2007-07-20 TSEASCAPE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CHING: I am a non-voting administrative officer to the Land Use Commission; I serve at their pleasure. While I understand that this Commission will not be addressing the substantive issues of this matter at this time. I offer facts and my observations for your consideration at the appropriate time in your calendar. My testimony here today draws th exclusively from my April 30 letter to the County of Hawaii Planning Department, and with your leave, I will summarize that correspondence. I believe that the subject area was derived from a portion of a larger 50-acre parcel; that subdivision of this 50-acre parcel produced five parcels. The area now known as Parcel 51 was reclassified to the State Land Use Urban District by the County pursuant to Chapter 205-3.1 (c) of Hawaii Revised Statutes. I know for you that in our correspondence to the Commission on this matter, we expressed concern regarding the potential development of the entire 50-acre parcel in a piece meal fashion. And we recommended that the County comprehensively consider the entire parcel as a single development, especially if similar residential and related uses were proposed on the 50-acre parcel. I do know for you that the Third Circuit Court has ruled that projects should be reviewed by State and County agencies in an integrated and comprehensive manner. I would -, in a context of the project action, I believe that my correspondence indicates that the remaining parcels would seem to be a part of a larger project by the same developer of Parcel 51. I would just offer as a finding that my Commission is charged with the overall administration of the State Land Use Law. As such, I believe it’s my Commission that must be the final arbiter, where any controversy exists, in determining whether a petition for district boundary amendment is appropriately before an individual county. And that while Section 205-3.1 of the State Land Use Law provides that petitions for district boundary amendments involving 15 acres or less are within the jurisdiction of the appropriate county authority, I believe that, should the cumulative project involve acreage greater than 15 acres, that that petition is subject to the jurisdiction of my Commission. The subject petition, involving 10 acres of land approximately, represents the second action by this applicant to urbanize a portion of their original 50-acre holding. I would note that the Traffic Impact Analysis Report refers to the development and describes it that the action is consisting four separate lots. I believe that the TIAR considers then the 50-acre area as a single project. Therefore, it’s my belief that the subject petition should be properly submitted to the jurisdiction of the Commission. I make this representation in my capacity as the administrative officer of the Commission, the Land Use Commission, and not on behalf of the Land Use Commission or individual commissioners. I also acknowledge that the petitioner in this docket may choose to change their filing in this manner, but I note that I am not yet aware of that change or any change as of this time. If then or else it remains the same, I would repeat my belief that the subject petition for district boundary amendment should be properly submitted to the jurisdiction of the State Land Use Commission. Thank you. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Ching. Any questions for Mr. Ching? Seeing none, thank you very much. All right. Commissioner Domingo, you had a question? DOMINGO: Yeah. EXHIBIT B 4