Laserfiche WebLink
was dated July 16. It does show three sites on the property, which mainly have to do with walls, <br />and also a basin. They felt that it would be appropriate to submit the archaeological inventory <br />survey prior to the filing a subdivision application. So we had added Condition G to be able to meet <br />those requirements. <br /> <br />These are some site photos. This is on Hooper Road, looking towards Honalo, and the subject <br />property would be on your left. As you can see, the road is quite narrow. There is a condition or <br />two that requires a future road widening setback in case there are improvements to this road in the <br />future. This is looking back towards Kailua-Kona, with the subject property on the right side. <br /> <br />The Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission send a favorable <br />recommendation with conditions to the Hawai‘i County Council. With that, that concludes our <br />presentation. Are there any questions? <br /> <br />BEAUDET: Commissioners? <br /> <br />DARROW: Thank you. <br /> <br />BEAUDET: With no questions from the Commissioners, will the applicant and/or his <br />representative please come forward. <br /> <br />FUKE: Good morning again. I so affirm that what I’ll say would be the truth again. My name is <br />Sidney Fuke, and I’m here representing the applicant, Mr. Harold Teshima. He is, Mr. Teshima is <br />also in the audience, he has had the chance to review the staff’s background report and the <br />recommendation, and found them to be acceptable. There’s just several things that I’d like to just <br />point out to the Commission, just additional information, some of which may be repetitive. The <br />property right now is seven acres in size, but then bear in mind that the request is not to rezone the <br />entire seven acres; it is designed to rezone only just two-acre portion just so that they can create a <br />two-lot subdivision. Secondly, it’s that there are two dwellings on the property right now on the <br />entire seven-acre site; one is owned by the Izumis and the lower portion is owned by the applicant, <br />Mr. Teshima. So essentially, if this rezoning is approved and ultimately they go in with the <br />subdivision, it’s a situation where what you see is what you get, I mean, you know, there is not <br />going to be any more additional activity on the property. The other thing I kind of wanted to point <br />out is that relative to the archaeological, there was assessment done by Haun & Associates as the <br />staff pointed out, and what was found was that, you know, based on the State rules on <br />archaeological features, anything that’s more than 50 years old is considered to be, you have to go <br />and officially catalog them and have it recorded. So in this situation what was found was that all of <br />the walls and the cistern, they deal like with ranching activities, and so as a result by the State <br />DLNR rules, they are now, the applicant is now required to conduct an official archaeological <br />inventory survey, and have all of those officially catalogued and so noted. The assessment pretty <br />much concluded that the information would be, the sites on the property are important only from an <br />informational standpoint, and he is not recommending that they preserve or further work be done. <br />The last item I kind of wanted to point out is that when we applied for the rezoning, there were like <br />a number of structures within the two-acre portion. And I just received a copy of a letter from the <br />Planning staff today, saying that all of those non-permitted structures, those issues have all been <br />totally addressed; so as far as any potential, or outstanding rather, zoning violations have all been <br />cured. With that, Mr. Chairman, if there are further questions, I would be more than happy to <br />answer. <br />3 <br />EXHIBIT A <br /> <br />