Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFeb 28 2017 Subdiv MinutesKAUAI PLANNING COMMISSION SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING February 28, 2017 The subdivision committee meeting of the Planning Commission of the County of Kauai was called to order at 8:30 a.m., at the L1hu`e Civic Center, Mo`ikeha Building, in meeting room 2A - 2B. The following Commissioners were present: Mr. Roy Ho Mr. Sean Mahoney Ms. Kanoe Ahuna The following staff members were present: Planning Department — Chance Bukoski, Dale Cua, Leslie Takasaki; Office of the County Attorney — Deputy County Attorney Jodi Higuchi Sayegusa; Office of Boards and Commissions -- Commission Support Clerk Lani Agoot Discussion of the meeting, in effect, ensued: CALL TO ORDER Chair Ho called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. ROLL CALL Mr. Bukoski: Chair Ho. Chair Ho: Here. Mr. Bukoski: Commissioner Mahoney. Mr. Mahoney: Here. Mr. Bukoski: Commissioner Ahuna. Ms. Ahuna: Here. Mr. Bukoski: Three present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Mahoney: Chair, move to approve the agenda. Ms. Ahuna: Second the move. Chair Ho: Moved and seconded all those in favor. (Unanimous voice vote) Motion carried 3:0. MINUTES of the meeting (s) of the Subdivision Committee Meeting minutes of February 14, 2017 Mr. Mahoney: Chair, move to receive the minutes of February 14, 2017. Ms. Ahuna: Second the move. Chair Ho: Moved and seconded all those in favor. (Unanimous voice vote) Motion carried 3:0. Chair Ho: The record will show that Ms. Apisa is in attendance. RECEIP OF ITEMS FOR THE RECORD (NONE) HEARINGS AND PUBLIC COMMENT GENERAL BUSINESS MATTERS (NONE) UNFINISHED BUSINESS (For Action) Subdivision Extension Request Subdivision Application No. S-2011-16 (Cameron K. Burgess) Proposed 4 -lot subdivision, TMK: (4) 4-1-008:013, Wailua Kauai. Mr. Bukoski: Good morning Commissioners. I would just like to note that this extension got deferred to today's date, February 28th due to not enough Commissioners at the table. I would like to re -read my subdivision extension so everybody is on the same page. (Report on file) Chair Ito: Is there somebody from the family present today that would like to come up and testify please. Mr. Milton Burgess: Good morning Mr. Chair and board members my name is Milton Burgess and I am one of the property owners of 366 Eggerking. I would like to thank you for taking the time to listen to our request for another extension for this property subdivision. I would just like to present some quick background information on this property issues and the reasons why the project has been taking so long. The property actually was purchased in the 1950's by my grandparents, Edith and James Burgess. Three generations later which is us we are trying to subdivide the undivided property which is approximately 2 acres into 4 sections which will go to respective children, families, of my grandparents. Needless to say if we don't resolve this in this generation it is going to only get worse as it goes on. This is what we are trying to do now. The project was started in 2011 by one of our older family members and unfortunately he lives in California so proximity wise, dealing back and forth with the local people here and in California. That presented at challenge in its self. I recently got involved in this maybe a year or so ago trying to help assist and push this project along. There are several issues that presented its self in trying to do this subdivision. One of the major ones was this workforce housing agreement that we have been working back and forth with county and trying to get the verbiage resolved with the legal property description and the housing requirements for the property because of the area involved. It finally got resolved just within these last 2 weeks and the forms have been sent out for the family's signatures, the family is ready to sign off on the agreement and that is in play right now. We anticipate it taking maybe about 3 weeks to get all the signatures in because of family members located both here and in the mainland. We as a family already purchased 3 water meters and 1 relocation and the rights to have them installed on the property. The recertified plans in the request for approval have been routed to the Department of Water as of yesterday and they are working on them. Although the plan has not changed since the original submittal there is no estimated completion for review by them and once it gets resolved then from there it will go to the Department of Public Works for the county road extension which we have to do as another requirement to get this property subdivided. If all goes as anticipated we are anticipating because of all the unknowns for the review factor, possibly 6 to 8 months to get this process completed. So I ask for your indulgence in permitting us time of granting us the extension to get this subdivision approved. And we are pretty close. I know it has been 5 years since this was started, unfortunately it didn't get done in that time. We have progressed, like I said the paperwork has been processed and issued to the respective people. Some of the companies that were initially went out