Laserfiche WebLink
ALAMEDA: All right, Fellow Commissioners, we’re at Agenda Item 2 and <br />potentially 3. According to Corp. Counsel we have an opportunity to combine Agenda Items 2 <br />and 3 because they’re contingent. And I’d like to turn it over to Mr. Darrow for his explanation <br />of why we could combine 2 and 3. Jeff? <br />DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Agenda Item Nos. 2 and 3 are related to <br />each other. Agenda Item No. 3 is a time extension request from Kohala LLC requesting a 5-year <br />time extension to Condition C of Rezone 97-102 and also Condition 4 of Special Management <br />Area Use Permit No. 379. And basically these are both the same conditions, just in two different <br />permits, that they be able to secure final subdivision approval. The Agenda Item No. 2 is <br />initiated by the Planning Director to change the zoning of this property, as well as to revoke <br />Special Management Area Use Permit 379. Before I get into too much detail, I’d like to just give <br />a brief presentation of the location of these applications. <br />These applications are occurring in the North Kohala District of Hawaii, more specifically we’re <br />looking at the Akoni Pule Highway running in a north/south direction. Kawaihae would be <br />located in approximately this area. Hawi would be located in this area. We have Kohala Ranch <br />Subdivision and other agricultural subdivisions in this particular area. And the area that we’re <br />looking at for these applications is identified with a blue dot. The zoning of this property at this <br />time is Single-Family Residential 15,000 square feet. Around this particular property we have <br />Agricultural 5 acres identified with light green. The darker green is Agricultural 20 acres. The <br />light blue is Agricultural 3 acres; and the darker blue is Agricultural 40 acres. We also have an <br />area that has come in previously for a Change of Zone to Multiple-Family 4,000 square feet, as <br />well as received a Special Management Area Use Permit. Additionally, we’ve had a Special <br />Management Area Use Permit on the properties just to the south which had come in for a <br />subdivision to break up these parcels into 5-acre lots. And then there’s one bulk lot remaining. <br />The applicant in this case, again, we have two applicants, but Kohala LLC who owns the <br />property at this time is requesting a time extension to Condition C of Change of Zone Ordinance <br />No. 97-102 and Condition 4 of Special Management Area Use Permit 379. These permits were <br />approved in 1997. They were approved on different dates. July 14, 1997 is the effective date for <br />the Change of Zone Ordinance and August 8, 1997 is the effective date for the Special <br />Management Area Use Permit. Both of these have similar conditions stating that the applicant <br />needs to secure final subdivision approval within 5 years from the effective date of those permits. <br />The previous owner and the current owner up to this point had not submitted a subdivision plan <br />as well as a request for a time extension on these conditions. Usually what happens is if the <br />applicant is not able to meet these conditions within the time allotted then they request an <br />administrative time extension which is allowed through the conditions of these permits. The <br />applicant and the previous owner in this particular case did not do this. So it’s the Planning <br />Director’s position that once this is not done then in all actuality these permits are no longer <br />valid. The applicant recently, almost ten years after the fact, has come in and is requesting a <br />time extension for these two conditions. <br />Just to go into detail briefly about the Planning Director’s initiative, the Planning Director is <br />initiating a change of zone to be able to change this property from its currently zoned Single <br />Family Residential 5,000 square feet to Residential and Agricultural 5 acres or RA-5a. And, <br />again, the main reason for this is spelled out in the recommendation where there have been two <br />Senate Concurrent Bills, I believe, 146 and 179 that have requested and urged retention of these <br />EXHIBIT A <br />2 <br /> <br />