HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0632.027 2000-2002
V a n P IQ R N I S S M I T H & V A N C I~
~
r
August 21, 2002
James Y. Arakaki
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Dear Mr. Arakaki,
I am upset, if not disgusted, by further foot dragging by certain council
persons on the legislation for control of the CPR abuse of our County zoning
and subdivision laws. Ostensibly, this was for further public hearing. But in
reality, it is providing a service for the greedy few who make money off of
using the CPR process to scam around our County zoning and subdivision
laws meant to protect the public interest. It causes me to wonder who
those Council persons are representing the public and our Island's future or
those few who want the absence of good legislation perpetuated for their
personal profit. Examples are those who make money off of CPRing and may
make reference to condominium committees or organizations of the State
Bar which don't exist, and sellers and seller's agents of CPRed property.
'The public, I believe, is not in favor of having to pay for infrastructure
needed when private developers/CPRers scam around zoning and
subdivision ordinances that properly impose the infrastructure
requirements on the developers. And most of the public, I believe, is not in
favor of having their neighborhoods and subdivision wrecked by doubling the
density by condivision, despite covenants which the County can't and
doesn't enforce.
I have been involved in this "condivision" issue for over ten years,
(since councilman Domingo first proposed a moratorium) and in the process
had my law firm stop doing "condivision" CPR work, when the negative long
term effects it had on the community were recognized. I know how this
process works and how to make it work. I know it works for the few against
the best interests of the many and the future. Many attorneys now have the
same attitude. Recently, we see the effects starting to show with
dissatisfaction, arbitration and litigation by unsuspecting con ivisi buyer
over the problems of condivision.
I~1~ i~~
R,ef. ~o:
ATTORNEYS AT LAW t ~ Z~
A LAW CORPORATION p~t• 'p>`~te t ~.ce^7~,®f
MARKVanPERNIS DAVID E. SMITH GARY W. VANCIL JEANNE Lib. O`BRIEN
75-167 F Hualalai Road, Suite B • Post Office Box 1837 • Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 • Telephone: (808)329-3551 • Fax: (808)329-6185 • E-Mail vsv@hawaii.a.com
James Y. Arakaki
August 21, 2002
Page Two
This is certainly a Big Island problem, concentrated in Puna and Kona.
The council persons from those districts should be given the lead.
I have files many inches thick which show this issue to have been
studied to death, and the Yamashiro administration avoiding it while other
Counties took care of the problem, and councilpersons being misled with
false arguments like "condominimization is only a legal method of
ownership, not subdivision", or "this is an issue controlled by State law and
the State's Real Property Commission only". These arguments are simply
untrue, with its advocates blinded by short term greed. Council persons
should act with long term responsibility.
I cnclosc a few rcp~escntativc selcctions from gxay filcs asst 'a~~c
you to road theaga in full and to act 1!I®~{T to pass this long ovcrduc ~i~
Island lc~islation.
Please consider this and all of the enclosed as my testimony at any
further public hearing on the issue.
Sincerely,
f;,
MARK VAN PERNIS
/skc
enclosures
Written Testimony Of 1VIARK VAN PEItNIS
>Sefore Planning Commission On February 25, 2002
I am Mark Van Perris, a resident and attorney in Kona since 1976. My law
practice, among other things, concentrates in real estate matters. I have represented many
subdivision developers and have developed subdivisions myself and jointly with others in North
Kona and South Kona. Our developments have all been successful, and we've done them
according to the County's zoning and subdivision rules. In other words, we have not scammed
around County subdivision and zoning rules nor State or County Land Use regulations at the
expense of the public by use of double density condivision.
I also represent many real estate brokerages and individual Realtors in West Hawaii
on a regular and continuous basis. The best of them now stay away from listing or selling any
double density condivision properties because over the years it has come to be a source of liability
and unanswerable questions from buyers and lenders, because the value of a CPR double density
condivision lot has more and more frequently been called into question in comparison to legally
subdivided fee simple lots, and because as good citizens they recognize it is basically a scam to
avoid subdivision, zoning and land use laws that results in greater long term burden on taxpayers
to pay for missing infrastructure.
