2023-01-19 Leeward Exh C (Item 3 Stevenson & Fumo PL-REZ-2022-000035)

Home

PIPAN: And Mr. Fumo would like to have attended today unfortunately he regrets he had to be away on business. DEFRANCO: You going to have to speak into the microphone. PIPAN: Sorry about that. Yes. Mr. Fumo, co-applicant regretfully could not make it today. He is away on business. DEFRANCO: Thank you. So,you've received all the background information and recommendation reports from the Planning Department? PIPAN: Yes. DEFRANCO: Yes. Okay and do you agree with the recommendations and including the proposed conditions? PIPAN: We have requested respectfully amendments to 2 of the conditions and we can go over that momentarily. DEFRANCO: Okay and do you have any further comments? PIPAN: Yes. DEFRANCO: Okay. PIPAN: Yes, for sure. On the face of it yes this is a very simple request turning 2 separate dwellings, separating ownership, giving them their own fee-simple lots. They had a co-tenancy agreement, good neighbors for many years, been proactive in managing the native forest on the property dedicating 90% of it to conservation. Where are the impacts with this requested use with this rezone going from Ag-20 to Ag-10. This is not a very productive soil for cultivation or agricultural uses again the native forest is the highest and best use for the bulk of the property. There are no new structures that would be permitted by this Change of Zone. No increased in the intensity of use of the properties. So, when we're tasked with looking at the impacts and a fair share contribution as in Condition K that we're requesting be evaluated. The Supreme Court has reviewed cases like this where land use exactions have been questioned, right and they've ruled that they have to meet a couple of criteria. They have to be rationally related to the impacts of the project, right, it can't be something far field. Say the project is in Kona, the contribution impacts like can't be in Kohala, that doesn't make much sense, rationally. It has to be proportional to the impact on that resource generated by the project. So, in this case we're working with the existing homes, there is no new construction, no new construction would be allowed by this ordinance. There is specific language prohibiting new dwellings. So, I'm just wondering whether or not this type of condition is actually illegal or if it's more of like a band aid solution, right. We see that this intersection needs improvements but instead of like a holistic systematic approach to evaluating our transportation infrastructure and the 5 EXHIBIT C