HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL-REZ-2022-000017 B. GANETZKY TESTIMONY 11.13.2022Araujo, Jaclyn
From: barry g <ganetzky@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2022 11:32 AM
To: LPCtestimony
Subject: Oppose Item #2, Applicant: Shawn Maile Nakoa, Esq. (PL-REZ-2002-000017), TMK: (3)
7-7-008:062
Dear Planning Commission:
Thank you for this opportunity to express my opinion regarding the above referenced rezoning application. I
am writing to voice my strong OPPOSITION to this subdivision.
There are a number of reasons for my opposition including the following:
No Signage Notification
The application for this subdivision, submitted by Land Planning Hawaii (LPH), stated they would post a sign
regarding the rezone application at the property's entrance.
However,There is NO visible signage at the entrance to the property at Pomaikai Street or Kuakini Highway.
Requested Septic Systems, NOT Available Municipal Wastewater Connection
LPH's application initially stated that the subdivided properties' wastewater would be treated via "Individual
Wastewater Systems," i.e., they did not intend to (pay to) connect to the municipal wastewater system.
Water Allotment Application Based on Old Records
LPH initially submitted proof of available water based on a letter to a Realtor for a different subdivision
application from 2010. This has since been corrected by the Dept. of Water Supply and they have paid a
deposit for two additional 'units,' good until 2025. This was sloppy, and created more work for the Planning
Dept. and Dept. of Water Supply.
Endangered Flora / Fauna Not Surveyed
The application states, "Although there were no professional surveys conducted... the applicant does not
believe that rare or endangered floral or fauna resources are likely to be found within the subject site..."
"Does not believe?" In fact, each of the species named, Hawaiian Hawk (I'o), Hawaiian Owl (Pueo), and
Hawaiian Hoary Bat have all been observed hunting on and around this property and the surrounding areas.
Avoidance of an Updated and Accurate Archeological Survey
The application initially submitted an archeological survey from 1987 for this acreage. DLNR / SHPD requested
additional information, and a back -and -forth ensued.
Then in late October 2022, after the applicant somehow secured a teleconference between the applicant and
the applicant's attorney, SHPD, and the Deputy Planning Director — even though SHPD noted that there was
likelihood of previously undocumented historic sites and there has been recent bulldozing that impacted
burial plots — SHPD agreed to give permission for archeological surveys to be conducted after subdividing.
WHY? We don't really know. A transcript of this teleconference meeting was not provided in the application
documentation, nor was the promised map from a reported 10/28/22 survey.
It appears that even though the applicant had specifically agreed in the Court decision to "front" the costs
associated with subdividing, they now want to avoid paying. It also appears that the Court's recommendation
on subdividing the parcel between the owners as the easiest solution was implied by LPH to be "Court -
ordered."
In fact, and as noted in the Court document, the Court can only recommend, not require or "order," a zoning
change.
Request to Avoid Department of Transportation (DOT) Safety Standards
The DOT specifically requested that the applicant only access the property from Pomaikai Street, not Kuakini
Highway, for safety reasons.
LPH continues to push for Kuakini Highway access, stating, "As the lot layout has not been finalized, the
applicant wishes to retain the possibility of access to Kuakini Highway by one resulting lot if required by other
factors.
There are two concerns here. The first, obviously, is public safety.
The second is that LPH also represents out-of-state landowners who have applied to build a cul-de-sac
subdivision off Kapukapu Street. LPH has already stated in writing that they have contacted owners of the
parcels between the Kapukapu property and Kuakini Highway to explore options to access the site.
Special Management Area (SMA) Application Deferral
The application states they want to apply for a "minor" SMA for each of the subdivided parcels AFTER a
rezoning. Why? A "major" SMA requires more extensive public notice, signage, and hearing at the Leeward
Planning Commission. An after -the -fact "minor" SMA, requires only the approval of the Planning Director (or
should it be the Deputy Director, in this case?).
Necessitv of 60-foot easement?
The proposed subdivision map indicates a large historical easement adjacent to the northern ahupua'a
boundary. The benefit of this large easement to the property owner, with the exception of access for
additional developments makai, is unclear.
Five Years Extension Language Included, Again
The Planning Director's Recommendation again includes language to potentially extend the application
approval from 5 years to 10, for a variety of reasons that usually are rotely approved.
This follows the letter but not the intent of Bill 194, introduced by Councilperson Inaba and approved by both
Planning Commissions. The intent was to stop having projects go dormant and be revived years later. All this
language does is bypass the Planning Commission directly to the Council — which may have the unintended
consequence of removing, not adding, oversight and public input.
It would seem that if standard language can be changed from "Planning Director," to "Deputy Planning
Director," — in acknowledgement of the conflict of interest with the current Director's former firm being this
applicant's representative — then surely the language on extensions can be removed.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Please do the right thing for the benefit of Kailua-Kona
and all the inhabitants of Hawaii.
Sincerely,
A„ I-b- 1,
Barry Ganetzky
76-6349 Kololia St.
Kailua Kona, HI 96740
608-234-0841