Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-12-09 TBOCKUS LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAIÒI HEARING TRANSCRIPT DECEMBER 9, 2009 CHARLES G. BOCKUS (REZ 09-105) A regularly advertised hearing on the application of was called to order at 10:35 a.m. in the Waikoloa Beach Marriott Hotel, AliÒi III Room, 69-275 Waikoloa Drive, Waikoloa, HawaiÒi, with Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. PRESENT: Rodney Watanabe Brandi Beaudet Lani Bowman Fdq`kchmdFheehm Frederic Housel Wayne Iokepa Aq`mcnmFnmy`kdy , Deputy Corporation Counsel BJ Leithead Todd, Planning Director L`qf`qdsL`rtm`f`+CdotsxOk`mmhmfChqdbsnq Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner  Maija Cottle, Staff Planner JhDlkdq+DmfhmddqhmfChuhrhnm+Cdo`qsldmsneOtakhbVnqjr And five people from the public in attendance APPLICANT: CHARLES G. BOCKUS (REZ 09-105) Change of Zone from Agricultural 5-acre (A-5a) to a Family Agricultural 2-acre (FA-2a) district for approximately 5.275 acres of land. The property is located at the end of Nohealani Street, approximately 600 feet east (mauka) of the Walua Road-Nohealani Street intersection, nd Kapalaalaea 2, North Kona, HawaiÒi, TMK: 7-7-7: 47. WATANABE: We have Agenda Item No. 3. This would be Charles G. B rezoning application, REZ 09-105. Mr. Darrow. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Members of the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONERS: Good morning. DARROW: If I can direct your attention to our presentation. Our next applicant is Charles G. Bockus. They are requesting a change of zone from Agricultural 5-acre to Family Ag 2-acre. The area of this application is within North Kona District. More specifically, we are looking at Kuakini Highway running in a north-south direction. We have Kam-III Road down EXHIBIT B 1 here at the lower portion of the map and Walua Road that provides access off Kuakini Highway. Access to the property, which is identified with a black outline, is through Nohealani Street. The colors on the map represent the zoning. More specifically, if we look at the immediate area, we are looking at a light blue, which is Family Ag 2-acre, and the light green, which is Agricultural 1-acre. There have been several rezones in this general location in the past. The applicant is requesting a change of zone from Agricultural 5 acres to Family Agricultural 2 acres in order to subdivide the 5.275-acre property into two lots consisting of 2.6 acres each. This is a site plan that has been submitted by the applicant. On the left side of the map we have Nohealani Street. We have the access to the properties identified with this access easement. And we have the two properties proposed in the subdivision. There is an existing residence owned by Roger Bockus, and this is located in the upper portion of the property, or the mauka portion. They are also operating a coffee farm at this time. The Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the HawaiÒi County Council. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any questions of staff? Seeing none, letÓs see, IÓm going to try and do this again. We have one person from the public signed up to testify, that would be Kris Holm. Is Kris here? Would you come up, please? HOLM: Hello, IÓm Kris Holm -. WATANABE: Ms. Holm, you have to speak into the mike, please, and I need to swear you in, please. Would you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? HOLM: Yes. WATANABE: Would you state your full name and address, and then you may begin your testimony. HOLM: My name is Kris Holm, K-R-I-S, Holm, H-O-L-M. My mailing address is P.O. Box 390789 in Keauhou, 96739. WATANABE: You may begin your testimony. HOLM: The property, Roger Bockus and myself, we are co-owners of the 5-acre parcel; thatÓs why we would like to subdivide it into two portions. And looking at some of the conditions, B, ÐThe required water commitment payment È,Ñ it says we have to Ðexecute an Elevation Agreement and submit a tank and pump system schematic prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of HawaiÒi È.Ñ We had the water meter installed at the bottom of the property approximately two years ago. And we already did submit that plan, and it was done by Leo Fleming who is a licensed engineer in the State of HawaiÒi -. WATANABE: Yeah, I believe in -. EXHIBIT B 2 HOLM: That schematic, that showed a pump system at the top of our portion of the property. WATANABE: Okay, I believe there were two options, yeah, Jeff, in this? And as I recall, there was one meter installed at the upper end of the parcel but that wasnÓt the option suggested, right? DARROW: Correct. The comment letter from the Department of Water Supply dated nd November 2 allows the applicants two options, and so we are just Î Option No. 2 appeared to be extremely expensive Î and so we are just requesting that