*This Post Is About HPP* Waikahekahe, WATUMULL'S, Owners/Members Meeting 10/27/2024

[kalakoa]

Has anyone actually seen this "deed restriction" or is it only discussed in executive session?

More generally, what are Watamull's long-term plans for the parcels? More housing? Shopping centers? Parks?

[Patricia]

Has anyone actually seen this "deed restriction" or is it only discussed in executive session?

More generally, what are Watamull's long-term plans for the parcels? More housing? Shopping centers? Parks?

‐-------------------
Aloha Kalakoa,

That image I attached is part of one of the HPPOA (formerly Paradise Hui Hanalike) deeds. 

I have also seen all the original deeds- old, yellow, legal-paper and all (pretty interesting).

The HPPOA parcels were deeded for  park, playgrounds, reational,  or schools, because that was Paradise Hui Hanalike's (now HPPOA) plan. HPPOA (Paradise Hui Hanalike) WANTED the parks, playgrounds, receational, and schools (they REALLY wanted a golf course). So, Watumull deeded it to them that way. And he also gave them an out- told them Paradise Hui Hanalike (HPPOA) had no obligation to develop any of those sites as parks, playgrounds, recreational, or schools either (they could just leave them as untouched land). And by doing that, Watumull gave them all the time in the world to get whatever projects (parks, playgrounds, recreational, schools) done. And as long as HPPOA (Paradise Hui Hanalike) did not violate the deed restrictions and terms of the settlement everything (even if not developed) was good. 

The Watumull properties are zoned for commercial use (zones are not the same as deed restrictions). I have not seen their deeds and cannot verify the number of parcels. And I  do not think David Watumull placed any deed restrictions on his own property. That said, as the properties are zoned commercial and if there are no deed restrictions, the Watumulls are pretty free to build whatever they want (hotels, shopping centers, etc.) 

What HPPOA is stating about the Watumull's is untrue. I have read the documents and the history. HPPOA (formerly Paradise Hui Hanalike) settled for EXACTLY what they wanted- no one cheated them, no one twisted their arm.

[Patricia]

If you agree to accept the transfer of property and you agree to restrictions contained in the deed, that is a contract. You cannot petition the County to change it (like zoning restrictions). You cannot just ignore the restrictions and do whatever you want. You must approach the person/organization with whom you made the contract and ask them if they would consider a modification and/or a release from the restrictions.
-----------
I will ask again. Is this really a deed restriction or a part of an agreement? In either way, did anyone ever bother to ask the Watamull family if they would allow the mailboxes? If not, why not? What objection would they have to a tiny portion of a couple of each one having something so community oriented?

------------
Aloha LeilaniDude

It is/they are deed restrictions. These deed restrictions are on ALL of the HPPOA (Paradise Hui Hanalike) parcels. And the deeds were/are part of a larger settlement between HPPOA (Paradise Hui Hanalike) and David Watumull. I have seen and read the settlement. 
As fae as asking the Watumull's about the MBU, someone should ask the HPPOA board. And when/if they do? Ask the board when they approached the Watumull's- before or after the Craig/HPPOA lawsuit? 

Also, and I know you will not agree, but the entire community is not on board with the current MBU plan, nor do they agree to using restricted road fee money to implement that plan. So, stating that using a "tiny portion" of restricted land with large amounts of restricted money is not necessarily something that is entirely "community oriented." JMO

[kalakoa]

The Watumull properties are zoned for commercial use

Those properties are outside the State Urban Land Use District and therefore cannot be zoned for Commercial use unless and until the State moves the Urban boundary.

[Patricia]

Aloha Kalakoa,

I do not know anything about the Watumull's property being "outside the State Urban Land Use District." I do know it is up to the individual counties to establish lot sizes and permitted uses. And there are commercial properties that exist and have been developed in HPP already.

[kalakoa]

A grant of commercial use via SUP is not the same as commercial zoning.

Counties only have the authority to grant zoning within the uses allowed by the State.

[Obie]

The Watamull properties are all zoned AG as are the HPP properties. They are 20 acres each and across the street from each other.
Watamull paid $3700.00 in property taxes on each of their 4 properties and HPP paid no taxes due to being non profit.

Watamull specifically forbade commercial or residential uses on the properties gifted to HPPOA.

Mailboxes are not commercial or residential and I doubt any court would find that mailboxes would not be allowed.
but we are going to find out because sometimes in the future it will be in a court of law unless Nicole drops her lawsuit.

In the meantime she has now gotten a multimillion dollar investment corporation involved along with their very competent lawyers.

[Patricia]

Aloha Mr. O.

It is interesting how much you know. Though you are reluctant to share how you know it.

Knowing the properties are zoned Ag and that Watumull's properties are across the road from HPPOA's has been mentioned. Knowing the TMK's and finding out the property tax paid can be researched through the County. But how do you know that (if) Nicole Craig has involved "a multimillion dollar investment corporation" in the lawsuit?

[Obie]

What do you think the Watamull Corporation is ?

Nicole started this by filing a suit against HPPOA, their president and vice president claiming that they violated restrictions that were placed on property that David Watamull owned.

Does she represent the Watamulls ?

---

"The Watumull properties are zoned for commercial use (zones are not the same as deed restrictions)."

No they aren't. They are AG.

[Patricia]

Also, Mr. O,

I do not believe the word is "forbade." In the deed and the agreed upon settlement, the contract addresses "restricted," restricted land uses. Kind of like "restricted road fee money."
Restricted is fairly easy to understand. However, HPPOA feels they are entitled to interpret (change) meanings in whatever way that suits them- for example, restricted road fee money is now used for "so much more."
However, it seems the Watumull's aren't going to just allow HPPOA to interpret what they think restricted means when it comes to the deeds (must have come to a blow for HPPOA).
So yes, it will all be going to court, because HPPOA made a hot mess of everything.
And while YOU may "doubt" that any court would find that MBUs are not allowed because they are not commercial, and while HPPOA may not interpret MBUs to be commercial, it can also be argued that MBUs are definitely and specifically not parks, playgrounds, schools, or for recreational use.

BTW:
The multi million dollar investment Corp. (the Watumulls) and their "very competent lawyers" were not involved because of Nicole Craig. HPPOA brought them in. HPPOA is the 3rd party PLAINTIFF and the Watumull's are the 3rd party DEFENDANTS. Facts matter. It's not "blah."