Ohara was passed by the State Legislature in 1981. This State law was intended
for family purposes and empowered the Counties to allow Ohara permits. But many speculators
and developers exploited this law to double the density of County densities. Past County
administrations just let it happen. Gradually, sharp operators found ways of abusing the Ohara
law, by combining County Ohara permits with State condominium property regimes, (CPRs), to
subdivide properties without compliance with County zoning or subdivision laws. This process,
called condivision, was first used, some say invented, in the county of Hawaii by developer Rudy
Hirota on developments called Puna Shores and Panaewa Acres which ended up in bankruptcy and
litigation, with the County stuck with having to put in the infrastructure. Now the same procedure
is being used with County of Hawaii farm dwelling permits.
f~1~
The condivision process has been used on a massive basis, such as Kamani Trees,
where property zoned for 70 ten thousand square foot lots with infrastructure for that density was
condivided into 110 five thousand square foot lots. This density caused much controversy and led
directly to the need fora $250,000.00 street light at the Lako Street intersection which the tax payer
paid for. Condivision is also used on a one lot basis, such as at Puako, which has substandard
water and other infrastructure, so rezoning and subdivision doesn't happen without the developer
providing infrastructure upgrades. Yet with condivision single family lots end up as two
"condominium" lots without upgraded infrastructure.
The condivision process also provides away to avoid State Land Use
reclassification and to urbanize agricultural lands into less than one acre lots with no governmental
control, such as with Hualalai Plantations. There, Agricultural classified property was developed
as Urban, without rezoning to RS-20, and with no infrastructure upgrades.
There have been constant problems of abuse by double density condivision, leading
to numerous State and County legislative actions, culminating in Representative Jerry Chang's bill,
which became law in 1989. It revised the State Ohana law to authorize the Counties to control and
put conditions on Ohana permits, which became law in 1989. All the Counties, except for the Big
Island quickly and efficiently acted thereafter to control the abuses. In fact, the resolutions of the
State Senate and the State House of Representatives concerning this bill call condivision a Big
Island problem. The County of Hawaii, and still has not effectively utilized the power that
Representative Chang's law gives it. The result is hundreds of newly created lots, without
infrastructure contribution, in violation of State land use classifications, contrary to County zoning
and subdivision codes, in violation of subdivision covenants and restrictions, and with no public
or government hearing process, which leaves the County and its present and future taxpayers with
the obligation to pay for the new infrastructure these double density developments require.
The County has already been sued by and had to pay settlement monies to
neighbors of double density developments, and will be sued again unless the necessary
infrastructure not provided by the developer is delivered by the County at the taxpayer's expense.
2
Developers from Honolulu and elsewhere, who are restricted from condivision without
infrastructure on their home island, are here on the Big Island looking for and doing double density
condivision. Big Island properties with Ohana or so called "farm dwelling" permit possibilities
where double density condivisions can take place, are sold at a higher premium price.
If anyone argues that double density condivision addresses affordable housing,
simply ask them five questions: 1) Are they getting financial benefits from condivision? 2) Do the
condivisions they speak for provide any public infrastructure or contributions to public
infrastructure as part of development? 3) Have they sold any of their condominium lots within the
range of the county's definition of affordable housing? 4) Is the "CPR's" price, either as a house
or a lot, any less than what they'd sell for if it was a subdivided lot/house versus a condivided
lot/house? and 5) Do they have their neighbors approval for their density? There is no real proof
that condivision addresses affordable housing.
Completely unregulated development by legal loophole is a fast track to wrecking
the county infrastructure budget and the future of the Big Island. As the other counties have, this
county must stand up and deal with this issue.
There are innumerable examples of abuses by double density condivision that scam
around subdivision, zoning and land use laws. Kamani Trees, with RS-10 zoning for 70 lots but
110 five thousand square foot lots instead; Hualalai Plantations, an agricultural classified land zone
for 1 acre house lots but developed as 1/2 acre residential lots without residential infrastructure or
land use reclassification to urban; a lot zoned RA- .OSa on Hualalai Road which became three CPR
lots approximately one quarter to one third acre in size in an area with flooding and road problems;
a proposed subdivision near Kealakekua Bay of 63 acres with Ag-1 zoning called "Kealakekua
Acres" (or should we say "Half Acres") which received County approval for 55 one acre
agricultural lots, but with a marketing plan for 110 residential 1/2 acre lots without reclassifying the
land from Agricultural to Residential, (this development didn't take place); many individual lots in
Puna subdivisions such as Hawaiian Paradise Park, where the zoning is Ag-1, but condivision
makes the property into residential half acre lots. The problem there is exacerbated by the fact that
3
the subdivision roads are private and the subdivision association can make only a single uniform
road maintenance assessment for each lot, even though the double density lots generate twice the
traffic of the lots used consistent with their Ag-1 zoning. Thus the single residence Ag-1
properties subsidize the double density residential lots. This situation is all over East Hawaii, not
just in West Hawaii. A similar system exists at Kohala Ranch.