the applicant provide, or be able to comply with Option No. 1, which is to submit this agreement. Th to the property. The other connection from the mauka side, according to Water Supply, is not legal. WATANABE: Oh, okay. DARROW: And so they want a separate meter from Nohealani Street installed and a separate Elevation Agreement. WATANABE: Okay. Does that kind of answer your question? HOLM: Well, no, not really, because we have the water meter. We have not built the, or installed the pump because we donÓt have a house on ther install the pump when we build our house. But we are waiting fo before we start building. WATANABE: Okay, right, and you are taking the proper steps. And I think what Mr. Darrow is trying to inform you is that the current extra meter up there, additional meter, does not meet with Board of Water Supply requirements. Now, thatÓs something, though, that you would be able to, I assume, work out with the Board of Water Supply. It doesnÓt seem as though you are objecting to the engineering or placing of the pump. Because I think all of these requirements came about due to a lack of pressure, is that correct, Mr. Darrow? DARROW: This is correct. If I can just clarify real quickly that the actual meter that they are requesting is not for the Holms; this is for the existi WATANABE: Okay, well -. HOLM: But the existing residents already have water. WATANABE: Maybe I should call, yeah, Mr. Bockus up also then, yeah? Mr. Bockus, are you here? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? BOCKUS: I do. EXHIBIT B 3 WATANABE: And would you speak into the mike, and name and address, please. BOCKUS: Aloha, Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee (sic). WATANABE: I would need your name and address. I understand you are -. BOCKUS: Oh, my name is Charles Bockus, 78-7170 Haawina Street, Kailua-Kona 76740. I represent my brother, Roger, and the Holm family in th possible subdividing of this particular five-plus-acre property. When I volunteered to take on this task, I was told that it would require the wisdom of a Yale man, the toughness of an ex- Marine officer and the akamai capacity of a person born and raised in HawaiÒi. So the first thing I did was to determine how my neighbor, the Hudsons, accomplishe subdivision of her approximately five acres, which adjoins our property. Could I have a map shown up, please, for the description? The previous, please. There we go. The Hudsons are just to the upper area of this, our property. They own approximately the same land area. And so I asked myself, well, how did they do it? Maybe we can do the same thing. And they did their rezoning in approximately 1999, and I did a lot of brain picking of the consultants and whatnot that did that. I saw that none of the conditions had really changed in the past ten years at all, especially water supplies, things of that nature. Anyway, to get to this water situation, right now my brother who occupies the mauka portion of this five acres, draws his water from his Keauhou Uka Association Î no problem. The system works fine. It provides enough water for his half. So looking forward to a possible rezoning and subdivision, the Holms took it upon themselves, and rightly so, I think, to put in their own meter, but coming up Nohealani in the mauka direction and Î oh, thank you, okay, there we go Î so the Holms put the meter right there, right on their property line. So in creating this application, why, I was well aware of a need for water. So again, what did the neighbors do? Well, they divided and then the neighbor who lives up -. Can I have the map back, please? Oh, did I press the wrong button? Sorry. There we go. Thank you. So the neighbor who has the mauka portion of this five acres that was subdivided, she draws her water from the same source that my brother does. So there is no problem; sheÓs got water. Doug Scoufos who owns the makai portion of the five acres, he did the same as the Holms, although he predated them; he put in his his water from that source Î again, no problem with water at all. In talking with the Water Department back and forth for weeks, I finally took it upon myself to read the Water DepartmentÓs rules and regulations, and if youÓve ever done something like that, your eyeballs are going to fall out of your head. There is nothing that I can find in the Water Department regulations that requires or that says that my brother cannot continue to draw water from his existing source, and that the Holms would draw their own water from the makai meter, I can find nothing in their rules and regs prohibits this. So again, there is no problem as far as water goes. WATANABE: Mr. Holms (sic), IÓm going to have to interrupt you here, IÓm sorry. But we are not in the position to argue with the Water DepartmentÓs requirements. BOCKUS: Okay. EXHIBIT B 4 WATANABE: ThatÓs their