Laserfiche WebLink
Miv or hu ' <br /> 4~ L~ 'y <br /> <br /> Harry Kim ~ Dixie Kaetsu <br /> Mayor ~ ~-rr Managing Director <br /> is <br /> ~ .!.J <br /> r r:\~ <br /> hr~ o~.~'~' ' 03 DEC 1 m Peer L. Hendricks <br /> 9 PI I ~ gfg,ty Managing Director <br /> QCourttp of ~abnai`i (+coin, ; i <br /> 2S Aupuni Street, Room 215 Hilq Hawaii 96720-4252 • (808) 961-82'HQ~~~>3~A8)9fj~-6~$3~I~r~~~ll <br /> KONA: 75-5706 Kuakini Highway, Sui[e 103 • Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 <br /> (808)329-5226 Fax (808)326-5663 <br /> December 17, 2003 <br /> James Y. Arakaki, Chairman and Council Members <br /> Hawaii County Council <br /> Hilo, Hawaii 96720 <br /> RE: Veto of Bill 159, Draft 2 <br /> Dear Chairman Arakaki and Council Members, <br /> I have reviewed the attached bill and after conferring with Planning Director, Chris Yuen and <br /> staff, I have decided to veto bill 159, Draft 2. <br /> The original version of Bill 159, as approved by the Planning Commission, included a <br /> condition of approval of the State Land Use Boundary amendment. The condition stated that: <br /> A. The approximately 8-acre portion of the property in the State Land Use Agricultural <br /> district shall not be reclassified into the Urban district for 5 years, unless the state land use <br /> law is amended to change the rule that amendments of more than 15 acres must be <br /> approved by the Land Use Commission. The applicant shall include a restrictive covenant <br /> in the deed which states that. <br /> The final version of Bill 159 omits this condition. This condition comports with the spirit of <br /> law as codified in the Hawaii Revised Statutes. Section 205-3.1(a) of the HRS provides that <br /> amendments involving land areas greater than fifteen acres shall be processed by the land use <br /> commission pursuant to Section 205-4, HRS. Only amendments involving land areas of <br /> fifteen acres or less, except in conservation districts, shall be determined by the county <br /> pursuant to HRS Section 205-3.1(c). Since this particular reclassification of fifteen acres is <br /> part of a larger parcel of 23 acres, it seems reasonable to include a limitation upon the <br /> reclassification of the remainder parcel to avoid the appearance of parceling to avoid the <br /> requirements of state law. While the bill as passed may comport with the "letter" of the law, I <br /> believe that it is important that we also comply with the "spirit" of the law. I urge the Council <br /> to rethink their position on this bill and include the original condition "A" as passed by the . <br /> Planning C mmission. <br /> ~ " <br /> arry Ktm- Comm. No. 3 7~•S <br /> MAYOR Ref. To: <br /> <br />