COM 0939.025 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Lincoln Ashida, Esq. Corporation Counsel Office of the Corporation Counsel Page 2 April 27, 2001 that the existing town can expand in that direction, and it may give a general indication of the ultimate size, but it does not indicate a precise boundary for the town. There is a band of "Open" designation along the shoreline which could be scaled off at 300-500 feet wide, but this does not designate a policy of a 300-500 foot wide shoreline setback. It signifies that there is a shoreline setback, but given the scale, it is not possible to delineate an exact width on the map. I have found many instances where zoning has been allowed that is not precisely consistent with the LUPAG, if you try to precisely scale the map. For example, the Kona Industrial subdivision is partially within the "High Density" urban core of Kailua-Kona. Industrial uses are not permitted within "High Density." The Ritz-Carlton Hotel is located at least partially, and maybe completely, on an "Open" LUPAG designation, although there is a "Resort" designation in the immediate vicinity. I must conclude, as have previous planning directors, that there must be some discretion to interpret the map. There have been a number of formal "map interpretations"; more often zoning has proceeded without this being raised as an issue. That being said, the key question is the extent of discretion. Unfettered discretion makes the LUPAG map completely worthless. I agree with an opinion orally given by Pat O'Toole that there is no discretion when the map area in question was enacted by an ordinance which specifies metes and bounds, or by a specific parcel, as has sometimes been the case for interim amendments. I also feel that there are circumstances where the intent of the map is clear. Among these are the "conservation" designations that appear to coincide with the state land use conservation district boundaries or forest reserve boundaries. I don't think the director has the discretion to "map interpret" those areas to include adjacent properties. Another example would be where the map clearly covers an existing facility, like a mill site being shown as industrial. In those circumstances, the map would be interpreted to cover the existing mill area, and perhaps something larger, depending upon the size of the area shown on the map. I also think that in where a road appears to be the boundary between markedly different LUPAG categories, the road ought to be respected as a boundary. For example, if an urban use is only shown on one side of a road, one should not interpret it to be on the other side of the road. I think that where an urban use is clearly shown on one bay it should not be extended or moved to the next bay.