|
I’d like to see the downzoning, the density decreased -. It’s my understanding that it’s, the
<br />Commission does not have the power to initiate a downzoning request to say one acre or
<br />something like that. I will point out to you that Condition C does indicate that the limitations on
<br />the units were 50 and potentially that could be worked out to a lower number if the Commission
<br />as a body so desires. So, anyway, personally I’m not in favor of revoking. But that’s just my
<br />feelings. Anyone else have any comments? Mr. Graham?
<br />GRAHAM: I want to take kind of an unusual turn here. This may be my last Planning
<br />Commission meeting. I’ve been on the Planning Commission all this time and I know we have
<br />some members like you folks who are expressing reservations who are, you know, more
<br />supportive of the developments in general than I have been and all. And it seems like one of the
<br />issues, and I think the public testifier kind of said that today, like maybe the public interest in
<br />general, you know, ask for open space and ask for lower density zoning, however, there is a
<br />negative impact to the owner of this property. So that it’s sort of a, I mean, it seems to me sort of
<br />a balancing that needs to be done, and that Mr. Yuen in this case and in my own personal feeling
<br />in this case is that because the opportunity is here in the law for the Planning Director to act in
<br />favor of what he believes to be the community’s interest and, you know, I’m inclined to also act
<br />on my vote on what’s favorable to the community’s interest yet you all are not. Can you
<br />elucidate a little more your feeling? Is it like you think that the private landowner’s interest is
<br />more important than the community’s interest, or do you think maybe the community doesn’t
<br />really have that interest, or, you know, anything in that nature to help me understand a little more
<br />your feeling since it may be my last chance to get that.
<br />WATANABE: Okay. Well, let me recognize Mr. Woodard first and -.
<br />WOODWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I could address that. And that’s why I was
<br />asking about how everything is zoned around there. And there are quite a few areas that are
<br />zoned half acre or one acre. You know, I think if there had been dialogue perhaps this could
<br />have been rezoned Ag, you know, 1 acre. But it sounded like a fait accompli that it was, you
<br />know, my way or the highway; and that’s kind of what bothered me. You know, I think if there
<br />was a dialogue and, okay, you know, Mr. Lim says okay we can live with one acre, you know,
<br />we’ll change it, and Mr. Yuen says okay, that’s fine, I could live with that. But, you know, it’s
<br />one side against the other with nothing in between; and that’s what bothers me, that there has
<br />been no dialogue, there has been no attempt to resolve this, you know, in a mutually beneficial
<br />fashion. That’s my concern.
<br />WATANABE: And if I might respond, this is how I feel about it. As we heard testimony
<br />this is the most extensive open area; and I traveled that road quite often while I served as branch
<br />manager out in Kohala so I’m familiar with that. It is, and there is a lot of opportunity for open
<br />spaces there that we can preserve that isn’t currently zoned RS-15 or Ag-1 even. Maybe it
<br />should be 5 acres, maybe in some sections it should be Conservation. But we have that
<br />opportunity to preserve, yeah, significant shoreline vistas along that highway, Akoni Pule
<br />Highway, without infringing on the rights of any individuals, whether they were vested or
<br />technically aren’t vested any further. It would be my hope that we could send a message that
<br />way that, to the Council, that says, you know, we really don’t want to infringe on the individual’s
<br />rights although we do recognize the public’s right to some degree or desire, yeah. And if you
<br />EXHIBIT C
<br />17
<br />
<br />
|