The list can go on and on. It is estimated that over 2000 new lots, or "units" as the
apologists for CPRing property call them, all without basic subdivision infrastructure, have been
created on the Big Island since 1982, and none sold for affordable housing prices. It is the
County and the taxpayer who will have to eventually pay for that infrastructure.
This double density situation has caused problems and, even destroyed value in,
many subdivisions. Kona Coastview and Hualalai Farms are good examples of this, as well as
Puna subdivisions referred to above. A person or family buys a home in such a subdivision on the
basis that there'd be a certain density and thus certain privacy, and with certain zoning so that the
property would have certain characteristics, and with certain covenants to provide for equitable
payments for common facilities used. Condivision destroys all that.
In Ohana Zoning, a Five Year Review prepared by the State of Hawaii's Legislative
Reference Bureau in 1988, the following information or conclusions were presented as to the
County of Hawaii:
" ..ohana zoning has a pernicious impact by driving up price of
land. Some realtors (sic) have been applying for, and obtaining, an
ohana zoning permit for a property. They then ask for a higher price
for the lot, based on the enhanced value they have created. The
objection to this tactic is that it thwarts the objective of affordable
housing by increasing the price of the main unit, which is then
passed on to the renter or purchaser of the ohana unit"
"County officials also object to ohana as it interferes with their
ability to devise a master zoning plan for the county. Since ohana
units are constructed at the individual choice of the homeowner, the
county is unable to predict who will apply for a permit, and in what
neighborhood. The factor most affected by this inability to plan
ahead is the water supply. While the waste water systems are only
at half capacity, and can handle additional demand, in some areas of
the island, water is in critical shortage. Decisions to improve the
water pumping system are based on assumptions of the number of
4
future users, which in the case of ohana zoning cannot be
predicted."
Some may argue that the double density condivision problem is reduced because of
legal rulings that limit ohana units on agricultural zoned property. However, the truth is the
problem has gotten worse, because while ohana units may now be limited to residential zoned
properties that can thus be condivided into two properties, the use of so called "farm dwelling"
permits on agricultural properties, a hangover from the sugar plantation days, can result and has
resulted in agricultural properties being condivided into two or three or more condivided lots
consistent with the number of "farm dwelling" permits issued for one property. In other words,
on agricultural land with farm dwellings in addition to the primary residence, double density can
become triple density or more.
For instance, Hualalai Farms started out as an upscale agricultural development on
Ag-5 zoned property. It was subdivided into lots of sizes of 5 acres or more and had covenants on
it limiting use to a single family residence and agricultural uses. It had a private water system, with
each of the five acre lot owners paying an equal share for maintenance. The original buyers bought
and built for the agricultural and private lifestyle. After a few years, speculators bought property
there, got building permits for a main residence and also for farm dwelling residences and CPRed
five acre lots into several small parcels, without infrastructure. There was a battle at the
subdivision owners association over the enforcement of the covenants to the 'n le fa
residence restriction, which the speculators won with the most proxie~ver.~taxed by the many
more houses than one per five acres. The private water system came to need extensive work. But
the assessments for that work was to be equal per lot according to the covenants regardless of the
number of houses on each lot. So the agricultural single family lots would have to subsidize the
i
CPR properties. Then the subdiviSl~on started having rain water runoff problemsjg)rading and
drywells couldn't handle) planned and built for single family Ag-5 development, resulting in
flooding Mamalahoa Highway below and properties below, which in turn resulted in government,
i.e. tax payer expense, in highway construction, and litigation involving properties makai,
including suing Realtors. This whole mess has caused people to sell their dream homes and move
5
away, with those who stay looking at a more urbanized development and probably having to join
in it because of the financial pressure it creates.
