COM 0998.007 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Honorable Angel Pilago, Chair April 7, 2008 Page 3 A. Nothing Has Changed Because of the 1979 General Plan amendment, the 1982 downzonings made sense. The General Plan designation of the properties had changed to less intensive uses and the downzonings were enacted to bring the properties into compliance with the amended General Plan. Such is the proper procedure the County must follow when passing downzoning ordinances. However, in Kohala's case there was no General Plan amendment to trigger the Downzoning. Despite the opportunity to amend the General Plan in 2005, the LUPAG designation of the Subject Property is the same today as it was when Ord. 97-102 was passed; mostly Low Density Urban with a portion of Extensive Agriculture and a swath of Open along the shoreline. Nothing has changed, therefore the Downzoning is illegal 2 The State Land Use designation for the Subject Property is, as it was at the enactment of Ord. No. 97-102, Urban. Therefore, the Low Density Urban LUPAG designation is appropriate and accordingly was not changed during the 2005 General Plan amendment. In contrast, property directly to the north (TMK No. (3) 5-9-003: 001), is within the State Land Use Conservation District. Thus, in 2005 it was recognized that the Extensive Agriculture LUPAG designation was not appropriate, and it was changed to Conservation. See E-6 on North Kohala map 2 and Bill 163, enclosed herein as Exhibit B. Similarly, property to the south was changed from Medium Density Urban to Low Density Urban (See E-5). Most importantly, the Subject Property was not touched. If the County truly believed that RS-15 zoning was no longer appropriate, why did it fail to alter the LUPAG designations in 2005, when obviously it was scrutinizing the zoning and LUPAG designations in the surrounding areas? Today, just like in 1997, the Subject Property is identified as an area of Natural Beauty under the General Plan. Obviously that designation is consistent with RS-15 zoning, otherwise Ord. 97-102 would never have been enacted. In his Background Report, the Planning Director attempts to support the Downzoning by explaining that the surrounding properties are zoned A- sa. What he fails to mention is that the surrounding properties were zoned A-5a in 1997, when Ord. 97-102 was enacted. See Zoning Map attached to Ord. 97-102, enclosed herein as Exhibit 2 In 1997 the Planning Director made specific findings that the Kohala LLC proposed 50-lot RS-15 zoned residential subdivision complied with the General Plan: The proposed development is consistent with the County General Plan and Zoning Code. The proposed project does conform to the General Plan Land Use Patten Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map, which designates this area for Low Density Urban. Lot Density designation refers to single family residential in character, ancillary community and public uses and convenience type commercial uses. This designation does not refer to density limitations however, this designation generally has been at a density of 4 units per acre. The average density relating to the proposed request (50 lots over 38+ acres) would amount to 1.5 units per acre. Therefore, it is determined that the request is consistent with the urban form depicted on the LUPAG Map for this area of North Kohala. See SMA Permit No. 379 at 4.