COM 0471.005 2008-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

BOWMAN: Yes. WATANABE: Okay. Any discussion? HOUSEL: I'd like to make a comment. You know, concurrency is something that we all acknowledge is far behind in this county everywhere. And in fact, each of the approved Community Development Plans addresses concurrency and the need for it and the importance of it. And I don't think that we should just kick it down. This came down the road without some kind of recommendation or suggestion. In fact, I think the language in this bill came - correct me, if I'm wrong - explicitly from the South Kohala Community Development Plan; the same language is in that Community Development Plan, which was passed as an ordinance last year. So as far as the South Kohala Community Development Plan, this is the law; they decided that this is what was appropriate for their neighborhood. The other thing that, I'm a little disappointed in reading this resolution; the language in it on the second page - and I hope this is correct even though the voting is not - there is a paragraph that's scratched out and then the paragraph directly below it, which is asking the Planning Director to "submit comments and recommendations on the proposed zoning code amendments as set forth in the proposed bill for an ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit 'A' and by reference made a part hereof, or" - and this is the key language - "or to prepare a similar bill for an ordinance to create concurrency standards for parks and recreational facilities and for firefighting facilities in change of zone actions." In reading the Planning Dire~tor's recommendations and some of the background, she did make some suggestions regarding how to address this very complex issue of concurrency; it's not a simple issue, but she did state that it could be handled, as far as park requirements, in the County's Park Dedication Ordinance. And those are very good, but I don't feel she went far enough. I think, as far as answering what the bill was requesting, a similar bill, I don't feel it's far enough. The comments from the Planner, the Park Planner, I feel, are totally unresponsive in that it seems like he only describes the problems but doesn't suggest a solution. And so as far as I'm concerned, his comments are unacceptable. This is a, you know, concurrency is very important, it's much needed, and I think we all need to work on a solution for it. So I don't believe that simply giving an unfavorable recommendation to this is a right answer. Thank you. WATANABE: Okay. Any further discussion? BOWMAN: I agree. But ifit needs to be worked on, then we don't want to give a favorable; it needs to be worked on is what you are saying. HOUSEL: Right. That's correct. BOWMAN: Okay. So it's kind of like the last one - to postpone it until there is more work to be done. But we can't do that; we either have to make a recommendation or, you know, either yey or nay. That's the problem. More work needs to be done, I agree. Okay, thank you. WATANABE: Any further discussion? Maija? 4