|
their entire headquarters, you know, to Hilo. And, as a result, with the participation of
<br />the County administration at that time, this property was, the bulk of this property was
<br />rezoned back in 1996.
<br />This 14.7, or whatever 9-acre area, was part of a larger parcel that was rezoned and also
<br />reclassified into the Urban District. What happened, however, is that when the
<br />subdivision was approved in October of the year 2001, it was supposed to be subdivided
<br />to create this area that was rezoned and reclassified, as the staff pointed out. But when it
<br />was subdivided, it was, it did not correspond to that area. So what happened is that you
<br />have an area thatÓs on the top side of, if you look at the map, you have an area thatÓs on
<br />the mauka side of Kulana Kea Road which, itÓs actually on the north side of the property,
<br />of the road rather, is presently zoned RS-15. And then you have like a portion of the
<br />subject property which, itÓs on the Hilo side, is presently zoned Agricultural-20 acres.
<br />So, you know, it was not supposed to have been done. An error w
<br />was an irreversible error because, in the meantime, although the lots were in that area
<br />under a consolidation and resubdivision, there were a number of lots that were created in
<br />that area.
<br />The Plant-Masons purchased this property in December, I guess C. Brewer had
<br />abandoned their plans, purchased this property back in December of the year 2001. And
<br />all of the other properties in that area were also acquired.
<br />After having purchased the property, they donÓt mind, I guess, like developing it into a
<br />25- or 30-lot subdivision. However, like their ultimate goal is really to create like a 6-lot
<br />subdivision so that they could convey portions of the property to their family and their
<br />relatives and then maybe make two or three lots available to the general market. And, as
<br />a result, the request calls for a down-zoning of essentially the bulk of the property from
<br />RS-15 to RA-2 acres.
<br />The Background Report and your staffÓs recommendation generally are acceptable. I
<br />would like to note, however, that in the Background Report, there is, there should be one
<br />correction on page 2, item No. 3. On the top of that page, you
<br />August 5, 2002. Actually, that should be October of 2001. That
<br />subdivision was approved, and not in 2002.
<br />Secondly, is that the request, I think which, I donÓt know if the staff had passed it out.
<br />But there is a condition that the Department has, is recommending -. Condition B of the
<br />Change of Zone application states that the Applicant must comply with all of the
<br />conditions outlined in the original, excuse me, the existing zone change ordinance. And
<br />what we would like to request is that that condition be deleted and then in its place then
<br />you just use or take the appropriate conditions that are contained in that original
<br />ordinance and then apply that to this particular bill. The reason being that some of the
<br />conditions outlined in that ordinance, Ordinance 96-152, we believe, are not necessarily
<br />applicable to what the Applicant is proposing. Those conditions deal like with an RS-15
<br />type of subdivision. This is a project thatÓs talking about an RA-2 acre type of zone
<br />change, a down-zoning of the property. And, as a result, what I did or what you have
<br />4
<br />
<br />
|