COM 0211.024 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Robello, Alfred From: J. C. Tyler III [jct3kona~hawaii.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 9:56 AM To: County Council Tx Subject: Bill 80 (6/14/05 Planning Committee) Aloha Co-Chairs Hoffman 8 Pilago and Members of the Planning Committee: I have reviewed the subject bill, including a proposed draft 2, and have some observations for your consideration: I. Lands classified and/or zoned for agriculture should be used primarily for such, as the Constitution and State statutes mandate. II. The County should not place further restrictions on the size of a farm dwelling. A person's home is their castle, whether it be 800 or 8,000 square feet. The size of the dwelling is not necessarily indicative of its farm use. Furthermore, there is no correlation of the dwelling size with the overall size of the property or the portion actually in agriculture. Finally, what is the purpose for this? After all, if someone is doing bonafide ag on the property, why should the County be concerned about the specific size of the house (assuming, of course, it otherwise meets the code), especially since, the larger it is, the higher the assessment, and the higher the tax revenue? III. Gated subdivisions are not conductive to community building. However, whether a roadway may have a gated or limited access seems to be a direct function of who owns, maintains and assumes liability for the roadway itself. If it is the County, then there should be no gate or other limited access, unless, for some reason, public safety dictates it. If it is privately held, then it seems to be at the discretion of the owners, unless, again, public safety dictates otherwise. The County seems unable to properly maintain its existing roadway inventory, especially those roads which the State turned over to it many years ago. Besides the public safety issues mentioned, why would the county want to take over the liability for more roads, in particular, those whose owners elect to handle maintenance and assume liability for themselves? What is magic about "more than four lots" which should dictate unrestricted access? If public access to the shoreline/mountain areas is the problem, then those should be specifically addressed in accordance with the law. If existing law is insufficient to protect these rights, then amend those laws would seem to be in order. IV. The proposal to prohibit subdivision of ag lands "without proof that sufficient water will be available to support agricultural operations" has merit, but how will it be correlated with the specific type of operation? Will the rule making afford this opportunity? V. In general, draft 2 is an improvement over draft 1. However, under Section 2: Section 23-23(b)(2), what about just "golf courses" or "lodges" without lots for other residential use? Perhaps some further clarification is needed. Thank you for the opportunity to provide my thoughts and for your careful consideration of them. Curtis Ciatlf-tl~. ~ . Z7 J. Curtis Tyler III Ref. To:Pfb ~i _ Raf Da+e .IIIN~QS t