for the property work have been contacted and they are pretty much the same price wise and they are ready to do the work if they are awarded the contract. The bonding amount will be determined once they do their estimate and all the signups are completed. There are some consequences if the approval is not extended and that is there is a possibility that the Department of Water fees, since they have gone up since we started this project, may have a chance of being triple. Since we started we paid $13,000 when we first started this and because of the price hike it may go to maybe $45,000 which will be a major impact on the families that are concerned with this. That would be a major setback to the majority of the families in its self. We ask that you consider granting this extension for us so that we can complete this project, thank you, any questions? Chair Ho: Commissioners, any questions? Mr. Mahoney: Mr. Burgess, are you going to be the lead person for follow up on this project? Mr. Burgess: I want to say yes and I am going to be involved although my cousin, he started it, and he still wants to run the project but I myself will get more involved here because of the situation we are in and the urgency of where we are at right now to get this project completed. So I will say yes, I am going to get involved. Mr. Mahoney: It sounds like you understand what needs to be done and the timeframe and if your cousin is in California then you would be the guy to push him. Five extensions is quite a bit to get so that means get down to business if this is granted. Do you think that 6 to 8 months would be enough? Mr. Burgess: Based on my estimation because of the unknown factors for the review process for the departments involved I am guessing like I said 6 to 8 months to get the process resolved. Allan Hironaka is our surveyor and he is our technical guy. Mr. Allan Hironaka: For the record Allan Hironaka from Hironaka Surveying and Mapping. I have been in contact with the engineer on the project and because we knew that we needed to give you folks a timeline that we prefer based on what we know. And when I asked the engineer he said that 6 months would be with hardly any play so that is his recommendation, no less than 6 months but 6 months is cutting it close because of the review time that needs to go back and forth with Public Works and Water. That is his best idea on that. Mr. Mahoney: I think you are being overly optimistic on 6 months. Mr. Hironaka: That is what he said. Mr. Mahoney: You are looking at the best case scenario, almost the perfect case scenario and I would be asking if the Commission takes into consideration and grant it that you need more time than that. Because there is no sense coming in and asking for 6 months on your 6th extension if it is granted and not being able to meet it again. Mr. Burgess: Six to 8 months was an estimate that we put out. Basically the package itself and the review, the original packages that were reviewed by them previously so it is just a matter of the workload that the Water at PUC, Public Works Commission, has to do the review. I don't see it changing that much, that is why we said 6 to 8 months is what we decided on. Ms. Ahuna: Mr. Burgess, the rest of the O'hana is on board and they know the kind of pressure on the timeframe and so forth and they are supportive of that? Mr. Burgess: Yes, I made it clear to them and although my cousin is still in charge I am sort of ramrodding this project through. We are working with Allan closely because of the proximity with him and we are friends from outside so the urgency and everything is to the highest level as far as the family is concerned, they are on board. Ms. Ahuna: I like to see local families stay on their properties. I think it is really important for O'hana to stay on our lands. I think it is very important what Commissioner Mahoney is saying too, there has to be a lead to push this thing forward and make sure everything is aligned so that would be awesome if you could be that person and that contact and make sure the rest of the O'hana a is aware of the situation and the urgency. Mr. Burgess: Yes and basically I am. Like I said I will inform them of where were are at and what are the problems and what we need to do. As far as on island, the person who is pushing this project will be me. Ms. Apisa: How would this Water Department fees affect you? You said they are going up, is that something that is going to cause further delays? Mr. Hironaka: Initially the Water Department fees added up for 3 meters at just over $13,000. Subsequently the fees have gone up, the FRC charges, and it is going to increase the cost because they may reimburse the family because the subdivision was denied and when we reapply, as the planner suggested is one option, what I found out is that when we reapply I guess you press the reset button and the new water fees now apply. That is our concern. We are not saying that it is going to happen but that is a real possibility. Ms. Apisa: I guess my question is if they do go up is that going to hold back the subdivision or is that going to cause further delays? Mr. Hironaka: It is going to be a financial burden on the family for