Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 9, 2012 PC SD Minutes KAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING October 9, 2012 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission Subdivision Committee of the County of Kauai was called to order by Chair Herman Texeira, at 8:36 a.m., at the Lihue Civic Center, Moikeha Building, in meeting room 2A-213. The following Commissioners were present: Mr. Hartwell Blake Camilla Matsumoto Mr. Herman Texeira Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued: CALL TO ORDER Chair Texeira called the meeting to order at 8:36 a.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Cua noted corrections to the agenda: Item D.l.a. should be S-2013-03, Item D.I.b. should be S-2013-01, and Item D.Le. should be 2013-02. On the motion by Camilla Matsumoto and seconded by Hartwell Blake to approve the agenda as amended, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. MINUTES—Meeting of August 28,2012 On the motion by Camilla Matsumoto and seconded by Hartwell Blake to approve the Subdivision Committee minutes for August 28, 2012, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR LISTED AGENDA ITEMS Ken Taylor testified on Item C.La., tentative subdivision extension request for S-99-45, Allen Family LLC/Moloaa Bay Ventures, LLC/Three Stooges, LLC. He felt that 12 years is more than adequate time to get a project together and it should not be continued. He stated that Mr. Allen has been showing another project for the same site that includes over 800 units of housing and felt that he is not being forthright in what he wants to do with the property. He thinks that it is wrong for projects to be built on private water systems in an area where 1 VA2012 Master Files\Commissions\Subdivisions\2012-10-09 Subdivision Committee Minutes NOV 13 2012 municipal water is available. The County has borrowed$60 million last year to upgrade the water systems around the island and a lot of work is being done in that area. If more needs to be done to make the projects available to move forward then that is what should happen. He thinks that denial for extension should be issued and if the applicant wants to return in the future, that would be the time for the Commission to take another look at it. COMMUNICATIONS Letter from the Director of Planning on the status of discussions with Kealia Properties, LLC (formerly Plantation Partners Kauai, LLC/Kealiakealanani) concerning their extension request and the need for the Department to further engage in discussions and subsequently proposing a scheduling change on the matter to October 23, 2012. Planning Director Michael Dahilig stated that included in the Committee's packet is a memo requesting a scheduling change to October 23, 2012 due to the Department's desire to continue discussions with the Kealia applicant to flesh out many of the details that were not explained at the last meeting. They are requesting at least another two week extension. Also included in the Committee's packet is a letter from the applicant stating that they concur with the Department's request. Commissioner Blake stated that they will not be going any further than the next meeting. Mr. Dahilig stated that they do not anticipate anything further. Commissioner Blake questioned if there have been any responses to the issues that were raised at the last meeting. Mr. Dahilig stated that there have been ongoing negotiations, but nothing has been formally finalized, so there have been no transmissions to the Commission. Commissioner Blake questioned who would be providing information to the Committee. He questioned what needs to be provided by an applicant requesting an extension versus what is negotiable. He noted that if the law requires certain things, you can't negotiate around the law. Chair Texeira clarified that Commissioner Blake is requesting a response from the County Attorney's office. Commissioner Blake requested a short memorandum from the County Attorney's Office with regard to requirements versus items which can be negotiated. Mr. Dahilig stated that the Department anticipates leading the Commission through a series of questions that are both legal and discretionary and will be sequenced to address the bright line legal issues that have to be voted on based on requirements by the Code. If certain responses are either in the affirmative or negative, they would lead to discussions on discretionary items. 2 VA2012 Master Files\Commissions\Subdivisions\2012-10-09 Subdivision Committee Minutes Commissioner Blake stated that he wants to be sure they do not get into discussions or arguments about unnecessary things. Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that they are trying to evaluate all of the issues and where the Commission's discretion is versus legal requirements. Unfortunately there is no clear standard in dealing with Subdivision extension requests once there is a final. They are researching other jurisdictions to identify the necessary steps. He suggested saving all of the deliberative items for the next meeting when they can outline the legal balance versus discretionary balance. Commissioner Blake requested a brief but cogent memo. On the motion by Camilla Matsumoto and seconded by Hartwell Blake to accept the two letters into the record, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (For Action) Tentative Subdivision Extension Requests: 5-99-45=Alen Family LLCMoloaa Bay Ventures, LLC/Three Stooges, LLC, 12-lot Subdivision, TMK: 4-3-003:001, Kapaa, Kauai. Staff Planner Dale Cua stated that this application was originally scheduled for the Planning Commission's meeting on September 11 but was deferred to this date at the request of the applicant. This is the tenth extension request for this proposed subdivision. The subdivision establishes a total of 12 lots and it is situated around the Kapaa Middle School. As far as the progress of the subdivision, construction plans have been prepared but the plan has not been finalized. As noted in the report, much of the delay has come as a consequence of the project scope changes by the applicant and they are currently working with the Water Department to establish water for this particular project. In 2011 the Department recommended that no more extensions be granted for this project for lack of progress. He also noted that by allowing this application to lapse, the applicant can still reapply for subdivision and it wouldn't constitute the one time subdivision limitation for properties in agricultural district. Based on the circumstances the Department is recommending that the extension be denied. Commissioner Blake questioned the bone of contention. Mr. Cua stated that there is an agricultural subdivision that establishes a total of 12 lots and a proposed Zoning Amendment that will be considered before the Land Use Commission that essentially prepares the overall master plan for the property. In preparing a master plan to accommodate all of the proposed units, the applicant is trying to secure at least water for the project area and they are being intermingled. Part of the challenge is that the Zoning Amendment has not formally been accepted by the Land Use Commission and is still pending. Commissioner Blake clarified that it would be to up zone the whole property to urban. 3 VA2012 Master Piles\Commissions\Subdivisions\2012-10-09 Subdivision Committee Minutes Mr. Cua stated that it would be the majority of the property. The northern area would remain in agriculture. The applicant is trying to separate the two projects, keep the agricultural subdivision first, and deal with the zoning entitlements later. Part of the intermingling has delayed the project. Commissioner Blake questioned if they have intermingled already or if it is the plan. Mr. Cua stated that it is already tied together. Commissioner Blake clarified that they are operating outside the first subdivision agreement. Commissioner Matsumoto questioned where it would be divided on the map. Mr. Cua stated that the lower half of the property would be amended and the top half would remain in agriculture. Chair Texeira questioned how many of the 12 lots for the agricultural subdivision would be considered for the amendment. Mr. Cua stated that he did not have exact figures but about 3 or 4 would remain in agriculture and the remainder would be up zoned. Max Graham representing the applicant and Gregg Alan stated that they are before the Committee only for the extension of the agricultural subdivision. Mr. Graham displayed the subdivision map for the Kapaa Highlands subdivision. The proposal is for a 12 ag lot subdivision that started in 1999 and was owned by the Salogi Family Trust and Hillside Corporation, When the preliminary tentative approval was issued the Department of Water indicated that there was water available for the meters for the 12 ag lots. By 2001 ownership transferred to Kauai Highlands LLC and then later that year to Kapaa 160, LLC. Kapaa 160 LLC included people who were developing the Kulana subdivision. They had plans to construct the Kulana water tank and eventually needed an extension of time to bring in other people to help them develop this subdivision. Later in 2001 they sold interest in the subdivision to the Allen Family, LLC and Moloaa Bay Ventures LLC. In 2002 the Planning Commission extended the tentative approval further, but the Department of Water stated that if they were going to extend, then they had additional requirements and would no longer issue water meters for the project. They would now need to provide source and storage for the project. In 2003, Kapaa 160,the Kulana Group, transferred their interest to Three Stooges, LLC. Because of the change in the position of the Department of Water the only way to move forward as proposed was for the Kulana tank to be finished and accepted. The tank won't be accepted by the Department of Water until the entire Kulana Subdivision water facilities are completed. Around 2005, because of the Hokulia decision on the Big Island,the Planning Commission had to be very careful with subdivisions and wanted to be sure that all ag subdivisions had water. The owners tried to get water from the east Kauai water system, but the ditch system didn't go to 4 VA2012 Master Files\Commissions\Subdivisions\2012-10-09 Subdivision Committee Minutes this property so they eventually drilled a test well