Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> r <br /> Margaret Wille <br /> 65-1316Lihipali Road r:{I Gtr O <br /> Kamuela, Hawaii 96743 ` <br /> Phone: 808-887-1419 Fax: 808-887-1489 <br /> Email: willem001@hawaii.rr.com 4,C . <br /> June 3, 2006 <br /> Mayor Harry Kim <br /> County of Hawaii <br /> 25 Aupuni Street <br /> Hilo Hawaii 96720 <br /> <br /> Re: Parker Ranch Town Connector Road/Pending <br /> Luala'i III Subdivision Application <br /> Dear Mayor Kim: <br /> <br /> Enclosed is a copy of my letter to the Trustees of Parker Ranch Foundation Trust <br /> concerning Parker Ranch's continuing avoidance of its obligation to construct the Town <br /> Center Road connector road, which was a key condition to receiving rezoning for the <br /> hundreds of acres in the town center. My point is that the County of Hawaii has yet to <br /> hold Parker Ranch to its obligation, and continues to accommodate Parker Ranch's <br /> renigging of this commitment to the Community of Waimea, including at the time of the <br /> recent Holoholoku development and now in the context of the Lual'i III development. <br /> <br /> It is high time that Parker Ranch be required to construct the Town Center Road, <br /> at least from Mamalahoa Highway to Pukalani Road, in conjunction with development of <br /> its adjacent 218 unit Luala'i subdivisions (I, JI, and now III), and its adjoining 92 unit <br /> Luala'i Planned Unit Development. Otherwise, the Director of Planning should deny <br /> Parker Ranch's request for final subdivision approval of its Luala'i III subdivision. <br /> <br /> In the context of the pending Luala'i III subdivision application, I understand that <br /> your office is now "working with Parker Ranch" regarding its pending request to again <br /> delay its Town Center Road obligation, and concomitant request that the County instead <br /> pay for and build this road, with the possibility of repayment by Parker Ranch at some <br /> future and indefinite date, possibly decades from now. Why is Parker Ranch, in its <br /> capacity of a real estate developer, treated with such "kid gloves", as if "above" the <br /> subdivision laws and rules that apply to everyone else. Or perhaps this lax approach to <br /> enforcement of critical infrastructure obligations is more the norm than the exception in <br /> handling large developments by the Planning Department. <br /> In the Hokulia case, Judge Ibarra found that the Planning Department was <br /> "accommodating" the developer's desire to avoid compliance with certain requirements <br /> "in dereliction to the County's explicit duty to enforce (the pertinent requirements)", and <br /> "deliberately collaborated" to avoid these requirements. Hokulia: conclusions of Law <br /> #24-#25. The current situation with Parker Ranch's avoidance of its Rezoning Ordinance <br /> road conditions, and the Planning Department's knowing dereliction of its responsibility <br /> to monitor compliance with those conditions, seems to be a repetition of the scenario <br /> exposed by the Court in Hokulia, and also observed in Leslie v. Board of Appeals and <br /> Chris Yuen, as Director of the Planning, and in Sierra Club v. State Planning Office. <br /> Based on the Planning Director's recently approved amendments to the Subdivision Code <br /> (designed "to deal" with the Leslie decision by changing the law rather than the conduct <br />