Laserfiche WebLink
in zoning obviously makes the property worth more. But I think as a general proposition I agree <br />with the Directors concern that you know from the States, from the perspective of the <br />government and the State and the proper use of thelandthat we really ought to be looking at <br />why are we changing it. Or you know why arent we using it for a more general public use you <br />know. Makea park or whatever right? That kind of thing. <br />YUEN:If I could just make a couple of statements here. Although its true that <br />very often and particularly private rezonings that have come before us, the applicant presents a <br />specific project. They may say that they want a commercial zone and they plan to do an office <br />building. Its, the Commission should always remember that unless special conditions are put on <br />you rezone the property, the plan changes they can still go in and do the full range of uses that <br />are allowed under the zoning. Thats in fact the theory behind zoning is that you make a <br />decision that these uses are okay on that particular piece of property and you go ahead and <br />approve that. Otherwise you, I dont anyplace that has this but you could theoretically have a <br />landusesystemwhereyouapprovedeveryprojectandifyouhaveanofficebuildingyouneedto <br />come before a body like this to change it to a commercial store or something like that. The SMA <br />system, you know here in the SMA it is like that. So there is that level of control for this later <br />but this would have a range of uses thats possible. One other question I wanted to make, I <br />wasnt sure and I didnt, I dont know, I didnt realize this before but I want to make sure now <br />Im understanding it right that the set aside of the 4 acres was done in conjunction with this. <br />This was fairly recent the EO? <br />NISHIMURA:Thats correct. <br />YUEN:So, so the DLNR did make a decision that the bulk of the property they <br />would set aside for recreational use but they wanted to hold this parcel and offer it out for a <br />commercial, the possibility of commercial venture. <br />NISHIMURA:Thats correct. There was in fact a consolidation and re-subdivision <br />action, which reconfigured the properties and the end result being that this 1.32-acre parcel was <br />separated out and the remaining balance was kept for the recreational purposes. And, I was <br />going to elaborate a bit on the response to your initial question that at the time that the discussion <br />about the Executive Order was taking place the needs for the Kawaihae Canoe Club were of <br />specific concern. And, they made sure that the area necessary to take care of those needs and the <br />area that could be conveyed to the County was set aside you know specifically for that purpose <br />and any other recreational use that the County wanted to pursue. This area kept by the State to <br />develop for potential commercial or industrial use was done so recognizing the existing general <br />plan designation of industrial. And so that went into the decision making process in their minds <br />in terms of pursuing the rezoning action. You know the question of you know whether its <br />appropriate or not was really looked at from the standpoint of okay weve made a decision <br />regarding a portion of this property to be kept open and set aside for recreational use. Is there <br />any potential value in the remaining portion of the property? And because of the General Plan <br />Industrial designation it was decided that there was this value and they wanted to pursue that. <br />GALDONES:Commissioner Watanabe? <br />EXHIBIT B <br />8 <br /> <br />