2006-01-06 TPD - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

SIRACUSA:Or are they 7,500 -? HAYASHI:Ill go into -. So basically this ordinance is merely for housekeeping purposes. The property will still be retained in its current Agricultural 1-acre zoned district. Okay, just for your information, this is another area that was part of the rezoning request, rezoning ordinance. And back in 2001 or 2002, Mr. Frank De Luz came in for a subdivision request for 13 lots; and that resulted in the creation of some 1-acre lots along Ponahawai Street, as well as some 3-acre lots, remaining 3-acre lot that resulted from the subdivision request. So, as I indicated before, the current zoning is Agricultural 1-acre. So this is merely as a housekeeping change that needed to be done as a result of our approval of the subdivision back in 2001. SIRACUSA:So the various lots that are there that we are looking at on the map are conforming to the current Ag-1 zoning? HAYASHI:Yes. They are conforming to the current zoning, yes. So like Matsuno Enterprises,ifthecurrentlandownerswouldliketousetheirpropertiesotherthanwhatis permitted under the Agricultural 1-acre zoned district, they would have to come in for separate rezoning applications. For instance, if one individual wanted to subdivide his property into four lots, his one-acre lot into four lots, then he would have to come in individually for a rezoning application from an Agricultural 1-acre to an RS-10 zoned district. SIRACUSA:And the lot that belongs to the County of Hawaii, which one is that? HAYASHI:Oh, yes, thats this particular small lot. That was used as part of the Komohana Bridge improvements. So that was part of the, I guess, used for the improvements to that bridge. ALAMEDA:Questions for our staff? Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:I dont want to chase this topic too far, Norman. But just, I remember when Iwas new on the Commission I was asking the Planning Director regarding a different application for a time extension for a rezoning ordinance that had already gone and expired because conditions were not met, and I was told at the time that the ordinance that was approved, whatever the zoning was, that zoning still holds even though the conditions have not been met. And at that time it was like the Planning Director could choose, if conditions had changed, to rezone it back to the original zoning, because the conditions are not being met. But as far as the books were concerned, as far as how it stood, it retained that zoning even though the conditions have not been met. But it sounds like youre saying a little bit different on this one. So I just thought maybe we need clarification. HAYASHI:No, I think it is a different situation. In this particular case, the zoning was approved subject to conditions, and the rezoning became effective as performance occurred in -. For instance, like the first increment in order to get the zoning for the second increment you needed to comply with the requirements of the first increment. So I think its a different situation as say, for example, if you had a rezoning approved for your property for commercial with no incremental performance condition, then the zoning would still be in effect until such 3EXHIBIT C