in 2006 to provide the ag water,but they found out they got really good water. Eventually it became apparent that the Kulana tank was not going to be online soon enough for the project. In order to reduce the need for ag water,the applicant submitted an ag master plan to the Planning Department which provided all of the ag use would be a goat project that would be raised by the association of lot owners. The need for ag water dropped to 3,000 gallons at the most per day. Realizing they good water,they tried to work out a deal with the Department of Water to exchange water for water storage off site. The first stage was the water meters,the second stage was to rely on the Kulana tank,and the third stage was to develop the well and exchange it with the Department of water for storage. The Department of water,the Water Board, and the applicants could never agree on a manner in which the well would be traded in exchange for storage. They made good faith efforts,but they weren't able to come to an agreement. In the meantime,the applicant was completing all the other work on the subdivision. All the other work is substantially completed except for water which is the key to the whole development. The applicant has decided that in lieu of trying to work out an agreement with the Department of Water,the applicant will use its well to provide potable water and whatever ag water needs there might be for the subdivision. It would be a private water system. The Department of Water will have to approve it and the Water Board would have to grant certain waivers of standards because private water systems,unless there are waivers,have to be built the same as County systems with concrete tanks. Typically the Board has waived those requirements to private systems; they allow steel tanks and HDPE composite pipes. The applicant has filed an application asking the Water Board to approve this private system. It will take at least a year to work it through the Department of Water and to obtain Department of Health approvals for a private system. If the Commission thinks it is appropriate and that the applicant has operated in good faith and is close to completing this project, why not extend it for one more year? There have been ten extensions, but they have been proceeding in good faith to get the subdivision done. Canceling the tentative and forcing them to go back and start all over again will turn it into another two plus year project. Commissioner Blake questioned the deal with the Land Board. Mr. Graham stated that they were there for the ag subdivision, but the proposal before the State Land Use Commission is to change the State land use district from ag into urban. They are trying to align the urban district with the portion of the property which is General Plan Urban Center. Whether it goes through or not, does not affect the ag subdivision. Even if they change to urban district it is still in the CZO ag and open district so they would have to come back to the Planning Commission and work their way to the Council to get the appropriate zoning designation for their plans. In the meantime,the ag subdivision should only be judged on its merits as an ag subdivision. Commissioner Matsumoto asked for clarification that they are dealing with it separately. Mr. Dahilig stated that the difficulty is that a lot of the commitments to build the proposed infrastructure are comingled in commitments that are being proposed to the Land Use Commission as part of the application process. Under normal circumstances you would start off with the State Land Use classification process and then move to the County process and Subdivision process. The concern is the Department doesn't think it will stop at a one year 5 VA2012 Master FileslCommissions lSubdivisions\2012-10-09 Subdivision Committee Minutes extension. In order to facilitate the boundaries of what they perceive as the limits of the Land Use Urban Area, further subdivision is going to be required. That tells the Department that the commitment to build out the whole project is not there. What is there is only the agricultural portion that they may be intending to build out,but the rest of the property will remain in abeyance until the State Land Use processes goes along. He finds it difficult to believe.that the applicant is going to be able to frontload all of the commitments in order to facilitate a 12 lot subdivision build out while not being able to raise the revenue since the rest of the lots are still going through an LUC entitlement process,then through County zoning,then subdivision process. His anticipation is that if the Commission approves the extension for one year it will be asked again numerous amounts of time in order to maintain the portion of the property being constructed as ag and yet the rest of the property will not be built out because of how that organic process of creating an urban subdivision is going to be going on. He understands the issues to meet the water requirements and he believes the applicant has been genuine in trying to find solutions, but given the other moving parts and the very clear indication that what is intended for the rest of this property is not ag subdivision, one