My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0042.062 2004-2006
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2004-2006
>
COM 0042.062 2004-2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2008 1:07:36 PM
Creation date
5/8/2008 11:18:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2004-2006
Communication
0042
Point
062
Author
Bob Jacobson, Councilmember
Communications - Referred To
COUNCIL
Comments
Council: Close File -1/21/05
Document Relationships
AGE COUNCIL 01/21/2005 2004-2006
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2004-2006\Council
COM 0042.000 2004-2006
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\2004-2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Honorable Leningrad Elarionoff, Chair <br /> and Members of the County Council <br /> HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL <br /> Page 6 <br /> December 18, 2003 <br /> building permit it the classic example of a ministerial permit. If a property already has <br /> the proper zoning, the Planning Director to deny a building permit solely based upon the <br /> General Plan, because unlike rezonings and SMA permits, the laws do not give the <br /> Director or any other official the power to invoke the General Plan at that late stage. For <br /> example, if a property is zoned "Residential", but happens to be "Open" in the General <br /> Plan, the County is not empowered to deny the building permit based solely upon the <br /> General Plan. The General Plan is not applied at that stage; it is primarily to be applied at <br /> the stage of rezoning, SMA permits, use permits, and other discretionary approvals. <br /> At p. 9-10 of the letter, there is reference to landowners having vested rights to <br /> proceed with construction of additional dwellings. It is not clear to me what this is <br /> referring to. None of the proposed land use changes in the General Plan affect rights that <br /> have already been created by final subdivision approvals. As described in the previous <br /> paragraph, if a landowner has an automatic right to a building permit based upon zoning, <br /> the General Plan designation can't change that. <br /> 4. The letter contains criticism of a proposal in the draft General Plan that the <br /> zoning code be amended to include a new "Conservation" zone, which would cover land <br /> that should be kept in a largely natural state, but that "may not be in the Conservation <br /> District." This proposal is not meant to assert jurisdiction over lands in the state land use <br /> conservation district, as the text of the proposed amendment clearly states. Those lands <br /> are under the jurisdiction of the BLNR (except the county has some jurisdiction when <br /> they are also in the SMA.) The point of this proposed zoning district is that there are <br /> lands outside of the conservation district that should be kept in a largely natural state, <br /> such as some gulches, areas with very steep slopes, and historical sites, but no zoning <br /> district that really accomplishes that. The "Open" zoning district can allow considerable <br /> ground alteration. The City and County of Honolulu has the equivalent of this <br /> "Conservation" zone in its "Preservation" zones. Creating a "Conservation" zoning <br /> district will not in itself be a taking. Applying it to a particular piece of property maybe a <br /> taking under the analysis described above, if it results in the loss of all economic benefit <br /> from the entire parcel, but this is an analysis that has to be made on a case-by-case basis <br /> <br /> whenever property would be rezoned to Conservation. <br /> 5. Pages 0-13 of the letter argues that the provision in the General Plan requiring <br /> <br /> public access of coastal development is unconstitutional. This provision being criticized <br /> is in the existing (1989) General Plan. Various state laws (H.R.S. sec. 46-6.5, H.R.S. sec. <br /> 205A-26(1)(A) and Chap. 34 of the Hawaii County Code require public access for <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.