COM 0927.036 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

3 7-18-06:10:26AM:18085283463 ;180H6283463 C 21 f improvement to serve the public), which may include a single capital improvement project or a series of capital improvements to be undertaken over a longer period of time based on the projected needs outlined in the General Plan and Community Development Plan. Comments on the Specific Proposal: i The problem with Planning is once the plans are adopted, they are static while the world is dynamic. Thus, plans are updated periodically to account for changes that may not have been considered in the initial planning process. Postponing actions on projects while the existing plan is being revised creates a circular f problem because one could always argue that a plan is outdated once it is adopted. For example, a particular condition or conditions in the plan may have changed since the planning process was initiated. We understand that part of the justification for the proposed "postponing" action on rezoning applications is based on the concerns of existing residence regarding the capacity of the existing infrastructure (i.e. roads, sewer, water, parks, schools, etc) to accommodate more growth. Funding should be prioritized to target these existing needs. Postponing development also postpones new infrastructure; growth stimulates the need for new public facilities. It is unclear to us at this time, how updating the community development plan for North and South Kona will address the infrastructure capacity issue unless it is to severely restrict future development in the area based on existin infrastructure. If that is the intent, the County may be exposing itself to vested rights claims if the revisions involve down-zoning of existing properties. Nevertheless, the real issue seems to be the County's ability to implement the vision set i forth in both the General Plan and Community Development Plans by funding and developing the necessary infrastructure. Without the commitment and discipline to fund and constructed the necessary infrastructure in the short-term, the long-range and mid-range planning objectives can not and will not be fully realized. I The University of Maryland, National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education recently completed a study on Inappropriate Use, Inconsistent Standards, and Unintended Consequences of Adequate Public Facility Ordinances (APFO). "APFO's are designed to assure that public schools, roads, sewers, water for fire fighting, police and rescue response times and/or other infrastructure or services are "adequate" to support proposed new development. (In other parts of the country, APFO's are sometimes referred to as "Concurrency Requirements.") The study concluded that APFO's were responsible for deflecting as much as io percent of the new home development that otherwise would have been built within the designated growth areas. The effect of this shift is that the amount of housing available in those counties is reduced, housing prices are inflated, and the growth simply moves elsewhere, often to rural areas never intended for growth or worse, simply does not occur. In short, the APFO's appear to be fueling the same pattern of development the State's Smart Growth policy is intended to curtail." "APFO's consistency with local comprehensive plans is possible only if adequate funding is allocated to provide necessary infrastructure in the plan's designated areas. When I