2003-02-21 tkamuela - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

allowed them to go back and re-calculate and re-draw it and come back to the hearing, which we did. And then, again, we were back at one-half acre just for the church, not counting the houses. But at least the church was down to one-half acre. Then there was more questions about exactly what were the dimensions. So they re-submit another set of drawings. And the hearing was closed, though, but they submitted new drawings. And in response to those drawings is when we submitted Rodney NakanoÓs Declaration. Because he had a, he calculated in accordance with the way the department would be including the roof eaves, which they did not and so forth, and he came up with his calculations. And they clearly state that the church itself would take up half-an-acre, and that the other dwellings and driveway that are currently existing are, is additional acreage; and Mrs. Kubota questioned that. That would be an additional few thousand feet. So we do not believe that this application promotes the effectiveness of HRS, Chapter 205 because, simply because it is not in conformity with the ord promote agricultural use by having that much of the property taken up with non- agricultural purposes. Therefore, we ask that you adopt the Hearings OfficerÓs report and deny the request for the permit. GALDONES:Thank you, Ms. OÓToole. Commissioners? Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:This is a question for both Pat and Mr. Figueiroa. You referred to, in your presentation, you referred to something -. I followed you all the way except at this 50 percent in ag use area and then itÓs deemed to be in conformance with the use of the ordinance, is I thought what you said. Now 50 percent and half-an-acre out of a 5-acre lot is quite a discrepancy there. Can you, both of you, explain to me what this 50 percent represents and how you interpret it to be in conformance and how the County says itÓs not? I get kind of confused over there. And IÓll start with you, perhaps. Is that all right? GALDONES:Mr. Figueiroa? FIGUEIROA:Yes. I believe if you look at the ordinance, Ordinance 889, they put it, they made the definition when they were giving approval to subdivide this entire subject of the rezoning into two phases. But as was testified during the hearing, actually, it all went at one time. And, so, they put a condition on the first phase, on the second phase, whereby you couldnÓt subdivide the second phase until it met the definition on the front part of the property, met the definition of what would be considered agricultural use. And thatÓs where it is defined that it would be deemed agriculturally appropriate if they used a minimum of 50 percent of the lot in agricultural act But, you know, they went even further than that. They said, unless, it could be even less than 50 percent if you engage in agricultural activity that provided income that would be equal to what you would have in 50 percent of the lot, if you could do it on less. ThatÓs what the ordinance says. 16