REP PC 010 03/02/2009 2008-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Comm. 95 Page 2 of 3 4. Access to the project area will be from Kaokoa Way, a private roadway off Awa Street, with a 20-foot pavement and a 50-foot right of-way. 5. County water is available to the site. The proposed lots will utilize individual wastewater treatment systems meeting with the approval of the Department of Health. All essential utilities are available to the site. County fire stations, police and emergency medical services are available to the site. 6. The Planning Director recommended favorably on this request based on the following: • The proposed reclassification request will conform to the goals, policies and standards of the General Plan Economic and Land Use Elements. • The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map designates this area as Low Density Urban. • The State Land Use designation for the property is Agriculture and the proposed change of classification would complement the existing uses already in the area. • The Change of Zone request is not contrary to Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes relating to Coastal Zone Management as the subject property is not an oceanfront parcel, and will not affect or be affected by shoreline processes. • There are no valued cultural, historical or natural resources that exist on the property and no evidence of any traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights being practiced on the site. It is not anticipated the proposed request will have any adverse impact on cultural or historical resources in the area. Members of the surrounding community appeared before the Committee to testify about this matter. Of the eight people who testified before the Committee, only one spoke in favor of the Change of Zone application. Jerel Yamamoto, a local attorney, stated that he and his parents lived on that land for over 30 years. He stated that he supported this application because he in turn would be able to re-classify the family parcel and sub-divide into two parcels. Seven members of the community spoke in opposition to the project. All stated that the area is agricultural and that it should stay that way. They reminded the Committee that agriculture and residential areas don't mix well. The Committee members were reminded that the farmers in close proximity to the project would bear increased liability due to the nature of agriculture, but they were not indemnified. The community members informed the Committee about traffic problems that would be exacerbated, and the lack of proper infrastructure to support the project. All community members present, even those who did not testify, were clearly opposed to the project. PC Report No. 10