jurisdiction, you know. So if you have a problem with what requirements they are placing on this project, you know, itÓs up to you to work it out with them. IÓm not going to argue with them about, and play engineer here. BOCKUS: I think they were unaware that my brother had an existing source of water. But thank you, Mr. Chairman, weÓll act accordingly on that. What we do do, of course, in getting to the roadway access to the Holms portion of the property, again, we used the neighborÓs subdivision as a precedent. And what they were allowed to do was to access their property directly from Nohealani Street Î I donÓt know why this thing is shaking so much Î anyway, Nohealani at this point is about 60 feet wide, the private road here has a 20-foot access; so youÓve got 20 feet either side of that middle road for access to the Holms portion of the property. Again, Scoufos is allowed to use direct connection to Nohealani. Again, we are asking that the Holms be allowed to use that. Now, for some reason -. And I ha Department of Public Works and I kept asking him, why wouldnÓt we be allowed, or the Holms to be allowed to use that access? And for the life of me I cannot understand the Department of Public Works objection to this. So again -. WATANABE: Okay, I believe you are referring to then Condition D, is that correct? BOCKUS: Yes, sir. That would be Condition D. WATANABE: D, right. And I believe Condition D now states that a combined private access would be provided for Easement No. 6. Is this the same access that you are discussing? BOCKUS: Yes -. WATANABE: I know in the background material they had suggested another option, but I believe it came back to combined private access; so actually itÓs being allowed now. The issue now is you have a nine-foot wide access road, is that correct? BOCKUS: ThatÓs correct. That exists right now. And in my meeting with Ki back in November, and I can give you exact dates, if you want, we agreed at that time and I did write a covering letter that, because the Department of Public Works didnÓt want to allow the access to the property via that little KaÒ section, and itÓs about 20 feet in length by the way, I agree to put in a 20-foot driveway starting at Nohealani going in the direction of 20 feet mauka. And I believe Ki and I had an agreement on that. And now IÓm reading that Section D here, they want a point 20 feet beyond the western boundary; I think that should read beyond the -. WATANABE: It actually says Ðeastern.Ñ BOCKUS: It says Ðeastern boundary,Ñ excuse me, sir. It should be beyond the western boundary of the proposed makai lot. So there should be a correction there because otherwise weÓd be building a driveway thousands of feet long to EXHIBIT B 5 WATANABE: I donÓt believe thatÓs the intent. But maybe we can have Mr. Darrow respond to that because I think you are quite familiar with this; weÓve been going back and forth on that. DARROW: As mentioned previously, there have been several change of zones in this general location. The Hudsons, which are directly north of the Bockus property, had come in in 1999. When they came in for a subdivision, it was required, or commented in the subdivision that they comply with the Subdivision Code, which was a 16-foot wide pavement within the 20- foot wide right-of-way width, which was that Easement 6, which is the flag pole in the middle. IÓm not sure what happened as far as final approval with that, but itÓs apparent that there isnÓt a 16-foot wide road going out to the second lot, the HudsonsÓ property. In 2002 the upper lot owned by the Bakhtiarys had similarly received an approval for a change of zone. When they came in for a subdivision, the same requirement was placed on them that they construct a 16-foot wide paved road within this 20-foot wide right-of-way up to their property for the subdivision to receive final subdivision approval. Unfortunately, based on the cost of this private access, they havenÓt been able to meet that condition, and so the lot remains un-subdivided. At this time Mr. Bockus is applying and we are applying the same standards that were applied across the board. And again, I cannot answer for what happened previously in the Hudson application that they received final subdivision approval even though there is not 16 feet of pavement on the ground. There is nine feet -. WATANABE: But there is nine feet. DARROW: Yes. WATANABE: And what length is this driveway? DARROW: IÓm not sure. If we could have Mr. Bockus answer that. WATANABE: Yes. Mr. Bockus? BOCKUS: What was the question, sir? WATANABE: What length is the existing driveway? The existing driveway that is nine- foot wide, how long is that from Nohealani Road? BOCKUS: I would say, Mr. Chairman, probably, from this point, do you mean? Up to here, letÓs see, 750 feet, oh, good 1,500 feet approximately. And this is why I think that the Hudson