has to ask what is the true intent behind the 12 lots. The infrastructure and the requirements are intertwined with what is already a clear tip of the hand by the applicant to not use the rest of the property for the ag subdivision it was once intended for. That is the root of the Department's recommendation. Commissioner Blake questioned the projected boundaries between ag and urban. Mr. Graham stated that he does not know what the State Land Use Commission is going to do or what the County might do. He stated that the General Plan urban center line runs to the far end of the school site which means if a State Land Use district change were made along the General Plan line,that area would fall into the urban district and almost all of lot 5,% of lot 3,lot 2 and lot 1 would still remain in the State Land Use Commission agricultural district. Commissioner Matsumoto questioned the idea and vision behind the proposed change to urban. Mr. Allen stated that it was a collaborative decision during the Baptiste Administration when ag subdivisions were looked at unfavorably. When the County was asked what the holdup was the County's reply was that they did not want ag in that area because it has been in the General Plan since the 1970s and is a natural extension to Kapaa,out of flood, surrounds a school, and is the best place on the east coast to create an urban area and growth that follows the General Plan, works with having trash and power localized, and would support the town of Kapaa. They have some commitments in the ag plan that were there before they got in place. They also have some commitments that were created by them, such as the solar farm, and they have commitments to sell the land under the farm to the person who funded the farm. There are reasons why the ag has to be completed. It is their intention to leave lots 1-5 agricultural and the up zoned lots 6-12 to urban to fulfill the General Plan. Chair Texeira questioned how the Kapaa Wailua development plan addresses this. Mr. Dahilig stated that Kapaa Development Plan is antiquated and going through amendments. It is actually called the East Kauai Plan. They are relying on the 2000 General 6 VA2012 Master Pites\Commissions\Subdivisions12012-10-09 Subdivision Committee Minutes Plan as the most recent affirmation of this area being earmarked for urban expansion. It shows residential being entertained throughout a vast majority of the property's acreage. It is in line with the County's policy concerning land use. The concern is that they are creating an overlay prematurely of an ag subdivision when an ag subdivision is no longer being intended. It is the applicant's prerogative,but by pursuing the LUC petition,they are seeing urban growth not a full 12 lot ag subdivision. If they are intending to pursue ag as a proponent of their overall master plan for this parcel, what makes sense would be to come back down the line with entitlements from the State and the County pursuant to the LUC order and the County Council where they will carve out ag,the ag subdivision,and the urban development. It is hard to imagine leaving a vast majority of the project unbuilt for a 6 to 7 year timeline which is how long he anticipates going through LUC, County Council,and then Class IV zoning versus how they would build it out without the LUC issue in place. It would seem that infrastructure that they are intending to build will only be able to be distributed as a consequence of more intense development. It would be more appropriate to go through the LUC process first rather than trying to keep a bird in hand while two are waiting in the bush. Chair Texeira asked other Planning Commissioners if they had any questions or comments on the application. Commission Chair Kimura stated that this item came before the subdivision committee in 2011 and the applicant stated that water was an issue and there was no water on the property. Today he heard that they found water in 2006. In 2011 they asked for a one year extension and by the end of the year they would work with the Water Department to have the subdivision for the construction up and running by January 1. Apparently that hasn't happened. His recommendation to the Committee is that the Commission has given the opportunity more than enough times for the water. He stated that they have the water but a year later the Water Department has denied them. He felt the Committee should go with the Planning Department's recommendation for denial. Mr. Allen clarified that in 2011 the Water Board had agreed to trade their water source for water. They were willing to give their source of 550 gallons a minute, roughly doubled any sources the County has,to put into the Kapaa system which is short of water that includes the stables camp tank that was recently built above Kaapuni and has been running at half capacity but they could not get approval. They proposed filling the tank and then using some of the water from that tank,but it was denied by the staff who wanted a ratio. Mr. Graham wrote an agreement to reflect the ratio,but then the staff switched and said that the camp doesn't supply all of the project because 5%of the project is too high to use water off