2008-07-10 TKONACDP - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

couple of large parcels of land. And maybe the Director can clarify that for us. But that’s our, and just to follow-up, and I do appreciate. We spoke after the last hearing about the 3 percent, lots of surveys. First of all, in North and South Kohala, Councilman Hoffman did send a questionnaire out before early on that actually started in his CDP preparation process as I recall. The crafting of the wording of that questionnaire is probably the most important to getting germane input; and I think maybe the broader questions that you’re asking would be more appropriate than some of the more targeted ones that his survey asked. But 3 percent often is statistically significant in a survey situation for a response, you know, nationwide or wherever you go. So the underline fact though really remains is that this level of public participation was just unprecedented in the County’s history for a community planning effort. WATANABE: Thank you for your comments. Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Yeah. Well, I think the document that you put out was outstanding. I have no problem with that whatsoever. And, you know, it only comes down to the questions that I’ve addressed, and that is participation and what we can do in the future to increase it. Now you’ve already done your plan; and I would say there is an overwhelming likelihood that it will be approved with probably no more than minor amendments. The question that I have though, you know, this is going to be ordinance, this will be law; and even though there may only be three properties now that you can cite that fall into this, you know, 1000-foot setback who knows what’s going to happen in the next 10 or 12 years. And it seems to me that it would be more reasonable, if these are really that large a property why don’t we just say let’s make it any property that’s deeper than 1500 feet has a 1000-foot setback. Do you have a problem with that? MELROSE: Personally, no. . MATSUKAWA: I think when we start, we had one number in there, and that’s the 1000 feet. Our sense is that if you start putting another number out there then it takes on a feeling that, you know, if you’re less than that then you’re exempt or then it becomes one where it applies to this parcel and you have another measurement to take. I think the way it’s stated as a priority is that we’re trying to achieve 1000 feet. It may not be in every case a 1000, could be more, in some case could be less. The whole idea is to set up this, that 1000-foot did come out a lot in the public; but if we start saying we have a threshold of 1500 feet then I think we’re getting into this, it becomes more regulatory in that sense because then you’ve got to cut out parcels, this and that. Right now it’s 1000 feet. If the parcel is more than 1000 we’ll try to, you know, have Councilor, whatever decision making, try to get the 1000 feet. But to put in another number then that number becomes regulatory, and that’s what we’re trying to avoid. WATANABE: Well, I might want to add something else to this, Mr. Woodward. And I see where you’re going and in the end yours might be more of a mandate than a vision statement. On the other hand, there’s only so much you can build in the remaining 500 feet also if you had a total of 1500 feet and a 1000-foot mandatory setback and, you know, you have your front setback of 25 feet or whatever it is and your side setbacks. And maybe it then becomes a taking anyway because I believe the concept they’re trying to bring forward is, well, let’s do the building clustered so that we can achieve 1000-foot open space area, not necessarily reducing the density. Am I correct in my assumptions? EXHIBIT C 7