subdivision was allowed to use this access, this direct access to Nohealani. The County Council okayed it; to me that sets a precedent. Now, we are not, or IÓm not particularly concerned -. I love the Bakhtiarys, donÓt get me wrong, we are not here really to build a road up to the Bakhtiarys. Nice though it would be, I would think it would cost in the neighborhood of, rough guess, close to $40,000 to do something like that. And this is why in my meeting with Ki at the Department of Public Works we agreed to do a 20-foot widening of the roadway here to go 20 feet mauka. And that way everybody would be happy and the Ho their portion of the property. I thought that was your agreement, Ki. EXHIBIT B 6 WATANABE: Can you hold on a bit, Mr. Housel? HOUSEL: Sure. DARROW: If I could clear the record before we proceed. WATANABE: Yes. DARROW: Just so I can make it clear that the original two change of zones that were approved had a condition that says access within the proposed subdivision shall meet with requirements of Public Works; when the subdivision was applied f comments came from the Department of Public Works basically commenting that they need to meet the requirements of the Subdivision Code. So in our recommendation in this condition we are just spelling that out clear as to what that is. WATANABE: Now, there is a reference here in Condition D pointing feet beyond the eastern boundary of the proposed mauka lot,Ñ and so that mauka lot would be -. DARROW: Correct. So what we are asking is that the applicant provide the 16-foot wide paved road to a point 20 feet beyond the eastern boundary of the upper lot. And again -. WATANABE: Which will make it maybe about 770 feet or something like that. DARROW: IÓm not, yeah, itÓs -. WATANABE: Some place around 700 feet. DARROW: Yeah. Now, in speaking with Public Works there is nine feet of pavement there currently; so I believe they are in agreement to be able to allow the applicant to just put in additional amount of concrete, which is approximately six feet to the upper portion. And then again, this might be an opportunity for the applicants to work w if they could do a cost-share. WATANABE: Yes. GIFFIN: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification then. When Mr. Bockus said that the wording was incorrect, Jeff, that it is in fact the eastern boundary of the proposed mauka lot -. DARROW: Correct. GIFFIN: Contrary to what the applicant said earlier. DARROW: Yes. GIFFIN: Okay. EXHIBIT B 7 WATANABE: Yes, you want to continue? GIFFIN: I do. Included in our background information as a memorandum dated ndth October 2 and October 19 from the Department of Public Works regarding the easement does not conform to the width required by the Subdivision Code. Correct, Jeff? DARROW: Correct. GIFFIN: Okay, how is what we just discussed going to be meeting their concerns, or isnÓt? DARROW: The requirements of the Subdivision Code are the standards that we had placed in the condition. GIFFIN: Okay, so that meets it. DARROW: Correct. GIFFIN: Okay, so this is all satisfied from both memos. DARROW: Correct. GIFFIN: Okay. HOLM: Chairman, may I make one comment? GIFFIN: Excuse me, I still have the floor. HOLM: Oh, IÓm sorry. GIFFIN: Then for clarification, when the woman spoke earlier regarding Option No. 1 and Option No. 2 from the Department of Water Supply, and our recommendation for that condition is Option No. 1, correct? DARROW: Correct. In speaking to the representative of the Department of Water Supply regarding the cost, and the actual ability to be able to do Option No. 2 is very expensive and it requires creating easements to other peopleÓs properties, which may not occur. GIFFIN: Thank you, Jeff. WATANABE: Mr. Housel. HOUSEL: I had a quick question, Jeff. The road, or whatever it is, shown above those properties, thatÓs an easement, is that correct? EXHIBIT B 8 DARROW: ItÓs actually a portion of the mauka lot; itÓs the access for this upper lot. But in their deed, which is under Exhibit No. 2, identifies this surrounding property owners. HOUSEL: Is it currently paved all the way, and you say a width of nine feet, is that correct? DARROW: According to Mr. Bockus it would be from Nohealani Street up to approximately this area. HOUSEL: And thatÓs currently paved now? DARROW: Correct, nine-foot in width. HOUSEL: How many properties does that road serve? DARROW: At this time this easement would serve these two properties, these two properties and if the, IÓm sorry, this one property, and if the Bakhtiarys subdivide, then it would be an additional two more properties Î so in total, for six properties. HOUSEL: Potentially a total of six, okay. I had a question for Mrs. Î is this Mrs. Holm? When, if you do receive this subdivision, where do you intend to put your new home? Where in the lower lot? HOLM: Approximately in the middle of it. WATANABE: Would