the stables camp tank, so they wanted them to pay a ratio of storage from the Ornellas camp tank. It is on swampy ground and would need pillars beneath it and would cost$4 million or more, so they ended up with an 8 to 1 ratio. They finally went back to the Water Department and agreed to everything they asked, but the Water Board opted to defer the agreement. They knew they needed to face the Planning Commission without a solid agreement on water. The reason they went 8 to 1 with the Department of Water was to be able to say to the Commission that they did it. It was more expensive than doing a private system. Knowing that the Committee meeting would be to rescind the tentative subdivision approval without water,the next logical step was to build their own water system. If they do rescind the approval,they will come back later with a proposal for 7 V A2012 Master Fil es\Commissions\Subdivisions12012-10.09 Subdivision Committee Minutes the subdivision with a private water system. He stated that he wants to have a good relationship with the County. When they inherited the agricultural subdivision, he did not want to do what the County does not want done. It is easier to complete an ag subdivision and sell the lots off as gentlemen estates and walk away,but the right thing to do is an urban subdivision in that area. It is up to the Commission and the Council to determine how many houses and how it fits into the community. They have spent a large amount of money going through the LUC and he thinks they are 60 days away from being back to hearings on Kauai before the Council and a year or two at the most before they have the urban part done. It is because they want to do the right thing that they have spent the money and risked their financial future. They have allowed the use of the bypass road since they have inherited the road. He would very much appreciate the Commission's consideration in extending the subdivision request and would be okay with a condition stating that lots 6-12 would require final approval and that they are supposed to be for urban, but lots 1-5 are already committed in regards to the solar farm. Commission Chair Kimura stated that when the applicant asked for a two week deferral at the last meeting they said that if the Committee granted the two week deferral they would come back with an answer from the Water Department. It has been a month and a half later and still no answer. It is hard to give any type of extension because now they are requesting another 60 days. It has been 50 days since the last request for a two week deferral. Mr. Allen stated that he was referring to the urban zoning. The water would take a year. Mr. Dahilig stated that the issue regarding the urban LUC designation was something that was brought up in discussions on the floor and in correspondences. There was a clear attempt to say that the LUC matter is essentially intertwined into how the subdivision was forwarded. The subdivision approval was approved in 1999. The General Plan was approved in 2000. The new policy concerning land use came into effect after the subdivision approval was granted. Essentially now that it is earmarked for expansion, they are perpetuating grandfathered principal of subdivisions. By continuing while trying to move forward on the general plan perspective through the LUC is not implementing the intent of the General Plan in 2000 which is earmarked for urban growth. Extension as is could inhibit the implementation of the General Plan. Commissioner Matsumoto liked hearing about doing what is right. She questioned what happens if they grant a one year extension and nothing gets done. She questioned what the applicant will do. Mr. Allen stated that he would come back again. It is the Department of Water that stopped this from happening. They are willing to do a private water system and willing to continue to work with the Department of Water. He hopes that a year would do it. The plan has already been done for the private water system. It would just depend on the County approval process. He stated that the General Plan area does not include the entire TMK and does not include lots 1-5. They are planning to develop everything that the General Plan identified as urban and Ieaving everything that it did not as ag. Two lots are already in solar and a couple are already in goats. 8 VA2012 Master Files\Commissions\Subdivisions\2012-10-09 Subdivision Committee Minutes Commissioner Blake asked for clarification that they would be able to provide water to their proposed subdivision. Mr. Allen stated that in addition to that, they would still be able to give Kapaa enough water to help their system. Commissioner Blake stated that he is hearing that Department of Water is saying that they want something and then later they want more and more. It appears that they want it, but what if the applicant decides to just go private. Mr. Allen stated that is what they did to get it under control. Commissioner Blake questioned if they need the Department of water. Mr. Allen stated that in a private water system they still have to get the Department of Water to approve the plans. The plans are there now. Commissioner Blake questioned how