2007-08-31 TPUAKO - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

YUEN: If, for example, someone wanted to do a duplex, it would create an interesting question of whether you have to amend this permit; but at least it would take either an amendment to this permit or a new permit to do that. This permit itself allows 8 lots and one home on each of the 8 lots. FUKE: Okay. Part of the reason why is that, in speaking with the applicant earlier, there is a possibility that some of these homes, because, you know, some of these homes may be absentee homeowners, they may wish to have like a guest cottage, you know, on the property. That’s the reason why I brought it up. GRAHAM: Mr. Yuen? YUEN: They couldn’t have a second kitchen. The break point in the Zoning Code between what makes a, and there are other factors as well, but the key one is the second kitchen. Now you can have a detached element to a home, and there’s some real guidelines on detached elements. So you don’t have to have all of the bedrooms, for example, in one structure. But you couldn’t have a second kitchen and a second structure. FUKE: Thank you very much for the clarification. And just for the record the applicant has had a chance to review the staff’s report and the proposed conditions recommended by the Director and have found them to be acceptable. GRAHAM: Thank you. You all may be seated now. And I have one public testifier; . and that’s Mr. Rob Shallenberger And if anyone else wishes to testify, please sign up at this time at the end of the desk there. Mr. Shallenberger, do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter today before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? SHALLENBERGER: I do. GRAHAM: Thank you. You could go ahead and give your testimony now, but start with your name and address, please. SHALLENBERGER: My name is Dr. Robert Shallenberger. My address is 123 Puako Beach Drive, Kamuela 96743. I have submitted testimony by mail back in February which should be in your packet in anticipation of the original hearing. And nothing has really substantively changed from that but I would like to amplify a few points. In particular we’ve had a very good working relationship with the developer.And its consultants have been very forthcoming in the meetings, we’ve had both individually and as a group in the community, have been very useful for us. And I think some of the conditions they’ve agreed to stem from those discussions. I think it’s fair to say that most of the people in Puako would prefer not to have the site developed at all; but a low density alternative to what is possible under the current zoning is very welcome. And that’s one of the reasons we’ve been willing to work closely with them. I was just handed copies of the Planning Department’s background report and the flood study so I haven’t had a chance to review those in any depth. But it is welcoming to see several of the conditions that have been included. Let me say that there are some issues that we’ve asked for that are in that letter that I sent, that we would have liked to have seen in the form of conditions. EXHIBIT B 8