you speak into the mike, maÓam? HOLM: Approximately in the middle of the property. HOUSEL: In the center from -. HOLM: Of the lower portion. HOUSEL: From top to bottom in the center then, huh? HOLM: Yes. HOUSEL: Okay. So where are you proposing putting your driveway to your house? HOLM: Well, we had hoped to be able to enter from Nohealani. HOUSEL: Okay, so to bring your driveway up onto your property and then the remainder of the driveway would be solely on your property, is t HOLM: Yes. EXHIBIT B 9 HOUSEL: Okay, thank you very much. DARROW: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes. DARROW: We do have, Condition D, we may want to make a revision. The intent is that we are asking the applicants to provide a 16-foot wide roadway within the 20-foot wide easement up to 20 feet beyond this boundary; so we are trying to wording. It may be the eastern boundary of this particular, of the makai lot. WATANABE: Makai lot, not mauka, yeah? DARROW: Correct. So what weÓll say, if we can make the change to Condition D, would be we will change ÐmaukaÑ to ÐmakaiÑ and then ÐLot 1-A-3-A GIFFIN: Lot 1-A-3-A. DARROW: Correct. Thank you. BOCKUS: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes. BOCKUS: Again, my meeting with the Department of Public Works, we had an agreement, and I believe we still do, that we would widen the road where it adjoins with Nohealani to 20 feet and we would proceed mauka with that paving for another 20 feet to give Holm access to his property; that was my understanding, and IÓd appreciate it if you could clarify this with Ki, while he is here, saying that was our agreement. And I wrote a letter, which I have a copy of, confirming our conversation. So all of a sudden the Department of Planning people come along with a different requirement, it really makes me wonder how good Department of Public WorksÓ word is. WATANABE: Well, Ki, would you like to expand upon that? I know you came here specifically for that, I believe. EMLER: Yeah, I think I should go ahead and go to the beginning of this thing with this as far as our review is concerned. Our original comments on this application were consistent with what has been commented on, or was commented on with the Bakhtiary, just expressing that the existing access road is not conforming to the Subdivision Code, or would not conform based on the number of lots being served. We received a response from Mr. Bockus with regard to that comment. Well, I should go back also and explain it. Their application stated that they were going to take access exclusively off of the existing Î they said a 10-foot road Î itÓs actually a nine-foot wide pavement on that easement. ThatÓs what their application stated; you can find that I think on Page 5 of the application. EXHIBIT B 10 WATANABE: So they proposed access off of Easement 6? EMLER: If you look at No. 21 on Page 5 of the application, it says, ÐPublic and/or vehicular access to the mauka area of this property is by private concreted road, approximately ten (10) feet wide; this concrete road connects Nohealani Street on its makai end with Mmalahoa Highway at its mauka end.Ñ It doesnÓt say anything about them taking access directly off Nohealani. But what they are, the point they are making is that yes we are creating an additional lot, weÓre going to give access to that additional lot off of the existing ten-foot wide road. At any rate, assuming that is the case, if you add up the number of lots being served by that access by this subdivision action, or this zone changing action and then subsequent subdivision, it would not conform to the requirements of the Subdivision Code even under the circumstance of this lot taking access, the makai lot taking access directly off Nohealani. When I received Mr. BockusÓ reply to, or his comments to our original comments on the application that the driveway is not conforming, or would not be conforming, he stated then at that time that he was going to take access for the makai lot directly off Nohealani. And at that point then we also wrote a letter in reply where we stated that we had a concern, our preference was that they provide a common access off the end of the Nohealani Street traveled way, which is out of that 60-foot width, 20 feet wide Î the center 20 feet wide is two lanes, ten feet each Î and the 20 feet outside of the traveled way on either side is a shoulder and swale area, and we preferred that the access be taken off of the traveled way, extending the roadway further up and taking as a normal driveway would, perpendicular to the extended roadway. So that was made clear in my letter to them. The preference had been made earlier in earlier comments by Public Works was we would like to have a turnaround at the end of Nohealani Street, but seeing that there are some adverse topography conditions there and knowing that some of these