COM 0045.006 2010-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The Honorable Dominic Yagong, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 3 May 24, 2011 In regards to this Project, even if there was a conflict between the General Plan LUPAG Urban Expansion area and the Kona CDP - Kona Urban Area, the General Plan/LUPAG would control. According to Section 46 -4 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes and Section 3- 15 (General Plan) of the Hawaii County Charter, any zoning ordinance shall be enacted within the framework of the General Plan. Section 15.1 of the County General Plan confirms the primacy of the General Plan over the Kona CDP, and states the following: "If there is a direct conflict between the Community Development Plan and the General Plan, the General Plan shall be controlling." g. Connectivity - Over the last 2 years, in compliance with Policy TRAN -2.1 (Connectivity Standards) and Policy LU -2.8, Section 2.b.ii, relating to Infill, the Applicant has worked with the DPW in the design of the Project's roadways to include stubouts to ensure future connectivity to the adjacent parcels including Sugar Cane Lane, the Heights at Hualalai, and the proposed Alaneo development. h. Consultation with the Kona Design Center - On July 12, 2010 the Applicant consulted with the Kona Design Center to confirm the Project's compliance with the Kona CDP. 2. State Land Use Commission ( "LUC ") a. Less than 15 -Acre Rule - As the Project area is 14.968 acres, the County of Hawaii is the only governing entity under Section 206 -3.1 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes that can reclassify land that is less than 15 acres in size. b. LUC Letter of September 3, 2010 - The Planning Department received the LUC letter dated September 3, 2010 after providing our Background and Recommendation Reports ( "Report") for both the SLU and REZ applications to the Leeward Planning Commission ( "Leeward PC "). All comment letters received by the Planning Department prior to submittal of the Report were included within the submittal packet to the Leeward PC. As noted under Item No. 36, Page 6 of the Planning Department's Background Report under "Agencies and Organizations - No Responses ", no response was provided by the LUC at the time the Background Report was provided to the Leeward PC. However, copies of the LUC letter were provided to all of the Leeward PC members prior to its hearing on the subject applications. To address the LUC's comment inquiring whether ownership of this Property and the adjoining parcels are truly separate, we have reconfirmed there is no common ownership of the parcels in question. The law as it currently stands prohibits one applicant from subdividing a Property into parcels less than 15 acres and then subsequently developing each parcel in phases. There is nothing in the law to prohibit the owner of a single parcel, of less than 15 acres in size, from requesting land reclassification as an independent applicant. In this case, where the land is under 15 acres in size, only the County has the legal authority to reclassify the State land use district boundary.