Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Page 2 <br /> in fact initiated by the Planning Director. Therefore, I must question how protective this <br /> restrictive clause is which is only effective until the LUPAG Map Land Use Designation <br /> is changed again, since the option to change the LUPAG designation is immediately <br /> available to the County Cormcil and the Planning Director? <br /> <br /> Loophole: no discernable lasting time element <br /> <br /> There is no discernable time element for this restrictive covenant. It is inappropriately <br /> tied to the LUPAG map designations which the Planning Director, the majority of the <br /> County Council, and you are even now trying to change. <br /> Loophole: termination of covenant triggers <br /> <br /> 2. The actual covenant itself might be subject to change by the owner/owners merely by <br /> changing the parcel size, the I,UPAG map designation, or the State of IlawaiPs <br /> change of land zone definitions. <br /> <br /> Loophole: upcoming revisions by SLUC and KCDP <br /> 3. The State Land use Commission has a project underway to revise Rural land use <br /> concepts. The Kona Community Development Plan is working on revising rural land <br /> use concepts. It is highly probable that some revision of terminology and definitions <br /> will be reflected in County Code amendments in the upcoming months and years as a <br /> result of the work being done by the SLUC and KCDP. <br /> <br /> Loophole: tied to terminology and revisions <br /> 4. Therefore, the F-2 restrictive covenant should not be tied to County Code <br /> amendments regarding terminology, definition, and classification of rural land use. <br /> THAT WOULD CREATE A SIGNIFICANT LOOPHOLE. <br /> <br /> Loophole: developer, s disclaimers <br /> 5. Legal documents drafted by the attorney of a developer are designed to protect the <br /> developer's interest, not the public's interest. This particular document falls into that <br /> category. It contains sufficient disclaimers to allow the. developer to negatively <br /> impact the Pali and Kealakekua Bay through future actions. <br /> <br /> Obviously, the Kona community will not consider this covenant truly protective unless it <br /> can be expected to have full effect permanently. Anything else will just look like a <br /> political ploy to placate the community's concerns without really protecting the land or <br /> the Bay. A cosmetic restriction that simply slightly slows the process leading to higher <br /> density development is not sufficient protection for Kealakekua Bay and Marine Life <br /> Conservation District. . <br /> Therefore, as discussed with you, we need to have this document reviewed by an attorney <br /> to incorporate language favorable to the public's interest; to evaluate its worth in terms of <br /> the community's concerns. We are doing this with due diligence. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 2 <br />