|
chance, you ought to go up and take a look at it. Granted, this is not, we're not putting
<br />30 new lots up there, this is one additional lot, as I understand it.
<br />There's a couple of things I wanted to mention to you. The homestead road there, as
<br />correctly pointed out by I believe it was Commissioner Kubota, there are two homestead
<br />roads fronting the subject property, on the north and -, bounding, excuse me, the subject
<br />property, on the north as well as the south. While the County doesn't recognize this as a
<br />County road, it is a County road, and it is not maintained; and that's the reason the
<br />County doesn't want to recognize it. This is what the County is calling one of these roads
<br />in limbo. It's only in limbo because the County didn't receive any funding from the State
<br />when the State gave all these roads to the County, I believe it was in 1988. And that's an
<br />ongoing subject of great concern to your Council, including all of the Council Members;
<br />and we're working with administration to try to find a way to get some funding. But the
<br />reason I bring this up is because -. Oh, and also, there is the Old Government Road,
<br />which bounds the property on the eastern or mauka boundary.
<br />Some of us have been working to create a greenway, a non-motorized pedestrian pathway
<br />from Kalaoa area all the way into, it would be Keahuol, which would be the next
<br />ahupua`a over where I believe this road peters out. And I think turning it into a future
<br />roadway, given what has or has not occurred, is probably not likely. I appreciate that the
<br />Department of Public Works was looking for a 15-foot additional widening there. But
<br />I'm not aware that they have proposed such a thing in other projects adjacent to these.
<br />And I could be wrong because I don't have those in front of me, but I just don't recall
<br />them.
<br />The -, I wanted to report to you that the homestead road on the hema side or the southern
<br />side of this property is blocked off, despite what the Council has done in previous years,
<br />previous Councils before I -, you know, over seven years ago. They allowed some
<br />subdivisions to property, in properties to the south of this; and this roadway is now
<br />blocked. There's a gate there; there's a gate at the top. And it can't be accessed properly.
<br />So I just want to note that for the record. And I would hope that such a situation would
<br />not occur on the proposed access road, which is the northern, along the northern
<br />boundary. And I'm not suggesting that this applicant has closed that road off on the
<br />south. I'm not suggesting that, I'm just reporting to you what is there. And I believe the
<br />applicant's property is above where the gate is, in any case, on the southern side.
<br />I'm a little confused that, in reading the recommendations. And, by the way, Madam,
<br />Mr. Chairman, excuse me, I did read the Background Report and the Director's
<br />Recommendation, and I thank the Staff for providing that to me. I read it this morning.
<br />I'm a little concerned that there are clearly some comments from
<br />particular, the Department of Water Supply, as well as the Department of Public Works,
<br />indicating to you in their letters what there -, their rules and regulations are or what the
<br />current County Code provides. I'm speaking specifically of Chapter 23, the Subdivision
<br />Code. And I think Mr. Emler has made it eminently clear this mo
<br />some of the Commissioners who have asked questions, that how can we pre-empt or
<br />supercede the Code or the rules? And I would caution you not to go there. You have
<br />17
<br />
<br />
|