previous rezoning, Hudson and so forth, didnÓt specifically require that condition, we didnÓt make any issue of that; we were more concerned about having the direct, or the combined access off the end of Nohealani. And so we made a point of that in our reply to Mr. Bockus. Mr. Bockus came down to our office and we spoke about it. I did give him advice with regard to what I thought would be the minimum requirement of extending the roadway at least 20 feet into the makai lot, or beyond the makai lot property line, at least 20 feet to provide a perpendicular access into their makai lot. Unfortunately, at that time I wasnÓt thinking about the additional lots being created where the roadway, the existing roadway does not conform, and in my haste in talking to Mr. Bockus I admit that I made a mistake in that regard, because it is advice that Public Works is providing, however, we donÓt have final say about this in the subdivision process; it is Planning DepartmentÓs final say, not ours. WATANABE: Okay. I believe Ki thought you could apply for an exemption, you know, in all fairness to Ki, I believe he felt you could apply for an exemption. However, itÓs my understanding that this is not what the Planning Department would traditionally do. Am I correct in that, Mr. Darrow? DARROW: Yes, Mr. Chairman. And these particular, in change of zone applications the applicants need to be able to provide infrastructure requirements such as water and roadway improvements. Unfortunately, some people think that they can come and change the zoning and EXHIBIT B 11 be able to apply for a water variance or a road variance later; that only applies when you have current zoning available, not in a change of zone situation. WATANABE: And to be fair with the Planning Department, Mr. Bockus, you know, all these variances are how we get into the additional problems and people barking at us, saying you donÓt have the infrastructure, the infrastructure ought to be there first, what about concurrency, etc. So you know, itÓs kind of a Catch-22. BOCKUS: Yes, sir, I understand, and IÓm really asking in this particular case Î and IÓm sure if anybody else looked at it, we are just talking commonsense here Î that we be allowed access via Nohealani. And in fact, I even have a letter here from Mr. Brennon Morioka who runs the State Department of Transportation. If I may quote part of this letter, itÓs a letter dated Î looking for the date here Î October 28, 2009, where he notes in his first paragraph, Ðaccess via Nohealani Street under County of HawaiÒi jurisdiction;Ñ so he refers to the access is via Nohealani Street. So the Department of Transportation sees no problem in using the little KaÒ section 20 feet, bypass the association road, go directly into HolmÓs road Î no problem. Now, Ki has said, well, there is a swale there and some approach. Well, every driveway that leads into Nohealani, for instance that one on the north side, every driveway on Nohealani goes over a swale. There is a reinforced concrete pad, which we would be glad to put in, I am sure, to allow access via 20 feet to that particular lot. So rather than having to repave approximately, what do you say, Jeff, 700 and some odd feet, allow the Holms to access Nohealani via that 20 feet. WATANABE: Well -. BOCKUS: Commonsense. DARROW: Mr. Chairman, if I could clarify. WATANABE: Yes. DARROW: Mr. Bockus, the access that we were speaking about is actually for the mauka lot; itÓs not for the makai lot. BOCKUS: Yes, itÓs for the -. HOLM: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes, Kris. HOLM: If you allow us to enter from Nohealani, then we wouldnÓt have t through the gate and use the existing road at all. And Bockus at this point are accessing their property from the existing road. And thatÓs how the Hudsons got away with subdivision when they subdivided after they -. WATANABE: Well, even if -. EXHIBIT B 12 HOLM: You know, and they did leave a ten-foot space that goes all the way parallel with the road. WATANABE: May I point this out, maÓam? Even if you were, and IÓm not saying you would be allowed to enter from Nohealani, even if you were to enter from Nohealani, you would still need a driveway to your house, which according to your testimony probably is a minimum of 350~370 feet, some place in that neighborhood. I donÓt think my numbers are off, right? You said midway the lot, in earlier testimony you said 700-whatever feet for the subdivided lot, yeah? So you know, and that driveway is going to be like 10~12 feet. Am I not correct? I mean, so we are not talking about a huge difference; when you really get down to it, you are not talking about a huge difference. BOCKUS: Well, okay, let me get this straight. Mr. Chairman, sir, if I understand correctly, what the Planning Department is asking for is a widenexisting nine-foot road up to -. WATANABE: Twenty feet