2013-04-18 Windward Transcript Santo

Home

Now if I may direct your attention to the reports, the background and recommendation report, that we transmitted to you earlier, and more specifically if you could go to the recommendation itself. Attached to the recommendation, the favorable recommendation I should say, are proposed conditions of approval; and they’re labeled A through O. When the Director offered her favorable recommendation it was based on the assumption that based on the existing zoning classifications applied to the property, both single family residential as well as agricultural zoning, we initially determined the applicant had the right to basically build two homes on the property. So we felt that by virtue of this change of zone request, if we did support it, it could allow a third lot and a third home to be constructed. So the conditions were built around approval of these requests allowing additional residential units to be built. And as you know, with additional density, additional units, there should be mitigating conditions, things like fair share assessment, improvement to roads, and so forth and so on. However, recently we kind of went back and took a second look at it and we came to realize that the existing zoning could allow three homes on the property, and possibly four. Because the front of the property being Urban classification and Single Family Residential, the applicant had the right to apply for an ohana dwelling permit. The back end is Agricultural uses; and if they conduct as on the back portion of the property they have the ability to apply for a farm dwelling. And if they do enough Ag, they have the ability to apply for an additional farm dwelling. So they have those prescribed rights to apply now. So by applying for the change of zone, not only does it eliminate the split zoning of the property which creates difficulties in its own, basically it’s no harm, no foul, because the conditions do require that should lots be created on the property that restrictive covenants will not allow additional homes on each lot, like an ohana dwelling. So with that being said, we offer the revised conditions shown on the yellow piece of paper that we recently passed out to you; and if I may direct your attention to that. We ask that because there will be basically no increase in density should this change of zone be approved, and State Land Use Boundary Amendment, that Conditions (B) pertaining to the water commitment payments; (C) pertaining to a performance time frame to secure final subdivision approval, Condition L which applies to, refers to fair share, and Condition O which is the time extension request, those conditions be eliminated simply because there will be no increase in density. So, these performance conditions are normally associated with increased development and mitigating requirements. Furthermore, as you can see, just below the first statement we do indicate that Conditions B and C are being struck down, struck out. Below that you have revised Condition B. Revised Condition B is currently Condition D in your goldenrod conditions; and we’re asking that that, the added language that’s underscored be included in the proposed condition where we include the words “consisting of less than 30,000 square feet.” What that basically means is that if he creates lots as small as 15,000 square feet, which would be allowed by the proposed zoning, he would have to include covenants that will restrict the construction of like an ohana dwelling on the property. It’s just basically limited to one home per lot. If he creates lots bigger than 30,000 square feet, then no such restrictions would apply. But that, because the lot is only 57,000 square feet, he cannot build more than three lots. He would be limited to two lots only. And, finally, on the back end of that yellow sheet, you have a revised Condition D which is realphabetized Condition F which provides further elaboration regarding 3 EXHIBIT A