2004-03-05 thester - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

was, IÓm, clearly rather different from this. But probably weÓll, but we now have to live with the laws that were written in the code, not the initial intent that was put forth in the discussions. So as far as reading the Code, it seems to me this project probably does conform to the Code, but I wanted to put that background forth for everyoneÓs understanding. Not withstanding that background, as far as this particular situation, I appreciate the DirectorÓs reading into the minutes today what he had put forth in his recommendation about viewing this as an experiment and why he went for the 10-acre size and all; and I feel like I very much agree with what he said there. And I think, historically, we have a lot of Ag-20 zoned land and we have a lot of large parcels left-over from plantation era. The situation in Kohala where I live was much the same but it has evolved a lot more than it has here in Kau. I think what we want to do is increase the agricultural use of the land. At the same time, we donÓt want to promote a lot of gentlemen estate, trophy homes kind of situation; and I think that this particular application is probably as good a step in that direction as we can get where we are reducing the lot size it together who are doing farming, who have a great history of farming; and so, to me, itÓs an experiment. Where this situation where the water source is being developed, where the land is being repaired from agricultural use, to me it feels like there is a real chance that this will be a good step in the direction of increasing agricultural use. So, basically, I am in favor of this proposal as it now stands and as it was put forth with Commissioner KubotaÓs motion. My real concern to this is in the precedence. If they have other, if they have somebody with 20-acre parcel that wants to make a project district so they can subdivide into two parcels and all, what is there about this particular application that makes it appropriate, in line with the Planning DirectorÓs comments on what makes it appropriate, but would not make appropriate some other one where maybe we donÓt want to see these agricultural project districts just become a vehicle for reducing the size of agricultural lots? So I guess my, the synopsis of what I was saying in my long disc this project in favor of this motion; but IÓm very concerned about the precedence for others who may come forth doing project districts. And I view it as an experiment, as the Planning Director said, and hopefully the results of this experiment gives us added impetus to do more of the same than not. But IÓm wondering what we can put on the record or what the other Commissioners can suggest as a way of defining why this is somehow different from the potential of not other applicants coming in for project districts, as we really are reducing the lot size and go into agricultural land. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Any other comments or questions? McCall? MCCALL:Yeah. IÓm going to be voting in favor of this. I think this is a very good project, and I think this is basically what we need. I am in favor of the ag project district in this case because, primarily, I think in order to get land -. You know, itÓs one thing to have a 20-acre parcel of land, itÓs another thing to be able to farm it on a commercial basis. Just having a 20- acre parcel of land does not mean youÓre going to be able to be successful. You need access, you need roads, you need water, you need infrastructure. The subdivision process gives you these things, but the cost frequently puts it out of the reach of a natural farmer doing it. I think by 18