It is a shibai, a turning away from reality and common sense, to say CPR is not
subdividing and is merely a method of land ownership. Section 23 of the Hawaii County code
prohibits lots or units created by any form of division to be developed or transferred without
complying with zoning and subdivision requirements. Calling a divided portion of a lot a
condominium, or a common element, or a limited common element, or a building site, or a unit,
and then selling it as a separate division or portion of an existing lot without complying with
zoning and subdivision ordinances is a violation of Section 23. It is a division no matter what
legalese is used. The developer sells them as separate, divided lots (See e.g. Exhibit "A") and the
buyer thinks that's what he's getting. The rest is semantics.
It's long overdue for this County, representing all of the people of the Big Island,
to do the right thing, as the Planning Director is recommending. The people of the Big Island and
their children and grandchildren shouldn't have to pay for the infrastructure the developers avoid
by condivision.
Respec~,t~_ 1 bmitted,
L ~ ,~i
MARK VAN PERMS
6
.
~ ~ o i
• .
• • I ~
~Oabw cvAaoaEE f
RO®ERT A. Ai
~bO1IQ a.~ Y
1$ _ ( p~aKtOa
aaOE CaOE TO
lil:Eg4~peG eOam~Si
c` ; : REAL ESTATE CODiMISSION
. ~ _
STATE OF NAWAaI
. P 01=ESSIONAL ~ VOCATIONAL LICENSING DIVISION
i! - - ®EPARTiu9EN~ OF COMMERCE ANO CONSUMER AFFAIRS
' R O. BOR 9aa;E
~ seoseoa.ulu. aeAwAea 966®T
-:a ~ October 2 1989 _
ROUTi.r;3
- ce ~ ACC. I
. - O°T ~ O~SO~ a
. . ~ TAK® ®A6 I
- ~ e I
GIA LEE
Mr. .James K. Schuler, President 5>il KEG
JPS Hawaii, Inc.
1001 Eishop Street, 1060 Pacific Tower
Honolulu, HI 96813
Dear Mr. Schuler:
Re: Kamani `Trees Condominium, Reg. No. 1981
~
The Real Estate Com®ission has received information that
the developer of the subject condominiuoa project and its
agents are m-eking representations to prospective purchasers
that the project is a "subdivision" project. (See attached
copies of promotional material and purchaser's information
packets.)
'The Commission r~~~~sts that you and your agents
im®ediately cease the use of -the terms "subdivision", "lots"~
"house lots ranging from 5,000 square feet to...", "single
family", etc. which imply and represent to a prospective
purchasers that they are purchasing a subdivided lot in a
"subdivision" project. - In addition, the Commission requests
that you immediately cease the use of any plot plan or
diagrams of the condominium project which reflect "solid
lines" between the apartment units which reflect a
"subdivision" project.
The Real Estate Commission has received. information that
the subject condominium project is being developed under the
"ohana" zoning concept. This is a material fact that is not
disclosed in the public reports and renders the existing
public rep®rt anisleading to prospective purchasers.
Therefore, the Commission requests that you cease all sales
activity until a supplementary or final public report is
issued which reflects this material fact.
'
1?ir. James K. Schuler, President
JPS Hawaii, Inc.
October 2, 1989
Page l
Your voluntary compliance is requested immediately.
V ry truly yours,
t~.~ ~ .
L
Calvin Kimura
Executive Secretary
Enclosures
cc: Department of the Attorney General
Regulated Industries Complaint office
John A. Topliss III, Principal Broker, Maui Sea
Cliffs Development, Inc. dba South Pacific Properties
~'Ianning Director, County of Hawaii
Condoaoiniuna Consultant
1c
~L~~ ~ ~l
ATTORNEYS AT LAW, A LAW CORPORATION
VI?ALLACE I°I. GALLUP, JR. suITE C-21 o, HUALALAI CENTER TELEPFi0P1E:
MARK VAN PERPVIS 75-170 4-OUALALAI ROAD (808) 329-3J51
P.O. BOX 1837 FAX:
DAVID E. SMITI'-I KAILUA-KONA. HAWAII 96745-1837 (808) 329-6185
April 18, 1990
Mayor Larry Tanimoto
Planning Director Duane Kanuha
All Councilpersons
25 Apuni Street
Hllo, Hawaii 96720
Re: Agricultural Condominiums"/ "Double Density"
I recently returned from Honolulu where I testified before Senator Richard
Matsuura's Energy and Natural Resources Committee in support of S.H. 3092, a measure
meant to control some of the abuses and exploitation of loopholes in Chapter 514A, Hawaii
Revised Statutes (the State's condominium law) when it is used to create "agricultural
condominiums" which are or become subdivisions not in compliance with County
subdivision laws and procedures, or when used to avoid going before the State Land Use
Commission to reclassify land from "Agriculture" to "Urban", or when used to double
allowed density by using ohana permits in conjunction with condominiumization
("condivide"). S.H. 3092 would, if enacted, empower the County to end such abuses. The
House companion to this bill was successful under the sponsorship of Rep. Isbell and others.
