COM 0700.004 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The Honorable K. Angel Pilago October 12, 2007 Page 4 11.On August 31, 2007, the P1amling Commission resumed and completed their hearing on the petition for District Boundary Amendment and recommended that the matter (without amendments responding to my previous testimony) be approved by the County Council. Due to a conflict in my schedule, I was not able to appear before the Planning Commission and again provide testimony expressing concern with respect to the reclassification of the subject lands. Findings and Conclusion The LUC is charged with the overall administration of the State Land Use Law (Chapter 205 I-lRS). As such, the L.UC must be the final arbiter (where any controversy exists) in determinnlg whether a petifion for DBA (pursuant to §205- 3.1 bIRS) is appropriately before an individual county. Wlule §205-3.1 I-IRS of the Stafie Land Use Law provides that petitions for D8A involving 15 acres or less are within the juirisdiction of the appropriate county authority; should the cumulative project involve acreage greater than 15 acres, that pefition is subject to the jurisdiction of the LUC. • The subject petition for DBA of 10.001 acres of land represents the sewnd action by this appiicant to urbanize a portion of their origina150-acre holding. • LUC staff previously expressed concerns that the County of I-lawaii should comprehensively consider tlm 50-acre parcel as a single development if similar residentia3 and related uses were proposed on that 50-acres. • An individual County of Hawaii Planning Commissioner has already expressed concerns as to the "segmentation" of the initial 10.001 acre parcel from the larger 50-acre project. • Appendix E of the subject petition for DBA is a Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TZAR) fora 50-acre residential development composed of four separate "lots°. The project plaiuied for "Lot A1" is the same residential project described in the subject application. The TIAR considers the 50-acre as a single project.