sure. Ms. Apisa: Will they be able to handle it? Is that something you can do, are you planning for it? Mr. Burgess: Well the possibility is there. I cannot speak for all of the families. It will be a burden I will tell you that, from $13,000 to $45,000 per family is an impact so we have to do what we have to do and hopefully... like I said it is not something that they aren't aware of. Whether everybody is preparing to come up with the extra money in case it doesn't happen doesn't get approved, they are aware of it. I cannot totally say yes they have the money but they are aware of the problem and where we are at and the potential cost increase. We will have to go from there. I hope I answered your question. Ms. Apisa: I would hope they are prepared. Chair Ho: Who is Honua Engineering in all of this? Mr. Burgess: Honua Engineering, originally Wagner Company, Brian Ilennessey was the engineer in charge of the project back then, I think now he is the owner of the company. He was the engineer that was working with Mr. (inaudible) and he was hired by him to do the planning and whatever was needed to submit to water and the Public Works Commission for our project. Ms. Ahuna: Mr. Burgess, the intention of the subdivision was because the families got larger and there needed to provide more lots for the rest? What was the intention of the subdivision initially? Mr. Burgess: The intent is to subdivide the remaining properties to within 4 major families, being my grandparent's children, my dad, my uncle, 4 or them. All we are doing to drawing lines in the maps, in the plans, to divide the land so that each family can deal within their own 5 family. Right now we have one big piece that everybody is tied to so it is hard to do any improvements or build anything or do whatever you want when you have 4 or 5 families involved in trying to do something. So we decided if we divide the property then each family can do what they want, to build, sell, keep, and right now it seems like most of them want to keep their property. It was never intended to build subdivisions for houses to sell that is not the intent. Chair Ho: Commissioners any other questions? May I have the recommendation from the planner? Mr. Bukoski: The recommendation, based on the reasons noted above it is the department's recommendation to deny the extension request. Furthermore, the applicant is made aware that the new subdivision application may be processed at such time the infrastructure issues are decided. Chair I lo: The Chair will entertain a motion, the planner recommends denial. Mr. Mahoney: Chair, under the circumstances and from the testimony presented today I would like to make a motion for approval with a condition and an extension of 1 year. I think Mr. Burgess has presented testimony that he is willing to take charge and move this forward. It is their family property and like Commissioner Ahuna said it is important to keep it within them but on the motion that year would be it. And then your other choice would have to be to, if you could not do it within that timeframe, like the department recommended you would have to probably take that route. But my motion is to approve with a 1 year extension. Ms. Ahuna: I would like to second that motion to approve the extension for this O'hana. Chair Ho: I don't know where this would fit in on your motion Mr. Mahoney but are there conditions you want to attach to this like a 6 month review? Mr. Mahoney: The 12 months is the condition, an extension for 12 months. I think that should suffice. Chair Ho: You would like to see a review in 6 months? Ms. Ahuna: Yes, that would be nice to get an update. Mr. Mahoney: We could have a review in 6 months. The basis for this is there is going to be some action taken and it is not going to be like he said, he is in California, you are going to be the pusher on this project, you will be in and charge and you will get your cousin in shape and you will get things done and report in 6 months. Because otherwise to tell the truth I wouldn't have recommended it but your testimony and your willingness to act on this, that is what I am relying on and I hope you can do that job. Chair Ho: The motion on the floor is to grant an extension with a 6 month review. 2 Mr. Mahoney: A 6 month review, 12 month extension with a 6 month review. Ms. Ahuna: I would like to second the motion for a 6 month review and a 12 month extension. Chair: The motion has been made and seconded, could we have a roll call vote please. Mr. Bukoski: Chair Ho. Chair Ho: Aye. Mr. Bukoski: Commissioner Mahoney. Mr. Mahoney: Aye. Mr. Bukoski: Commissioner Apisa. Ms. Apisa: Aye. Mr. Bukoski: Three ayes. Chair Ho: You have it gentlemen. Motion carried 3:0. Mr. Burgess: Thank you, I appreciate it and you will see action. Chair Ho: With no further business I need a motion to adjourn. Mr. Mahoney: Chair move to adjourn. Ms. Apisa: Second. Chair Ho: Moved and seconded all those in favor. (Unanimous voice vote) Motion carried 3:0. ADJOURNMENT Chair Ho adjourned the meeting at 9:00 a.m. Respectfully submitted by: Lani Agoot Commission Support Clerk () Approved as circulated (add date of meeting approval) ( ) Approved as amended. See minutes of meeting. 7