2004-10-22 TAINALOA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

extent, the Hokulia project on the Kona side and Judge, if Im correct, Judge Ibarras decision was that the golf courses are not a valid use on agriculturally-zoned land. Is that correct? Would you please clarify that for me. YUEN:Actually, the law, State law, doeslist golf courses as a permitted use on agriculturally-designated, on agriculturally-districted land except on Class A or Class B soils. Neither this project nor the Hokulia golf course was located on Class A or Class B soils. The gist of the Judges decision, by the way, the County requires a Use Permit for golf courses. This is part of the County Zoning Code and not part of the State Land Use law. Thats why they needed a Use Permit for this golf course. They also needed a Special Permit because they wanted to use the clubhouse for more than strictly a golf course clubhouse. Thats the main reason for that. The Judge called into question the, a project that included residential, that included a large number of one-acre lots that would have residences on them associated with the golf course. SIRACUSA:It was that part of it that he felt was not an appropriate use of agriculturallands? YUEN:Right.Thegolfcourseitselfwastheonly,theresaninjunction against further development of the project at this time by the court there, but theres no injunction against the construction of the golf course. SIRACUSA:I see, okay. I thought that possibly might have been a precedent that would apply here. And then I was going to ask if this was already grandfathered in, because in the testimony on Page 42, Line 20, it says, because golf courses were a conditionally permitted use within the County Ag Zone. And I was wondering if it says were does that mean was then but its not now, and how would that relate to any changes in law in the interim period between 92 and today? Mr. Fuke, now that youre back, there had been several references to the funding of the developer and how he had initially planned to do this membership thing in the Japanese stock market. I know that also planned to make use of that funding Onoloa Onsen source. What is not mentioned here or on any of the other information is that the Japanese government eventually decided that that was not a legal use of the Japanese stock market, and thats what put an end to this using this money scheme, this funding scheme, both for Ainaloa and for . So they determined, as I recall, that Onoloa Onsen that was not a legal use. So Im wondering since Ainaloa is claiming that thats one of the reasons why they needed the extension, because theyre funding source dried up, it seems to me almost as though you say, Well, I was going to rob a bank to get the money, but then I found out it was illegal so I couldnt get the money, so I want an extension. And Im wondering how you would respond to this? FUKE:Thank you very much. Sorry, I had to use the restroom while the question was asked, I guess. But what happened was after the permit was initially issued back in 1992, there was an appeal and it finally went all the way up to the State Supreme Court; and it was ultimately disposed of, I believe, in 1997. And thats why during that 22