beyond the makai -. BOCKUS: Twenty feet beyond the midpoint of the property, yeah. WATANABE: Right, and which we said was roughly 700-some odd feet. And you know, the widening would be like a seven-foot, because they are not saying you have to destroy the existing nine-foot. You have to get the 16 feet, right? BOCKUS: Add to it on either side then? WATANABE: Well, you work with -. IÓm not the engineer, right? BOCKUS: Right, right. WATANABE: But when you get to the bottom of it, thatÓs the bottom line, isnÓt it? YouÓre going to put twelve-foot into your property, solely in your property, or youÓre going to put additional seven on the existing, whether you put 3.5 on each side or whatever it is, IÓm going to leave that to engineers. BOCKUS: That widening wouldnÓt really serve my brother on his mauka portion because his drivewayÓs up fairly close to that little notch that you see in the upper right-hand corner; so that extra 20 feet wouldnÓt do him any good at all. So I would propose that the road widening simply be on from the Nohealani Street terminus to the dividing line between what would be my brotherÓs property and the HolmsÓ property. WATANABE: Mr. Darrow, what do you think? DARROW: This is a matter for the Planning Director. But itÓs, w difference of 20 feet then. EXHIBIT B 13 WATANABE: Twenty feet. You know, when once you get to that point, I donÓt know what the savings really is. DARROW: In working with the head of the subdivision section, they had requested that additional 20 feet just so that they do have, they meet the access requirements for that lot. There has to be an area that it can access from that road; that meets the standard. And so -. WATANABE: Okay, that is a written standard, though. DARROW: Correct. WATANABE: Well, then -. BOCKUS: We would agree to that. WATANABE: Okay, so we are back to the original condition after all of this, right? BOCKUS: Well, with the, I think youÓre going to be changing some wording in D, the word, ÐmaukaÑ -. WATANABE: Well, yes, weÓre going to change ÐmaukaÑ to Ðmakai.Ñ So we are basically with the intent of the original condition, yeah? So, do we have any other concerns here? Hopefully not. Okay, I donÓt believe we have any other further concerns. So then, thank you for your testimony, you may be seated. May I have a motion, please, so we can bring this to discussion? Mr. Housel. HOUSEL: Mr. Chair, just so we are clear about Condition D, could you read that -? WATANABE: Right, okay, Condition D is now revised so that it will follow its original intent, and in the second to the last line weÓve replaced the word, Ðmauka,Ñ with Ðmakai,Ñ and the lot number then changes to ÐLot 1-A-3-AÑ as opposed to the ÐB.Ñ And thatÓs the only revisions to all of the conditions. BOWMAN: Could you just visually show that? I think I know what it means, but I want to make sure visually I know. DARROW: This, the makai lot is identified as Lot 1-A-3-A. So the eastern boundary would be this boundary, so we are asking 20 feet beyond the eastern boundary of this property. WATANABE: Okay? Are we all clear? BOWMAN: Okay, so they basically would still have to put in the nine feet up to -. WATANABE: Well, itÓs not nine feet; weÓve just got to make it to 16 feet, whatever it is. BOWMAN: Yeah, itÓs seven feet, IÓm sorry, seven feet. EXHIBIT B 14 WAT ANABE: Okay? BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. WATANABE: Mr. Housel. HOUSEL: Yes, Mr. Chair, IÓd like to make a motion that we forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council in the case of rezoning 09-105. WATANABE: Any second? BOWMAN: Second. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Inclusive of the correction, I assume? HOUSEL: With the corrected Condition D. WATANABE: Yeah, as stated. Okay. So, is there any further discussion on the matter? Ms. Giffin. GIFFIN: Just for clarification, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure that all of the conditions as stated, with the exception of Condition D where we ÐmaukaÑ to ÐmakaiÑ and that the last letter on that lot designation is from ÐBÑ to ÐA,Ñ correct? WATANABE: Right, thatÓs correct. GIFFIN: And all of the conditions -. WATANABE: Will also apply. GIFFIN: As stated will remain. WATANABE: Yeah, okay? Any further discussion? Mr. Darrow? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, IÓll take the roll call. Commissioner Housel? HOUSEL: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Beaudet? EXHIBIT B 15 BEAUDET: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Giffin? GIFFIN: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Iokepa? IOKEPA: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, six to zero. WATANABE: Okay, so Mr. Bockus, youÓll be notified in writing. And good luck with the County Council. The discussion ended at 11:20 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission EXHIBIT B 16