long the plans have been at Water Department. Mr. Allen stated that they have been at Water Department for one week. Commissioner Blake questioned the negotiations. Mr. Graham stated that if the applicant does a private water system it is a straight forward application that doesn't require negotiation other than to get the Boards' approval to waive certain standards. He can't speak to the other project. He is trying to concentrate on the ag subdivision. The private water source gets the ag subdivision complete but it will take at least a year. Commissioner Blake stated that since this application is for an ag subdivision and they have sufficient source to supply the subdivision and more, it seems like the last thing they would have to do is to make a straight forward private water system application to the Department of Water which would solve their problems. If the Department of Water wants to continue to negotiate they can come back later. He questioned why they would even bother with the Water Department. Mr. Allen stated that is exactly where they are going. Mr. Dahilig disclosed that he sits on the Board of Water, but at the same time he is not a representative of the Water Department. There is an impasse that has arisen and health and safety needs that the Water Department is taking into account with respect to what they see as being required out of this system. He can't speak for the Department or the Board, but like anything there is Mr. Allen's perspective and also the Department of Water's perspective. The fact that there has been no agreement could be interpreted by the Committee that the Water Department has not felt that the applicant has satisfied the needs concerning health and safety with respect for the system. There is a negotiation concerning what can be put on the table and 9 VA2012 Master Fifes\Commissions\Subdivisions\2012-10-09 Subdivision Committee Minutes the cost, and the Planning Department is not the judge of whether or not something has been a fair negotiation with respect for water. The only reliance from the water Department is that they in their own expertise evaluate what comes in and provides a recommendation in the affirmative if they believe a proposal meets the health and safety needs of maintaining the integrity of the water system. The fact that nothing has come over from the Water Department indicates to the Planning Department that the needs have not been met. Whether and what those needs are, is not for the Planning Department to judge. Commissioner Matsumoto questioned what would happen if there was an extension for a year, and in that year there was some kind of resolution from the Water Department. Mr. Dahilig noted that has been the question for the last four years concerning what is on the table and what is not. The twist and why the Department has strongly recommended denial is that through communication it was brought up as to the intended change of use from what was originally proposed. His concern from a General Plan standpoint is if the LUC does not approve a boundary amendment and the County does not approve a Zoning Amendment or the Commission does not approve a class IV zoning permit for urban development in this area. The bird in hand that they will be able to hold in perpetuity until they can resolve the LUC is the partial build out and non-build out of an ag subdivision. If the deck of cards falls at the Class IV zoning level,they can go back and build a project that is not in conformance with what the General Plan earmarks. That is the concern because many of the policies objectives have changed or are going to be changing as a consequence of applications that they have initiated on their own. If they put in a water system,they are going to put in a system for the whole project and what they anticipate as the whole residential development. If they are intending to go through the LUC process but at the same time meet the water recommendations,once you dig up a pipe are they going to put in a one inch water main to service 12 lots or a 3 inch water main to service 800 lots. They will have to do that to facilitate even the minimal amount of construction; the 12 lot subdivision. It is hard to fathom that the intent is to put in and take a huge amount of financial risk to build out the full infrastructure for what would be an 800 home subdivision when at the same time all they're planning on building and actually have go vertical 6 of the 12 lots in the meantime. If the LUC and County approval do not flesh out,their bird in hand is that they could still come back and build it but because of the extensions they wouldn't be forced to put in the infrastructure necessary to facilitate even the 12 lot subdivision. Mr. Allen did not understand how his financial ability or inability has anything to do with it, but the infrastructure to put in the water for the entire project or for just the ag subdivision is very close to the same price. It is 20 or 30%more to do the whole project. In phase I which is 5 lots, they can build the water infrastructure that would service the urban and the 5 lot ag part for under$1.5 million including the well and the water pipeline. Then they have sales