The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0674.015 2000-2002 ~ Y Y' ~~.~E ssaci~te~s~nc. f A.a . William L. Wong, CPA, CVA, PFS 75-5591 Palani Road, Suite 201 Lauren itA. Smith, CPA, PFS Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 Nona L. Nishina, CPA Telephone: (808) 329-0911 Iris A. Wong, IIABA ' '~a~: ($08) 329-0913 Email: cpa@wlwong.com September 5, 2002 Hawaii County Council Chairperson, James Y. Arakaki Planning Committee Chairperson, Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd Councilperson, Nancy Pisicchio Councilman, J. Curtis Tyler, III 25 Aupuni Street Milo, Hawaii 96720 Rl=: ,Bi11232 (®rafit 4~ ~1n ®rdinance ~4mending Section 25-8-3 sot 1-lienaloli 2" ° North !tone, flavvaii; sRgricultural 5-acre (~4-5a) to Single family ftesidentia120,000 s.f. (d4S'-20 7"ax 9~laA dCeLr: T-5-010: 065, Lot 1 Dear Chairperson Arakaki and Councilpersons: represent a group of Kona residents, including myself, that has just acquired a parcel of property (TMK 7-5-10: 65, Lot 3) located east (mauka) of that certain subject property under consideration for rezoning to RS-20 situated at Hienaloli 2"d, North Kona. Lot 1 that is the subject property to be considered for this change of zone was created from Subdivision No. 7434-Revised approved for recordation by the Planning Director on January 23, 2002. Subdivision No. 7434-revised was for the creation of a six-lot subdivision. Our group purchased Lot 3, which is located above Lot 2 and the subject property under consideration for this change of zone. We have had an opportunity tc review Draft 4 of Bill No. 232 and noted that the wording of Condition No. G in the above-referenced ordinance for rezoning of the subject property will seriously and adversely impact our property. Paragraph G of the conditions for rezoning of their property currently reads: "Any roadway within the proposed subdivision shall be dedicated to the County of Hawaii upon request by the Department of Public Works. The interior roadway system shall be ~ stubbed out to the adjoining parcel to the east to be consistent with the County's.. regional roadway circulation plans. This roadway will be constructed to dedicable standards and dedicated to the County. This road shall be barricaded at the eastern boundary of the subject property until such time that this roadway is connected throug_ ~ the adjoining parcel to Kakalina Street and Kakalina Street is continued to the Wort a~ - I~ ~ Personal Financial Specialist The CPA. Never Underestimate The V MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS d ,oe Hawaii County Council September 5, 2002 Page 2 We are vigorously objecting to this provision for the following reasons: 1. In our investigation of the property we acquired, including all of the other parcels located in Hienaloli 2"d, we reviewed the KEAHOLE TO KEAUHOU ROAD SYSTEMS & PROJECTS UPDATE (County of Hawaii Projects, Unless Otherwise Noted -Status as of August 2001) and reviewed the existing and planned arterial and collector roadways which were noted to be supported by recently completed traffic studies. Included in the proposed collector roads was the extension of Hienaloli Road connecting to Palani Road. There is no proposed collector or arterial road connecting Kakalina Street with Palani road and certainly no east/west collector or arterial road planned within the Hienaloli 2nd parcel. 2. The subject parcels are located on the edge of a significant flood channel so that an arterial or collector road connecting Kakalina Street with Palani Road (or any other location across this flood channel) would require exorbitant engineering and construction costs. This condition would probably discourage any construction of a bridge road. 3. A mauka/makai interior roadway from the subject property as noted in the conditions will almost certainly not be useful as a collector or arterial road to Kakalina Street because there already exists a maukalmakai road (Aloha Kona Drive) less than a 100 yards from the subject property and from our property. Residents of the proposed subdivision will certainly not drive mauka to Kakalina to exit out of Nani Kailua onto Queen Kaahumanu Highway, which represents a full semi-circle from their origination point. They would take the more direct route of Kawena Street. Also, since there probably would be no half bridge built over the flood channel on Kakalina Street, running another County dedicable east/west road less than a 100 yards from an existing east/west road would be superfluous. Residents from the subject property would not use this road to exit while residents from Kakalina Street would not use this exit. 4. An interior roadway intersecting with Kakalina Street on our property, wl•iich the condition implies, would virtually wipe out the lower portion of our property with 60' wide swaths of roadway and curbs leading nowhere, th~;reby causing us extreme hardship and economic damages. 5. Kona has been beset with teenage drinking problems centered at stubbed out roads. These roads tend to be located in rernote and dark areas conducive to these activities. In our zealousness to impose future road requirements, we must be Co~~7i~ent Cf tl~e ir~pliCetidns these Conditions. Hawaii County Council September 5, 2002 Page 3 6. There is nowhere to develop or connect further from the subject property. The property located directly next to the subject property (east or mauka), according to the present owners (the same owners as the subject property) will not be subdivided because of the flood channel that runs through the property. According to their representations to us, this adjoining lot will be preserved as a 5.386 acre lot. Planning for a County desicable road with wide areas of pavement and drywells with no real and practical functionality should be discouraged in favor of preserving the landscaping. 7. The flood channel represents a natural boundary to curb future traffic flow into the Nani Kailua and Queen Kaahumanu Highway intersection. Properties and developments located north of the flood channel should be serviced by arterial and collector roads leading to Palani Road, including the proposed Hienaloli- Kahului Road extension. This would be more consistent and desirable in quelling neighboring residents' complaints about traffic flow from new developments in the area. We plan to come before the Planning Department, Planning Commission and the Hawaii County Council with a State Land Use District Boundary Amendment and Change of .one application to also create asingle-family residential subdivision and eventually construct our residences into this recently acquired property. We, therefore, respectfully ask your favorable consideration in deleting Condition No. G in its entirety; or with no reference or inference to our Lot No. 3 by deleting the Kakalina Street language from the Draft Sill and stipulating that the Hienaloli-Kahului Road shall be the mid-level arterial or collector road between Nani Kailua Drive and Palani Road. This would make the condition consistent with the Keahole to Keauhou Road System Plan. Sincerely, William L. Wong WLW/efh