Laserfiche WebLink
before they can then petition the Council to likewise amend the law to eliminate that <br />restriction. So it's just clarifying that there is that opportunity where the Council itself <br />could lift the condition should situations warrant. <br />KUBOTA:Isn't that a scenario that could take place even now without this <br />sentence put in there? <br />YUEN:Probably, but let me, and what Daryn said is exactly right. But let <br />me go through this. This is, as far as saying it can be removed <br />this is language that we've been putting into these rezonings where the rezoning limits it <br />to one dwelling. And this -. <br />KUBOTA:Limits it to one dwelling. <br />YUEN:Yeah. This wording actually, I'm sorry I didn't look at th <br />carefully as I should have. The normal wording is supposed to be that restrictive <br />covenants shall give notice that the rezoning ordinance prohibits the construction of a <br />second dwelling on each lot and that this can be changed by the County Council. <br />KUBOTA:County Council, right. <br />YUEN:Let me explain, that in the past when I came on, the typica <br />wording -. First of all, there are circumstances in which the Council and the Department <br />have been willing to go ahead and grant a rezoning, typically of agricultural lots, <br />sometimes of residential, with the stipulation that only one dwelling be placed on the lot <br />and eliminate the possibility of additional farm dwellings or 'ohana dwellings. And that <br />is in a situation where they are willing to allow the land to be broken up into smaller units <br />but there's a concern about more houses creating a greater impact. Because in agriculture <br />you can have the possibility, under the Code, normally of additi <br />in the residential districts, the possibility of 'ohana dwellings. <br />This also was very much tied in, at least on the Council level in the past, with the <br />possibility of condominiums being created on the agricultural lots. Because what would <br />happen is that people would get a rezoning and then they would get an additional farm <br />dwelling, and then they would get a condominium, and then they would break up the lots <br />through that process. So that's, that was one way of restrainin <br />advised, the Council was advised by Corporation Counsel that they could not, under the <br />laws existing at that time, outright ban condominiums. They could not put a -, effectively <br />put a clause in that says you couldn't make a condominium on the lot that was rezoned. <br />Okay. That's the background. <br />Now, the concern about that language is that just saying restrictive covenants, if it's put in <br />as a restrictive covenant, then it sounds like it's a forever thing. It may be that in the <br />future the County is willing or thinks it would be good policy t <br />this piece of property, and that should not be foreclosed by it being -. If it's a restrictive <br />covenant, then it's permanent. And it can only, it could be removed by the lot owners but <br />6 <br /> <br />