in that area that will put them well back into the black so they will be in a strong position when the entitlements come through for the urban. They already spent more than$1.5 million on the urban at the LUC with professionals to move the application forward. Regarding Mr. Dahilig's concern that if given the tentative subdivision approval,what if they don't do the urban and just the ag and disregard the General Plan,he stated that it is not their intent. He questioned if the Committee can put a condition on the tentative subdivision approval extension that lots 6-12 which is the urban area be held in reserve for them to complete the urban portion. He stated that 10 VA2012 Master Files\Commissions\SubdivisionsM]2-10-09 Subdivision Committee Minutes if the LUC approves the urban portion, it would be easier to use the general plan to build out 50 units. The Commission has added conditions in the past. He asked the Commission to leave the tentative subdivision approval in tact and put a condition on lots 6-12. Mr. Dahilig stated that he Commission can do whatever is in their power, but if the question is being posed to him,he would not recommend it. The intent of the subdivision is an ag subdivision. By proposing that the Commission keep an ag subdivision approval in abeyance while hedging bets on an urban reclassification goes to the meat of the concern that there is no intent to fully build out 12 lots. If the intent was to fully build out 12 lots, then it's a different story. Even the proposal on the floor bolsters the concern that what is being proposed and the intent with the respect for development is not what was being proposed back in 1999. Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that there is a provision in 9-3.8(c)2 in which an applicant may elect to file for approval of a final map covering only a portion of the approved preliminary map if he declares his intention at the time he files the preliminary map. Mr. Allen stated that it has had Phase I and II on it for the past 5 years. Deputy County Attorney Jung stated that it is the first he is hearing about it. If he needs to look into it more, he certainly can. Chair Texeira questioned what would preclude the applicant from resubmitting the application if the extension request is denied. He stated that the applicant's concern was that if they started all over again, it would take a couple of years, but it seems like they are a couple of years away anyway. Mr. Allen stated that is possibly true. He hoped the County would be a partner in doing something good and would see that he has laid everything he has on this project. He would like to do that right thing, and build this project. Evidence would be the solar farm, the money they spent in pursuing the General Plan through the LUC. Control comes back to the Commission. They don't want to do something that doesn't fit with the community. He expected the Water Department to play along, but they are on a private road that may be a year out. A lot of people are looking to getting involved and if this is denied they may say to him that he must be in big trouble because the County doesn't want what he is doing. They weigh whether to get involved based on what they see as cooperation from the County. It is more than just hedging his bets. He sees it as doing the right thing and expecting the County to step up. As far as it not being in the General Plan in 2000, it has been in the General Plan since the 1970s. They own the bypass road, and they are going to donate it for free. They have a memorandum of understanding attached to the tentative subdivision approval that allows use of the road. They will give Water twice as much as they need for the project. The sewer is 300 or 400 yards away from the low income housing. The plant is a 1.5 million gallon tank operating at about 500,000 gallons now. It is the right thing in the right place and he needs the Commission's help. Commissioner Blake stated that he is torn because he appreciates the applicant's attitude and the fact they have been at this for 10 years is a plus and a minus because at the time that the application was initially submitted conditions were as they were 10 years ago. He is always 11 VA2012 Master Files\Commissions\Subdivisions\2012-10-09 Subdivision Committee Minutes concerned what happens when things go on and on and there is no formal action to compel the applicants to catch up. Here is what starts out as an agricultural subdivision with the problems attendant to agricultural subdivisions overlaid by what may happen at the LUC and County Council and Planning Department down the road. Now instead of having one bone to sink your teeth into there could be competing interests. After listening to the presentation he emotionally wants to give 2 more years, but then years down the line, more changes will have come to pass and they go into another long drawn out process as to how they will meet the changes. They can be sure that there will be changes. He fully sympathizes with the difficulty that one has dealing with the Water Department. That always seems to be the problem. It is still a 10 year project that has yet to reach fruition. That public concern