|
the other alternative is to come off from the mauka lot into this property. And IÓm sure that the
<br />applicantÓs representative can go into more detail about that.
<br />BOWMAN: Okay, thank you.
<br />DARROW: Thank you.
<br />HOUSEL: Any other questions from Commissioners? If not, letÓs call the applicant or his
<br />representative forward, please. Good morning. Could you please raise your right hand? Do you
<br />swear or affirm to tell the truth on the matter now before the HawaiÒi County Planning
<br />Commission?
<br />FUKE: Yes, I do.
<br />HOUSEL: Thank you. All the proceeding, those providing testimony, please state your name
<br />and residence and proceed.
<br />FUKE: Sure. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, staff. My name is
<br />Sidney Fuke. IÓm a planning consultant and IÓve been retained by the applicant to assist them
<br />with the processing of this application. My address is 100 Pauahi Street, Hilo, HawaiÒi. Just
<br />prior to coming down, I called the applicant to see whether he was going to be here, but
<br />unfortunately he is out on a job; Mr. Rivera is a contractor and heÓs fortunately one of those few
<br />contractors that still remains to be reasonably busy at this point in time.
<br />Your staff report was very comprehensive. There is very little I can add, with two other points,
<br />however. One is from an environmental standpoint, the property has already been graded; there
<br />is no flooding issue and all that stuff. But according to Mr. Rivera, the only issue that he has
<br />with that side is that he has a coqui frog problem, but aside from that there is really like no other
<br />environmental type of issues. We did discuss in terms of, the staff and I, and I also shared it via
<br />email, the different conditions that were initially advanced by the staff, as well as the amended
<br />version, and he has been made aware of them. And we understand as far as the fair share, that is
<br />a standard requirement on rezoning thatÓs three acres or less, so we understand and we would
<br />have to accept that as a condition.
<br />Specifically, as it relates to Commissioner BowmanÓs question, the applicant right now, the
<br />original plan was really to have the access be taken from the existing easement, which kind of
<br />runs down over here. And one of the reasons why he went for a two-acre, rather than a one-acre,
<br />zone is that if you were to secure the easement from over here, then the maximum allowed for
<br />subdivisions of this nature would be like six lots, and so youÓll see, one, two, three, four, five,
<br />this would have been the sixth lot. If you have, if this were to be further subdivided, and
<br />obviously it would need a variance and all that stuff, so thatÓs the reason why he went for the two
<br />acres. There is an issue, however, in terms of whether this easement area, you know, when you,
<br />this is an area thatÓs proposed to service for access to this lot here, but there is a question as far as
<br />when you take this easement, the residual area may be less than one acre in size, and if the
<br />CountyÓs policy is such that if you deduct this easement and if there is less, then theyÓre going to
<br />have to find another alternative. So the other possible alternative relates to creating like a flag lot
<br />3
<br />EXHIBIT A
<br />
<br />
|