COM 0438.018 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

DAVID O. KISH CAROL NANI STONE 75-360 ALOHA KONA DRIVE KAILUA-KONA, HI 96740-1953 808-327-1199 RECewgyev February 2, 2004 CO11f~ ~O"'~~ Chair James Arakaki and County Council Members County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 1tE: Nani Kona Aina (SLU 03-007/REZ 03-01 Deaz Chairman Arakaki and Members of the Council: We aze residents of the Kona Heights neighborhood and represent the views of many of our neighbors in Kona Heights and Kailua View Estates who could not be here today because this meeting was scheduled with short notice in Hilo. We request that the Planning Committee of the Council meet in Kona to discuss this rezoning request and hear the views ofthe citizens most affected by this land use change. If the Planning Committee does not meet in Kona, we at least request a public heazing before the entire Council and the Council's vote on this issue in Kona. You represent the whole island of Hawaii on important land use issues and West Hawaii residents deserve convenient access to your meetings. We aze not anti-growth. We understand the Nani Kona Aina property will eventually be zoned for residential development, as it is included in the urban expansion zone. However, this property is not ready for development now and therefore the rezoning should be denied. To pazaphrase your Planning Commission who recommended denial of this application, "Land owners aze not entitled to rezone. They are entitled to use the property under current AG 5 zoning. We should draw a line with this application until questions about infrastructure can be addressed." We agree with your Planning Commission and here are some of the issues we believe should be resolved to the satisfaction of the community before the property is rezoned: 1. We aze concerned about incremental zoning decisions. Several pazcels of land between this property and Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway have recently been rezoned for residential development and others will be before you soon. These individual applications do not meet your threshold for major impact analysis, but collectively they total in excess of 100 homes. County planners should be directed to look at these as a group and plan the roads Comm. No. y3 .i Y Ref. Ta t?~ fi Ref. Uote 1