2020-02-20 Leeward Exh D (AMEND REZ 2004-024 & AMEND REZ 2004-025)

Home

subdivision was granted in 2004 that created five lots, four of which were just under 14[sic] acres and then about a two-acre road lot here by Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. Each of these properties, with the exception of the Suffolk property, is owned by Puaa Development. The Suffolk Investment property, according to DCCA records,their only managing member is Puaa Development, so there is a connection there. So we believe there will be a possibility of going through the Project District with sufficient land area. The proposed request does not conform to the goals, policies, and courses of action of the Land Use—Commercial Development& Land Use—Multiple-Family elements of the General Plan. The proposed time extension and amendments do not comply with the General Plan policies around controls force curbing speculation. The first one is for the Land Use—Commercial Development section that states, "Controls to prevent speculative practices on commercially zoned lands may be established." And under the Land Use—Multiple-Family section, it states, "To assure the use of multiple residential zoned areas and to curb speculation and resale of undeveloped lots only, the County may impose incremental and conditional zoning, which shall be based on performance requirements." So for both ordinances, construction was supposed to have been completed within five years by 2010, if, and 2015, if an administrative time extension has been requested. As we were doing our research on this, we were unable to find evidence of administrative time extension for completion of construction. The applicant informed, the applicants' representative informed me this morning that there were in fact those admin time extensions granted, and, up to August of 2015, and if he has that information, he can share with you. Even so, the applicants waited over four years to attempt to revive their stale ordinances and is currently doing so now to either sell the property or secure a development partner. The applicant is requesting a time extension to commence construction within ten years and complete within 20, so the actual request is for commencing construction within five and to complete within ten; however, they are also asking for the addition of the administrative time extension condition to be allowed, which would essentially give them, if granted, ten years to start, 20 years to finish. The applicants have not demonstrated to the Director's satisfaction that they have a plan to complete construction in their requested time frames, nor have they demonstrated any recent efforts to comply with numerous conditions of approval. We met with the applicants' representative early on in the process and let them know that we were leaning toward an unfavorable recommendation and asked them to provide us with a detailed construction schedule outlining how they could meet the requirements of the ordinances or what they are proposing within the time frames designated. What they provided us unfortunately was just the name of a possible development partner from the mainland. So based on that information, we don't believe they have demonstrated that they can get this done. Secondly, within the last 15 years, the applicant has had an opportunity to comply with other conditions of approval, other studies, archaeological, sewer studies and other types of, water improvements and the like, and has not done so. Previous segmentation of this area in securing planning entitlements is inconsistent with State Law. As we mentioned before, Subdivision 7814 was approved in 2004 to create a five-lot subdivision, in which four or the lots resulted in an area just under 15 acres in size. In 2005, after the applicants bought the properties, both Puaa Development and Suffolk Investment applied for and received approval for State Land Use Boundary amendments from Agricultural to Urban designation for their respective properties. At the time of processing these applications, 6 EXHIBIT D