|
Im also wondering how did all of this get to be zoned that way when it was, you know,
<br />Important Ag lands before on the General Plan; and, you know, a little bit, maybe a chronology
<br />of how it got to be that way, and .
<br />YUEN:It is not, at the time it was zoned, it was -. Under prior General Plans there
<br />were actually no Important Ag lands category. I believe this was Orchards in the General Plan
<br />when it was zoned RA-2a, Im not certain. But, at any rate, it is not Important Agriculture. It
<br />was either Orchards or Extensive Ag in the prior General Plan at the time the rezoning took
<br />place. The surrounding properties, the neighboring properties to the north here, well, actually,
<br />this whole area here that Im showing is zoned Ag-5. There is a subdivision in here and --. And,
<br />anyway, this area was rezoned to allow a greater density sometime back either, I believe it was
<br />either in the early 80s or the early 90s.
<br />ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham, follow-up?
<br />GRAHAM:So, at this point, as far as Zoning Code is concerned, that whole area that
<br />youreputtingforchangetoanF-2canbedevelopedatthe2-acrelevel,isthatcorrect?
<br />YUEN:Yes.TheremaybealittlecornerofthisthatsnotzonedRA-2a,thatIm
<br />not certain.
<br />GRAHAM:Thank you.
<br />YUEN:Okay. But most part of it is zoned RA-2a. Actually, this is also all in the
<br />SMA. The subdivision part that Im talking about has an SMA permit for a, I cant remember,
<br />its a 33- or 37- lot subdivision.
<br />ALAMEDA:Other Commissioners, questions? Commissioner Iwashita.
<br />IWASHITA:Does the Important Ag land designation impose limitations in the types of
<br />development that can occur? I guess my concern is about, you know, the proximity to
<br />Kealakekua Bay and the need to, you know, basically minimize any kind of runoff, and those
<br />kind of concerns from any developments. So I really would not want to see anything done that
<br />would take away, you know, existing limitations or regulations on what kind of development can
<br />occur. And if Important Ag lands designation, you know, has additional requirements or
<br />limitations, then I would like to see those kept in place.
<br />YUEN:It wouldnt change how the subdivision is handled. The requirements for
<br />handling drainage runoff and for wastewater disposal, all those would not change depending on,
<br />you know, whether its in a Rural designation or the Important Agricultural designation. If this
<br />were a question of where, the designation would make a difference. If, for example, someone
<br />were coming in for a Change of Zone from Agricultural -, say, this was zoned Agricultural 20-
<br />acres and somebody wanted to rezone this to Family Agricultural 1-acre, then the fact that its
<br />designated Important Agriculture in the General Plan would be a very important consideration.
<br />But with a set zoning and subdividing to the zoning that is allowed, those rules and criteria of
<br />how you handle that subdivision would not change by, would not be changed by the General
<br />Plan, by this General Plan designation.
<br />10
<br />
<br />
|