2008-01-03 TCOUNCILsubdivision_7-lot

Home

SIRACUSA: Yeah, I wanted to say that, well, the General Plan is sort of like the Bible. You know what they say, the devil can quote scriptures to suit his purpose; and you can find examples in just about anything in the General Plan. I mean for a given property you can quote, if you want to develop it you can quote all the economic development part of it and how you’re looking to enhance the economy as a Big Island. On the other hand, if you’re looking to preserve it, you know, you talk about the natural beauty and the preservation of open space. So you can find stuff in the General Plan to pretty much support or counter any position on any issue. The point is in my mind that the purpose of the Subdivision Code is no longer serving the General Plan, in my estimation. I believe that it has become archaic because it is now becoming more and more counter productive because we are seeing these large agricultural lots being divied up into smaller parcels, which aren’t really, supposedly are meant to be still Ag but in actual practice are not Ag anymore, become a gentleman farmer kind of thing. And yet as long as the Subdivision Code is written so that it’s not a discretionary matter as long as they meet the certain requirements and pay their fee, bump, they’ve got it; and they don’t have to make any of the improvements to mitigate the problems that they might be impacting in a community. I think that that Subdivision Code needs a total revamping. And this is a band-aid, it’s a first step; but I’d rather see a first step than no step at all. For example, seven or more lots, I think that’s too much. I would rather see three or four lots as the point at which things have to be looked at. I would like to see the public infrastructure examined more carefully and taken into account in approval of these things. Right now the way it is if the subdivider complies with the requirements like a water variance and follow all other laws the Planning Director must approve the subdivision, even if it’s not in the best interest of the community or the island. And that’s why I believe that we really do need this. And I will be voting to support this, by the way, even if I do not think it’s the be-all/end-all solution. But it’s an important first step, and I want to show the Council that I do support that, that we really do need to look at the entire Subdivision Code and make some major, major reconstruction on it. Thank you. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Commissioner Siracusa; and I like your tenacity in your reading and coming up with some of those ideas. Commissioner Domingo, you have something to say? DOMINGO: Yes, Mr. Chairman. You know, the Zoning Code is not archaic, in my opinion. It’s an established approached towards addressing the issues of good land use planning. Now if there are certain parts of the Code that is out of whack with today’s planning process or with the philosophies of today’s society, then let us look at it as an individual item and start to make changes if there needs to be changes to it. The items or the issues of the Zoning Code were put in there to address certain specific problems. And I’m not denying the fact that certainly there would be some that needs to be looked at and be considered for review, not the whole Code, not rewriting the whole Code. You know, again, I put a great deal of emphasis on the integrity of our planning process, the general plan, the community development plan, and all the rest of the studies that have been made. It all assists government to come up with something that would result for the good of our whole community. Now I’m not saying that it’s perfect. But I think if there are considerations, you know, in this particular case where there’s amendments to the Zoning Code, I would have wished that perhaps the Council or those who expressed strong concerns about this would have gotten together with Administration and talked about it and see EXHIBIT B 5