My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2003-03-07 THOKUKANO1
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003
>
2003-03-07 THOKUKANO1
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2011 11:52:42 AM
Creation date
6/13/2011 11:52:38 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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
th <br />I'm sorry, the March 4 response to that, this week's response -. <br />YUEN:Yeah. <br />TSUKAZAKI:Contains a statement from our side indicating we do not believe <br />that that left hand storage lane is warranted. <br />YUEN:Yes, I see that. As far as the Department's comments on the traffic <br />improvements, we'll wait to the end of public testimony to give <br />that. <br />I do want to comment on why we would oppose a change to G, the f <br />improvements within the flood zones. Chapter 27 is the flood co <br />Hawai`i County. It applies not just at the, it applies to properties that are already zoned. <br />It applies at the building permit stage, it applies at the subdivision stage. It's taken from a <br />national law. It's basically a copy of a standard national law that the County has to put in <br />place in order to qualify for flood insurance. It's tied in with, there's a national, and state <br />approach to this. The law itself is written to apply to communities that, where there's <br />already zoning in place, and in other words, it applies to lots that are already zoned <br />residential or already zoned commercial. And so the approach taken by the federal <br />government is that you restrict, you don't prohibit building on the lots. You simply, you <br />require that the lots be, that if construction occurs on the property, that it be built up from <br />the floodway, like on stilts, for example, with breakaway construction allowed. So our, if <br />you take Chapter 27, if you were in an existing commercial zone, <br />have -, we have commercial zones that are in floodways. What it does then is say that <br />new construction has to be built up. <br />The reason for the federal government taking this approach, one of the reasons, is that <br />you're dealing with properties that already had land use entitlements, they already -, <br />they're zoned to do certain things. And then you get into these constitutional taking <br />issues, if you then pass a law that says you can't build in the floodway anymore -. <br />As a matter of philosophy, though, if we're talking about taking a piece of property that <br />has one zoning and moving to a zoning that allows greater construction, greater use, our <br />approach is that, to not allow construction in the floodway. Rather than rezone this <br />property and allow them to build commercial buildings in the floodway -, that it could be <br />elevated above the floodway is better. Because you have the control at the zoning stage <br />to restrict construction within the flood zones as a tradeoff for allowing greater <br />development outside the flood zones. So that's the reason for taking this approach and <br />not just simply saying that we should follow Chapter 27 and allow anything that can be <br />built pursuant to Chapter 27 to be put in the floodway. <br />SPRINGER:Mr. Tsukazaki. <br />15 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.