The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0428.000 2006-2008 LINDA LINGLE <E `a,~ ANTHONY J.H. CHING • GOVERNOR e, sss~\kv; EXECUTIVE OFFICER e4~ ~ z~ "~e~ STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & TOURISM LAND USE COMMISSION P.O. Box 2359 Honolulu, Hawaii 96804-2359 _ ,,,,y Telephone: 808-587-3822 ~ Fax: 806-587-3827 ~ i- _ Apri130, 2007 Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Director ~ County of Hawaii Planning Department ~ 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Yuen: Subject: State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 07-000014) Request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 07-000064) Request: A-5a to RM-1 Applicant: Seascape Development, LLC TMK No.: (3) 7-3-010:003 We have reviewed the subject application forwarded by your memorandum dated Apri12, 2007 and have the following comments. 1. The subject area is a 10.01-acre parcel located within the State Land Use Agricultural District. 2. The subject area was derived from a portion of a larger 50-acre parcel, formerly identified as TMK No.: (3) 7-3-010:003. Subdivision of this 50-acre parcel produced five parcels. These parcels include: Parcel 3 -the subject area, consisting of 10.001 acres; Parce151-consisting of 10.001 acres; Comm. No. Parce152 -consisting of 12.892 acres; Ref. To: - ~ Ref. Uate MAY 0 2007 Parce153 -consisting of 14.583 acres; and Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Director Apri130, 2007 Page 2 Parce154 -consisting of a 2.594 acre roadway lot bisecting the four above- mentioned parcels. 3. The area now known as Parce151, formerly known as TMK No. (3) 7-3-010:003 (portion) was reclassified to the State Land Use (SLU) Urban District by the County pursuant to §205-3.1(c), Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS). In its correspondence to the County of Hawaii Planning Department dated March 31, 2004 (attachment A), the Land Use Commission (LUC) staff expressed concern regarding the potential development of the entire 50-acre parcel in a piece meal fashion. At that time, staff recommended that the County of Hawaii comprehensively consider the entire parcel as a single development, especially if similar residential and related uses were proposed on that 50-acre parcel. LUC staff also noted that the Third Circuit Court had ruled that projects should be reviewed by state and county agencies in an integrated and comprehensive manner. 4. At the time that the County of Hawaii considered the reclassification of the area now known as Parce151, the entire 50-acre parcel had received tentative subdivision approval for the parcel configuration that is described in item no. 2. During the course of the County's hearing on the reclassification of Parce151, Planning Commissioner Graham expressed concern regarding the "segmentation" of the 10.001-acre development proposal from the larger 50-acre area. (TR: June 18, 2004, pg. 19, para. 4) 5. At the Apri121, 2006 meeting of the County of Hawaii Planning Commission, the applicant's planning consultant, Mr. Sidney Fuke, stated that "...there are three other parcels that were part of this subdivision and which at some point are going in for entitlement " (TR: Apri121, 2006, pg. 5, para. 1) At this same meeting, Director Christopher Yuen indicated that the assurances given by the Applicant (aka Westpro Development) that an extension of Kakahiaka Street would be built was in the context of "a property owner who owns several lots and potentially develop the lots in the immediate area." (TR: Apri121, 2006, pg. 7, para. 5) Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Director Apri130, 2007 Page 3 6. At the May 5, 2006 meeting of the County of Hawaii Planning Commission, Mr. Fuke stated that, "I can tell you that the Applicant right now who also owns the remaining three parcels will be filing for a SLU District Boundary Amendment for the remaining area to continue this type of a project (TR: May 5, 2006, pg. 4, para. 5) 7. On September 22, 2004, the Hawaii County Council adopted Ordinance No. 04-105 reclassifying 10.001 acres of land from the SLU Agricultural District to the SLU Urban District. 8. In later months of 2006, the Applicant (Seascape Development, LLC) requested of and received an LUC docket number (LUC Docket No. A06-768) for the purposes of processing a petition for district boundary amendment (DBA) with the LUC. Since receiving that docket number, the Applicant has not yet filed any petition with the LUC. Findings. a) The LUC is charged with the overall administration of the State Land Use Law (Chapter 205 HRS). As such, the LUC must be the final arbiter (where any controversy exists) in determining whether a petition for DBA (pursuant to §205-3.1 HRS) is appropriately before an individual county. While X205-3.1 HRS of the State Land Use Law provides that petitions for DBA involving 15 acres or less are within the jurisdiction of the appropriate county authority; should the cumulative project involve acreage greater than 15 acres, that petition is subject to the jurisdiction of the LUC. b) The subject petition for DBA of 10.001 acres of land represents the second action by this applicant to urbanize a portion of their origina150-acre holding. c) LUC staff previously expressed concerns that the County of Hawaii should comprehensively consider the 50-acre parcel as a single development if similar residential and related uses were proposed on that 50-acres. d) An individual County of Hawaii Planning Commissioner has already expressed concerns as to the "segmentation' of the initia110.001 acre parcel from the larger 50-acre project. e) Appendix E of the subject petition for DBA is a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) fora 50-acre residential development composed of four separate "lots'. The Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Director Apri130, 2007 Page 4 project planned for "Lot #1" is the same residential project described in the subject application. The TIAR considers the 50-acre area as a single project. f) The ownership and development of the 50-acre area is apparently being pursued by the same entity (Westpro Development LLC/Seascape Development LLC -Alan Dickler). Conclusion. Given the history and actions of the petitioner for DBA for the 50-acre area, and the comments and findings that I have outlined in this letter, it is my belief that the subject petition for DBA should be properly submitted to the jurisdiction of the LUC. I look forward to your response. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 587-3826. Sincerely, C ANTHONY ING Executive Officer c: Chair, County of Hawaii Planning Commission Chair, Hawaii County Council Laura Thielen, Director, Office of Planning Alan Dickler, Seascape Development, LLC