At the hearing, the following came out, which I feel should be of serious concern to
you.
1. Calvin Kimura, as director of the Real Estate Commission (the State agency
which approves and issues Condominium Property Regimes), although supporting the bill,
pointed out that the abuses area "Big Island problem" in that the other Counties have
enacted ohana regulations that for the mast part control such abuses.
2. An opponent who testified, attorney Steven I.ee of Kauai. whose practice
heavily concentrates in real estate development including agricultural condominiums, and
double density "condivisons". also called it a "Big Island Problem" caused by this County's ~
failure or refusal toe to abuses as other Counties have. including Kauai where a year
ago the problems were rampant but now are getting under control through new Kauai County ~
regulations. ~
3. Mr. Meeker of the Hawaii State 13ar Association's condominium committee. ham,
who called the proposed law unnecessary, if the Counties act, citing the City and County of ~ 1°
Honolulu, as an example of past abuses having been now completely eliminated due to ~ .,y.
Honolulu City Council action.
1'_~~
Mayor Larry Tanim®to
Page Two Apr11 18, 1990
4. Mr. I~ir'raura and Senator Matsuura's stai3' pointed out that the proposed bill
was submitted to the Dig Island administration and Planning De ent for cornnaent, and
to the date of hearing (April 4) there lead been no response at all. (This. coffipared to the
Mayor of Kauai and its Planning Director being present in the hearing r®®~xa on that date).
On the Dig Island County level, the "double density"/ "condivision"/ "agricultural
condominium" issue has been before you for going on two years now. endless excuses have
been given by everyone front the Mayor to Councihnembers to the Planning Director about
the issue being "studied" or that "regulations- need to be proposed" by one agency or another.
In the meantime. planning, zoning, and subdivision laws are laughed at, the developers
from Honolulu and Kauai are in Dona doing ghat they can't do elsewhere, and the County is
left to shoulder the present and future infrastructure needs caused by such unregulated
development which the developers would have provided if County rezoning and subdivision
laws were complied with.
JPS, Inc. (Mr. Schuler) avoided litigation, which would probably have involved the
County with a settlement with the Komohana Kai Owners Association. It didn't take
litigation to get the other countries to do their duty of enforcing and protecting land
planning, zoning and subdivision laws.
I am aware of a total of at least 230 new "lots" thus created since this issue was first
brought to your attention, all done with no irrxpact fees, no providing of infrastructure, and
no compliance with subdivision laws. The problem is from Hilo (e.g. Puna Shores, Panaewa
Acres) to Waimea (T.M.K. 5-2-10:01) to Kona (1-Iualalai Plantations) and only will get worse.
The latest example is "Malta Place". This consists of only two legal lots (TMKs 7-4-4-11 and
42) apparently being developed into even separate "parcels" through the ohana/condo scam.
The problem is compounded by construction of buildings on the property with apparently
allow for three bedrooms and two baths in each residence and se~~rate ag~artm~nts in
i i h n r i ~ And to make matters even worse this urban
overloaded accesses directly onto already overcrowded Palapi R~~d! ~Fhy is the Planning
Department allowing this and if it "must" under present ordinances or law, why isn't it
bringing such problems to the attention of the Counts and State legislators to regulate?
Since all the other Countries have addressed and successfully dealt with these
matters, and thus their ordinances and regulations are readily available for models, why
have you done nothing visible? Is there some element lobbying in favor of these abuses?
What is your position or excuse nova? When will this matter be resolved?
