COM 0964.045 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

DELETE F-2 P. 1 of 2 August 20, 2006 Dear Mayor Kim, Planning Director Yuen, and Members of the County Council, On July 31, testimony opposing General Plan Interim Amendment F-2 was presented to the County Council Planning Committee in Hilo.. People video- conferenced testimony from Kona. People drove from Kona to Hilo to testify. Councilman Pilago reported on the large response of citizen testimony concerned over F-2 leading to HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT OVER KEALAKEKUA BAY. Mr. Yuen's personal response to all the public testimony on this issue was to characterize concerned citizens as "confused", to label their concern over possible 1/2 acre minimum size house lots a "red herring", and to dismiss all their concerns because he felt they had mixed up the State Land Use Categories and the LUPAG Map land use designations. This evidently was sufficient in his eyes to negate the need for any meaningful response to all the citizens who took time to testify, We ask you, Mayor Kim, since when it is necessary for a citizen to be able to recite the nuances of relationship between State Land Use, County LUPAG Map Land Use Designations, and the Hawaii County Zoning Code in order to have their valid concerns addressed? Whether all the citizens that are opposed to F-2 can explain the Hawaii Land Use Regulatory System is not the point. THE POINT IS WHETHER THEIR CONCERNS OVER THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF F-2 ARE VALID. Mr. Yuen publicly evaded addressing the expressed concerns in the testimony opposed to F-2 . He labeled citizens as "confused" and avoided the issues raised. He would not honor Councilwoman Isbell's repeated questions on the F-2 rezoning concerns of her constituents with a direct answer. We hope, Mayor Kim, that you will have the Planning Director clear up the "confusion" for all of us by addressing the following scenario: First, I called the Planning Departments in Hilo and Kona, asking for clarification of the LUPAG Rural Land Use Designation, as described in Hawaii County General Plan Feb. 2005 Land Use -Overview, 14. 1.1 Introduction & Analysis, Land Use Concepts. The above description defines "typical lot sizes of 9000 sq. ft, to 2 acres". I asked them, "What is the minimum house lot size that could be allowed?" The Planning Department said the minimum house lot size allowable under LUPAG Map Land Use Designation of Rural is 1/2 acre. The reason given was that the County cannot go lower than the State Land Use Category of Rural, which states 1/2 acre is the minimum lot size allowable for a house. Then I called the State Land Use Commission. They had a different answer. They said the County could take precedence in some cases. For example, F-2 is proposing Rural LUPAG Map Land Use Designation in an area that is State Land Use Category Urban, Therefore, the County could allow 9000 sq. ft. minimum house lots under their Rural LUPAG Map designation. So, Mr. Yuen, could you clarify this? What is the minimum size house lot allowable under Rural LUPAG Map Land Use Designation ?