My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2021-11-18 Leeward Exh C (Items 1 & 2)
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2021
>
2021-11-18 Leeward Exh C (Items 1 & 2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/16/2021 5:52:45 PM
Creation date
12/16/2021 5:52:34 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />During the pandemic, especially where the goals of owning a home of living in Waimea have <br />never been less attainable to the people of Waimea. And so, I think that’s why we are seeing this <br />dramatic shift where a project like this in years past wouldn’t have gotten a lot of attention, most <br />likely but, today given everything that’s happening in the town, given the changes in the town <br />that people see as adverse to the lifestyle that they know and grew up in that personally I can <br />understand, having grown up there and seeing the changes now. So, I find the results of the <br />testimony to be very indicative of what the people of Waimea think. I also think that this is <br />prime agricultural land. I can understand wanting to do something within the urban designation <br />along the highway. But with something designated as prime agricultural land that should mean <br />something. And being part of a Small Farms and Ranches Preservation Program that should <br />mean something. <br /> <br />So, to me, I can’t support the project, because I think it goes against the South Kohala <br />Community Development Plan. I think that the people of Waimea have made it very clear that <br />they are in opposition to it. I think that the creation of the CC&Rs exists to promote higher <br />property values to increase development building standards, making it less likely that people <br />from Waimea we’ll be able to afford and build on those lots. I don’t see this as adding attainable <br />housing, I see it as adding to the unaffordable housing problem. For me, I can’t support a <br />favorable recommendation on this. Commissioner DeFranco? <br /> <br />DEFRANCO: So, Mike the way that this is now part of the lower piece along the road has an <br />urban designation, does it? <br /> <br />VITOUSEK: Correct. <br /> <br />DEFRANCO: So that could be developed into a commercial, a storefront, is that right? <br /> <br />VITOUSEK: Not under the under the current zoning. The current zoning is for Agricultural-5 <br />acres so zoning would have to be amended for that portion of the property in order to allow for it. <br /> <br />DEFRANCO: So, it seems to me though, is that the portion that all of this debris was dumped <br />on that couldn’t be considered good soil anymore right. I mean if it has been contaminated. I’m <br />just wondering how that― <br /> <br />VITOUSEK: We don’t have the information to make the call on what the soil is other than the <br />soil classifications that are provided to us. It could be some sort of an environmental report, an <br />engineering report that would accompany that would indicate that because of previous dumping, <br />the soil is no longer viable for agriculture or something. That would have to be a separate issue <br />other than what we have now, knowing that this is classified as prime agricultural land. <br /> <br />DEFRANCO: Okay, and so thank you, I’m sort of looking at all of this also because I didn’t see <br />that the way that the CDP map was drawn. In putting in sidewalks and connectiveness that that <br />portion of the land to do something else so that would probably be okay. It’s the idea, the part <br />that’s not okay is that because it is important ag land and part of the farming program that to <br />allow this to go forward would set a precedent for or something, but, like you said, if this were a <br />few years ago it would be okay for this to happen. <br />22 <br />EXHIBIT C <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.