Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Anahola Subdivision Almeda topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Family seeks guidance after decades‑old Anahola lease becomes fractionated; DHHL staff to advise
Summary
A beneficiary and his representative asked the commission for guidance about subdividing an approximately 14‑acre Anahola parcel held in tenants‑in‑common by multiple successors; the group requested clarity on whether existing workman's quarters qualify as homes and on how proceeds would be distributed if improvements are sold.
Representatives for Jerry Almeda and other beneficiaries presented a request for guidance on May 20 about a long‑standing, fractionated interest in a roughly 14‑acre Anahola parcel and whether the commission could facilitate a subdivision or otherwise protect the claimant’s ability to build and remain on the land.
Chanel Josiah, speaking on behalf of Jerry Almeda, described the parcel’s history: the original award in 1985 covered about 15 acres (lot 9, later Lot 9A, under lease 5467) and successive transfers and public‑notice awards reduced and redistributed interests among multiple lessees and successors. Josiah said portions of the original acreage were subdivided in the 1990s, one portion is now residential, and several co‑lessees have since died; she described current ownership as tenants‑in‑common with at least one contemporary lessee holding residential improvements.
Josiah said Almeda’s interest is about 8.34% (quoted by counsel) and that he wants to transfer part of his interest to a sibling to preserve a legacy interest, submit a farm plan for subsistence agriculture, and build a small two‑bedroom cottage to age in place. DHHL staff, referenced in testimony, told Almeda his ability to build is limited by co‑lessees’ residential interests and that lease terms and department rules restrict new primary homes where the parcel is not free and clear or where other co‑tenants hold exclusive residential rights.
Josiah asked a set of clarifying questions: how DHHL defines a workman’s quarters and whether such structures can be sold; how receiver‑of‑net‑proceeds rules apply when multiple co‑tenants share ownership; and what the pathway is to subdivide in cases where not all tenants consent. She said a farm plan for subsistence agriculture had been submitted and that the family had undertaken ho‘oponopono and informal and formal discussions with other co‑lessees without resolution.
Commissioners encouraged the family to continue internal resolution and noted the commission’s discretion in some matters; one commissioner said the commission prefers families to resolve ohana issues but will act if necessary and that staff (home services) can provide the detailed rules defining workman’s quarters and the steps for subdivision. No formal decision was made at the meeting; the commission said staff would provide clarifying rules and next procedural steps to the family.
The family requested that the commission consider the applicant’s age and medical condition (the claimant said he has Parkinson’s disease) and expedite review if the family’s intent is to preserve a legacy and ensure aging‑in‑place. Commissioners said they would ask staff to return with procedural guidance and confirm which documents and approvals would be needed to move forward.