Sincerely,
GALLUP & VAN PEl2NIS
VAN PE S
MVP/vc
MALIA PLACE
FACT SHEET
r^-RiC ~i89,000 tC~ $199,000
LAND TEPJUr<E : Fee S i mpl e
TMK: :i/7-4-4-11 & 42
AGE: New
ADDRESS: M31ia Place
SUBDIVISION: Malia Place
LAND AREA: 10,000 sq ft minimum
ZONING: RS 10
BEDROOMS: 3
BAT~iROOMS : 2
LIVING AREA: 1248 square feet
LANAI: (Covered) 220 square feet
STORAGE/GHANA: 962 square feet
CARPORT/GARAGE: 506 square feet -
TOTAL: 2936 square feet
STORIES: 2
CC".STR:,'~TIO"+: l?c~od Fra~e, Composition Roof, Concrete Slab
EXTRAS: Berber Carpet, European Cabinets, Tile
INCLUSIO~dS: Range, Disposal, Ceiling fans
TERMS ACCEPTABLE: Cash, Conventional, Purchase Money
Mortgage
County rater
Private road
Cesspool
Ghana permit pending on 4 of the properties.
Expected completion date starting April 15, 1990.
Completely enclosed do~rnstairs for Mother-in-law apartment,
home expansion, family room or ?
20 year roof warranty, standard appliance warranties
Above information subject to change by developer.
.
~&dY~ SZH~L ,LK H'I~S 2i~OZ ~ON~ _
~ ~ ~
' ~ W
~ I
W ~
~ ~ - -
_ ,
i~
~ ~
~-3 ~ - -
e~
i
_
i,l
~ ~i~ ~ I~~
~ ~ it
~1
~ ~I
C ~I;
~
O ' '
1
- -
~ l
I;~
.I',i I is
II ,
~ ~ j 'I
i ! I
i i III
~ I~
~ I
III
j ~
~ ~
ii;
~'i
i.
~ ~II 'I I
.i
!i ~ ' I'
; il,
i .I;
_ I
~
i
I
I~'
r.,'I,
-
i - r !
I
I i
~ !
~ i ~ +
• ! ~ ~INI~ "
i
• •~NI'1f3:J Q91'lfivn Sn-!~~{{S-5
I bN~'7 WOOS ~~lylnl~ ~ sn~rrs s
.I tea- ~3y
~I -
- Z ~ -
i'~F ~O: ~
•~9N~
- , t' , 4
1 Nln
I ~ z i.
to O -
~ - 1H1d2"'' Sn'iNs-~
4
~ ~ ~ ~~~~d ~ -
I I I
•so~~
I.
~I
91r1~' •~'I'~"t -
II
_ _ -~~l
I
G A L L U P & ! V a n P E R N I S
October 6, 1992
Councilman Takashi Domingo
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo. Hawaii 96720
Council Ch Kalani Schulte
2~ Aupuni Street
Hilo. Ilawaii 96720
Councilwoman Helene Hale
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo. Hawaii 96720
Planning Director Norman I-Iayashi
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Planning Commission Chairman
Mike Luce
25 Aupuni Street
Hilo. Hawaii 96720
Re: Double Density - Condivision
Dear Gentlemen and Ms. Hale:
I appreciate the Planning commission providing me and others in Kona with t1°,~
opportunity to give testimony to support the Ohara revision ordinance. But final action on
this matter is long overdue,
To clear up any misrepresentations or ambiguities resulting form one speaker before
the Pl C ion that the City and County of Honolulu was going to be doing away
with its recently unposed Ohara restrictions. or that b con on was improper under
the law. I enclose a copy of an Update on those issues form a resent State wide Realtors'
publication. From it you can see that not only are Honolulu's revised restrictions r
restrictive than what the Big Island's proposed new restrictions would be. butg 1~
a density -
condivision (sales under condominium property regunes) is specifically lprohibited, these
Ghana rt o wsu rte ~li~nolulu Bo of R~altrar~j
RTFR S~
Please feel free to contact me further concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
GAI~.UP ~ VAN P f
MARK PERNIS
MVP/ajf
oc: Michael Matsukawa. Esquire
WALLACE H. GALLUP JR. a MARK Van PERNIS ~rroRNevs AT ~Aw DAVID E. SMITH °m° GARY W. VANCIL
~ LAW CORPORATION
SUITE C-210, HUALALAI CENTER, 75-170 HUALALAI ROAD P O. BOX 1837, KAILUA-KONA, HAWAII 96745 m^ PHONE (808) 329-3551, FAX (8081 329-6185
