The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0451.001 2010-2012 Pi Ft Attention Planning Committee, COUNTY CLERK an- ►3, c�M i451 Hello my name is Marc Butz. My wife, daughter and I live at 55 Akala R *n(Uilo.om ld like to bring to your attention two Conditions in our application(REZ 11-141)that we wish to see addressed. 2011 DEC -6 PM 2: 115 The first Condition I would like to discuss is Condition"M". This condition, known as the"Fair Share Contribution" is requesting a contribution of$12,316.47. After extensive research and further discussions with several levels of the County Government I would like to present to you why we feel this Condition should be waived. I have taken the time to research online every single rezone application that has occurred since January of 2005. In addition I have asked the Planning Department to review applications from the mid 1990's,when the Family Agriculture (FA)Zoning was created, until to 2005. What I have found is that in only one other instance has an application been brought to this body requesting a rezone change to FA-1 a to create one additional lot. This application was filed in early 2004 by a Ms. Ackerman(REZ 04-017). This application, like ours, was rezoning from a larger Ag zoning to FA-1 a and only creating one additional lot. Like ours this application was filed by an individual and not a developer. This application like ours had the ability to create more than just one additional lot but chose to create only one. We feel that this application represents a very clear and compelling precedent as to how applications such as ours have been handled in the past. The reason this application is significant is that this body agreed with the applicant in that case and waived their"Fair Share"condition. It was noted by several of the Committee members at the time that they felt this condition inappropriate for change of zones such as these. Comments were made in favor of this waiver such as "I think that this is an example of the kinds of very small scale changes that improve the quality of life for people in the community and don't have a major,major, any kind of major, even I don't think such of a minor impact". As well as"there's not significant change here. There can't possibly be$10,000 worth of impact created by this little bit of change, and perhaps we should change our current law and make some kind of law for situations like this". We feel that the waiver of the"Fair Share"condition from rezone application REZ 04-017 represents a strong precedent for very small scale Agricultural zoning changes such ours in which zoning would be changed to FA-la with only one additional developable lot being created. We would ask the Committee to consider the precedent that has been set when reviewing this matter. The second reason we have issue with Condition"M"is that we believe we are in a sense being penalized for attempting to protect the integrity of the land we have. The reason I state this is because while our property is 4.747 acres, only a portion of about 1.75 acres is farmable with good soil. The remainder of the property is either fully or intermittently covered with lava making it unsuitable for any sort of farming or agriculture. Because our lot is over 4 acres we could have requested a FA-2a zoning and still split the parcel into two lots. If we had pursued an FA-2a zoning we would not have been subject to the "Fair Share Contribution"condition. As it was not accessed in a very recent rezoning and subdivision of our neighbor across the street in which they rezoned from Ag-3a to FA-2a(REZ 07-000066). The reason we have chosen to request a FA-la zoning as opposed to a FA-2a zoning is simply to keep the integrity of 1.75 acres of farmable land. If we were to rezone to FA-2a, and therefore have two lots both 2 acres or larger in size,we would have to draw the subdivision line right through this portion of good farmable land (See Map). The result would be to cut the farmable portion of land in half and taking an already agriculturally difficult piece of land(due to its size), and reducing it by approximately 50%. It is our desire to retain the integrity of the farmable land and the reason we request a FA-la zoning as opposed to a FA-2a zoning. We do not see the"fairness" in accessing a fee upon our application that we could otherwise avoid if we showed no interest in the long term viability of the land. We have chosen to do the right thing,we have chosen to be good stewards of the land, and as of right now we feel penalized for it. We would ask the Committee to consider the intent of our zoning choice when reviewing this matter. Comm. No. 57. I �, Ref. To: L Ref. Dote DEC 0 7 2.01 The last reason we would ask Condition M to be waived is the financial burden it would place upon our family. My wife and I are both self employed and while I am proud of the work we do,the truth is fmancially we struggle. A lifestyle that was difficult five years ago has become even more so since this recession has taken hold. The thought of having to come up with$12,316.47 upfront seems insurmountable to a family just barely getting by. The "Fair Share"contribution condition of$12,316.47 would represent well over 30%of our gross family income, while also seriously putting into doubt our ability satisfy all the necessary conditions to finalize our rezoning and future subdivision. We would ask the Committee to consider our financial situation when reviewing this matter. For the reasons listed above we ask the Planning Committee to please waive Condition M from our application. The second condition we would like to address is Condition F. The current condition states that"a fifteen (15) foot wide road widening setback along the subject property's Akala Road frontage shall be delineated on subdivision plans. The future road widening setback shall be dedicated to the County of Hawaii prior to Final Subdivision Approval". The issue we have with this is two fold. The first is that this condition is written in a manner different from several past examples in which setbacks were written as such"The applicants shall provide a 15 foot wide future road widening setback along the entire property frontage along Akala Road" We feel the latter is more in line and more consistent with past conditions placed on applications. The other point we would like to make is that the relevance of this setback has come into question since the adoption of Bill 99. The purpose of Bill 99 among other things is to remove the"future road widening setback" for the area where Akala Road and Haleloke Streets meet. The effect of this is to essentially take the first step in removing Akala Road as a future road widening. If there exists a possible intent to remove the road widening setback from Akala Road then there is less need for Condition F and certainly no need to dedicate land. I have spoken with the Planning Department and they also are in favor of a change. We would ask that Condition F be altered or re-written to match the language used in other recent rezone applications such as the one on Akala Road in 2009 (REZ 07-000066). We ask that the language be changed to state: "The applicants shall provide a 15 foot wide future road widening setback along the entire property frontage along Akala Road". I appreciate your time and consideration in these matters. Marc Butz i N A G G A e . '7 tir I 44 1 Q'. k 4 0 ' 1 i. a la u O 'qp• 18 0 Q = 0 ✓ ' 13-e'� a ' --) ( C) 14`N ►0.7G., i A , ° ��b i 3 Q 1 `grips 'Vk a i