PD RECOMMENDATION REPORT - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

nRWinegar-FurchgottRepeaUtEZ.jaO42223 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION PLANNING DIRECTOR INITIATED THOMAS WINEGAR AND SUSAN FURCHGOTT REPEAL CHANGE OF ZONE ORDINANCE NO. 12-132 (PL-PDI-2024-000005) Upon careful review of the request, the Planning Director recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council on this request to repeal Ordinance No. 12-132, which will revert the current zoning of the subject property from Multiple-Family Residential-3,000 square feet (RM-3) to its original Single- Family Residential-10,000 square feet (RS-10) zoning district for approximately 0.9793 acres of land. Since this recommendation is made without the benefit of public testimony, the Director reserves the right to modify and/or alter the recommendation. This favorable recommendation is based on the following findings: The Planning Director is initiating a repeal of Ordinance No. 12-132 in response to a written request, dated October 31, 2023, submitted by the property owners Thomas Winegar and Susan Furchgott. The repeal would revert the zoning of approximately 0.9793 acres of land to its original Single-Family Residential-10,000 square feet (RS-10) zoning designation from the current Multiple-Family Residential-3,000 square feet (RM- 3) zoning designation. The subject property was rezoned from RS-10 to RM-3 with the objective of constructing a multifamily student housing complex. Condition B (time to complete construction) of Ordinance No. 12-132 required compliance by October 25, 2017, or five years from the effective date of the subject ordinance. The applicants obtained Final Plan Approval, on January 23, 2015, and a building permit was issued, on October 24, 2017, for a 3-unit student apartment building. Additionally, pursuant to Condition L, the applicants remitted a fair share contribution in the amount of$23,710.05, per a June 26, 2014, letter from the Planning Department,which will be reimbursed. However, according to the applicants, the project was unsuccessful due to construction costs being higher than anticipated, including installation of a costly wastewater treatment system as the full scope of the project could not be served by septic