.J r ~ V ~ C j
~y ~ off.: ,3=^^~~
- g O `Y C ~ nSi O W .s 3.4m ~
a
- N O O O d~ 9` n O ~ N d`~ ~ 7'
Oy~r"o 4~0 "'4 0,70.G w~
ivy o n~A~n3.,
~od~~~p or7o"n.~~~ro°~a
n 34~
~ t~ 4 ~ ^ ~ 7 .y 7 Q w
_ min n~~" y°F l~p.E?~O
_ _
~
,:;f.,;. ~
ka:; ~.v < ~ s° ~ :t ~ „ADS. .°y. °'E
~ 9~. r,Oy ~ m 5..:cD 'LY .iD ~O A
~~.R ~ a+2..c~ ebnwm
^y 7
~ ~ '-l cD ~ C ii
m . r. ~
~C a ° ~ 3 y Q. e
sv ~ ~ 3 0 " •e ,n ~ g, t
~ ~ ~a ~7dm
t7 y ~ ~
,
.
n~~~ o-
x:: ` 4 ~
~ a ~ I
:x.~"`.
n'
~ g 53',a i
~ ~
/yes ~ w ^ w
7 ? ~ °t eo ~ I
O ~ ^ O n_ ~
~ ^ ° ~
~ amw4w"
7-A LL-.
~ O ~
_~O'.p, R'9 a ~
N.~ ~Q~oa~ _ i
~3~ j
~ c ~ o
_ .,,3, ~ rp y, G B
`D 4nc0 ~p
i o
_ '~~3~~~
i o
~ G
I ~o37~y
'o
~°4? °
~cl, ~ m a^OiW ~ ~ •
7
I ~i G. w p' p 7'
~~b ~ ~
w
.
......,v
• il~m~h~~:~ ~C~i 1 ~~me~aa~n~r'~ ~~~~ciati~~
P.U. fox ~0~1
Kailua-Kona, ~aonraii 96745
Re; Kamani Tree Subdivision
Date: March 15, 1989
To: Mayor Bernard Akana (and County Council Members.)
Dear Mayor Akana and Council Merrtbex.°s
We have very recently become ~-~cware that Kamani Tree Subdivision is not
zoned for Single Family Dwellings as we had rtlways believed it to be. Now,•.buae
of the passing of The Ohara Law i.n 1983, its zoned for multiple family dwellings.
•It ie our understanding that if no Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
(CC&Rs) are created by the developer/s of Kamani Tree Subdivision...it will
be a fact that because of the enacianent of the 1B83 Ohara Law...two houses
can be built on each 10,000 Sq:Ftlot in said subdivision. There are seventy
(70) lots...a possible 140 houses. We also understand if there are no CC&Rs
The County allows a height limit maximum of 35 feet...and under Ohara Law
a minim of 240 Sq. feet of ].ivinc~r space. If our understanding is correct
this would create instant havoc for The Komohana Kai I and II Subdivisions
and also for the Kilohana and Ali.i Kai Subdivisions which surround Kamani
Tree Subdivision.
With all of the above and with Kealoha Road raw (as the temporary) access
for Kamani Tree...70 plus cars in and out of Kealoha, Kololia, Lako, Kupuna ,
and Royal Poincianna Drive, as we origionally understood, would have been
injury enough...but for a possible 140 plus cars to be spilled into the above
rt~_ntioned subdivisions' streets is adding insult to injury. In our June 15,
1988 petition letter to Albert Lono Lyman, the Planning Department Director;
and Mayor Dante Carpenter; and Councilanan She.~vood Greenwell and Councilwoman
Merle Lai...we opposes the access for Kamani Tree being limited to Kealoha
Road~Fxtension for several reasons, which we pointed out. Even though Kealot~a
is now classed as temporagy...the problems have not changed...and now that
a possible 140 hares (or ?0 duplexes) could be built the impact on the above
mentioned surrounding_ subdivisions will becane even greater than we'were
origionally concerned with with only a 70 home subdivision. We ask, "Haa
long is temporary?" The children will still be forced to walk 1/4 of a mile
along the very narrow Royal Poincianna Drive to and from the Kahakai Elementary
School...without even a shoulder...much less curbs, gutters or sidewalks. With
the additional traffic problems generated by a probable 140 homes...the traffic
hazzards for all pedestrians on Royal Poincianna Drive will became overwhelming.