overrides the private concerns of the applicant. Chair Texeira concurs with a great amount of what Commissioner Blake mentioned. He added that the applicant can come back to the Commission and resubmit his application, and make things clearer in terms of the time frames and do it the right way. Commissioner Matsumoto stated that is also her hope. She commended the applicant for his intention to make things right and be right for the island. She hopes that their decision today helps toward that. It is a beautiful piece of land with lots of water. There are things going on that could be of good to the island. On the motion by Hartwell Blake and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto to go with the staff report and deny the extension request for subdivision application 5-99-45,Allen Family LLC, Moloaa Bay Ventures LLC,Three Stooges LLC, 12 lot Subdivision at TMK: 4-3-003:01 at Kapaa, Kauai,the motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. NEW BUSINESS (For Action) Tentative Subdivision Action: Mr. Cua stated that Subdivision Planner Kenny Estes will be presenting the next three applications. 5-2013-03=James Nishida 2-lot Subdivision TMK: 4-2-022:015, Wailua Homesteads, Kauai. Mr. Estes stated that the applicant is proposing a two lot subdivision in Wailua Homesteads. The proposed development subdivides lots 10-A-1 into 2 lots creating lot 10-A-1- A and lot 10-A-1-B. The preliminary subdivision maps have been routed through the different agencies and the requirements and conditions are in the subdivision report. The Department is recommending tentative approval. Commissioner Blake questioned if the road along the north boundary is a road widening lot. 12 VA2012 Master Piles\Commissions\Subdivisions\2012-10-09 Subdivision Committee Minutes Mr. Cua stated that it is a poled section of a flagged lot. The actual flagged portion extends beyond. Clyde Kodani representing the owner James Nishida stated that have no objections to the staff report. There was no public testimony. On the motion by Hartwell Blake and seconded by Camilla Matsumoto to accept the staff report and grant the tentative subdivision, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote, S-2013-01=Michael & Barbara Castillo 2-lot Subdivision TMK: 2-3-020:109 Kalaheo, Kauai. Mr. Estes stated that the applicant is proposing a 2 lot subdivision in Kalaheo. The proposed development subdivides lot 128-D-1-C-1 into 2 lots creating lot 128-D-1-C-1-A and lot 128-D-1-C-1-B. The subdivision maps have been routed to the different agencies and their requirements and conditions are in the subdivision report. The Department is recommending tentative approval. Chair Texeira questioned if the zoning of the surrounding areas is residential. Mr. Estes confirmed that the zoning is residential. Roger Caires, land surveyor, representing the land owners and Mrs. Barbara Castillo stated that they have read the staff report and have no objections. There was no public testimony. On the motion to by Camilla Matsumoto and seconded by Hartwell Blake to approve tentative subdivision action for S-2013-01, Michael & Barbara Castillo, 2-tot Subdivision, TMK: 2-3-020:0109 in Kalaheo, Kauai, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. S-2013-02=State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DNLR) 3-lot Subdivision, TMK: 3-9-001:002.;..3-9-002:001, Kapaia, Kauai. Mr. Estes stated that the applicant is proposing a 3 lot subdivision in Kapaia. The purpose of the proposed subdivision is to accommodate the use of a trapshooting range on lot C. They have received agency comments from the Water and Health Departments but they have not received agency comments from the Department of Public Works. There is a condition in the subdivision report that states that the applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Department of Public Works upon receipt of their report. 13 VA2012 Master Piles\Commissions\Subdivisions\2012-10-09 Subdivision Committee Minutes Chair Texeira stated that they did not have any questions from Thomas Kaiakapu from the DLNR at this time. There was no public testimony. Chair Texeira stated that according to the evaluation, the DOT was undecided. He questioned if staff was awaiting their comments. Mr. Cua stated that it is unclear where the boundaries Maalo Road end, so in order to obtain access, they recommend that the applicant work closely with the necessary parties to gain access to the proposed lot. It may end up being Grove Farm or whoever owns the land. Chair Texeira clarified that it is a condition that is to be resolved and they can grant tentative approval while they are working to resolve the issue. On the motion by Camilla Matsumoto and seconded by Hartwell Blake to approve tentative subdivision action for S-2013-02, State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources,2 lot subdivision, TMK: 3-9-001:002, 3-9-002:001 in Kapaia,Kauai, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote. ADJOURNMENT Chair Texeira adjourned the Committee meeting at 10:25 a.m. Respectfully submitted by: Duke Nakamatsu, Commission Support Clerk 14 VA2012 Master Files\Commissions\Subdivisions\2012-10-09 subdivision Committee Minutes