply to Mr. Raymond's situation. If Mr. Raymond changed the zoning and this county had a family subdivision type ordinance, Mr. Raymond could use the ordinance to allow him to transfer title without making full subdivision improvements. The change of zone ordinance has to come first. In this case Mr. Raymond plans to do a subdivision and part of their family business plan is to sell some of the subdivided lots to pay for subdivision costs. In order for Mr. Raymond to do that he'll have to proceed with a regular subdivision application and would not want to hold out for a family subdivision ordinance because an ordinance such as that would have its own complications. Committee Vice Chair Pete Hoffmann stated it seems clear some caveat is needed that permits families to do what Mr. Raymond is trying to accomplish so we don't' eliminate family ownership. Mr. Hoffmann said he didn't see any reason for an affordable housing requirement under this case since we do know that it's going to be retained in family ownership. Director Yuen stated the alternative Ms. Isbell spoke of regarding deferring payment of in lieu fees, mechanically you'd have to enter a covenant against the property that would defer further market sales by the owner. Otherwise, you are opening up a situation where a developer truly in it for the business can make an immediate transfer of a lot to a family member and then have that lot sold free and clear of affordable housing fees the next day. That's the dilemma. Director Yuen suggested that if the will of the council is to let the first transfer go but to hold and defer payment until a mazket transfer takes place outside of a family member, he could draft a policy like that. Committee Vice Chair Hoffinann confirmed that the idea was to pass this application as it stands without amendment and Director Yuen concurred as he believed this would be a policy that should actually be adopted by the housing agency. What is uncleaz is what happens if you satisfy the affordable housing requirement "in lieu" on a transfer that's made for much less than market value with no cost differential. This council could pass this measure and deal with the "in lieu" question at the housing agency level as long as a policy is in place by the time Mr. Raymond's subdivision comes before the county for these 8 lots. Council Member Bob Jacobson spoke of the possibility of imposing limitations on retaining the lots within the family and wondered if there was a way fees could be applied if the lots were sold within a certain amount of years. Director Yuen stated what could be adopted is a policy at the Housing Agency to handle the affordable housing requirements when it involves a family transfer situation and that there were three choices of how this could be done. The first would be not to PC REPORT NO. 70