The County's liability will be even more monumental than previously anticipated.
Virtual Highways will be created on Kealoha, Kololia, Lako and Kupuna Streets
in Kilohana, Karbhana Kai II and particulary Kanohana Kai I Subdivision.
We just do not believe that i:he above mentioned conditions which will
be pegrru.tted under The Ohara Law rega.xding Komori Tree Subdivision are at
all caepatable with the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions...which govern
the Alii Kai, Kilohana,Kanohana I4-~i I and II Subdivisions which are already
well built up. All of the above...including Komori Tree were approved quite
sometime prior to the enactment of the 1983 Ohara Law. Because of this fact
we feel that Komori Tree should not be zoned for anything other than SINGLE
FAMILY DWELI,INGS...the same as KIlohana, and Komohana Kai I and Komohana Kai
II Subdivisions.
cr ~
IC®rnlf~~ ICai 1 1~1®rr~~~a~~~r'~ ~~~ci~~i®n
P.O. fox X091
Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96745 -
Page 2...Re: Kamahi Tree Subdivision
The following paragraph is the next to the .last paragraph on page 3 of a letter
written January 21, 1988...to Ms. Crystal T. Yamasaki. R.L.S. by Mr. Albert
Lono Lyrrean...as follows: "you should be aware that if at any time during
the ful]rnent of the foregoing conditions that environmental problems emerge,
problem which were earlier overlooked or not anticipated/accounted for in
data/reports available to date. ..this should be sufficient cause to immediately
cease and desist from further activities on the proposed subdivision pending
resolution of the probl~n/s. The Tectu9ical Review Cormaittee or other concerned
agencies to resolve the problc~ra and notify you accordingly." Secause of
this paragraph we request that the County Of Hawaii Council (who makes and
controls the ]_aavs for The County of Hawaii) should very seriously review the
obvious terrible error...which...in our opinion...has to be rectified...because
of the extreme traffic problems that will be created by the great density
problem that will be a fact if the developer is allowed to build the multifamily
dwellings (duplexes) that they are planning to construct on each lot in that
subdivision. We suggest a revision of The Ohara Law to make it so that it
could only apply to individuals and not to full subdivisions. The Ohara Law
should be retracted...maki.ng it invalid for all subdivisions that were approved
prior to 1983...unless...there should be no other existing subdivisions, such
as ours, that the Ohara Law could possibly be in conflict with...concerning
' corr~atability. The .retraction shrn~ld be made retroactive ,to include the adjusted
rezoning of Kamani:Tree to be changed from Ohara (multible family) dwellings
'on each lot...to Single Family Dwellings on each lot.-..the same as it is for
Kilohana, Komohana Kai I and Ko€riohana Kai II. ,
We humbly request that Mayor Akana and The County Council readily rectify
this error that...if not corrected...will gravely devalue the property values
of the above mentioned subdivisions...that now surround Kamani Tree...anci
that were a1reG3y approved prior to The 1983 Ohara Law.
Perhaps Mayor Akana and Council Me~nbers...and other officials... and
Ttle Planning Department Officials could come to our area and view first hand
the problems we have put forth...in order to avoid future catastrophies for
us and far other existing comrrnutities like ours.
We will appreciate your prorrgpt attention. to these very serious matters.
Just immagine the 140 plus cars...frrom the future intended 140 homes...txying
to exit from our subdivisions out onto Kuakini Highway at the Lako Street
Intersection. Please keep us informed.. Mahalo.
Sincerely;
KC3 ICAI JC 71~1TION
0
•
UD[]IS~ H. TIKS...PRESII~Pr
c.c. Gov. John Waihee
Takashi Domingo; Chairman of Hawaii County Council's Planning Committee
Counci]man Harry Rt~ddle
- Councilwoman Merle Lai
councilwoman Helene Hale
Virginia Isbell
State Senator, Andrew•Levin