2008-12-05 THWN RAINFOREST - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

disallowed from being a part of the Steering Committee. I don’t believe Shipman was in favor of the CDP and it’s my understanding that much of the CDP was passed albeit after significant discussion largely in whole, meaning very few revisions as I believe the rule is nonsubstantive revisions could be imparted into the CDP. But otherwise the process went right back to the Steering Committee and we started all over again; and the emphasis was we want to get this passed before we get out of office. Yeah? I think I’m stating the facts correctly here. What’s ironic is Shipman was against the CDP and now you’re using the CDP, you know. And, I find it kind of ironic. YEH: And if I can, Mr. Walter can speak to that, too, but I’ll take a shot at it. WATANABE: Okay. YEH: Yes, Shipman was not, I guess, pleased with the fact that because it was one of the principal landowners in the area they weren’t directly included in the formulation of that CDP; and, yes, there are changes I believe that have been recognized that are necessary to undertake in order to correct certain areas or issues that exist. But in the context of where this particular property issue is, that context still applies, and everybody needs to live by that. And Shipman is living by it now, so should everyone. And there are some other issues. WALTER: You want me to answer that a little bit for you? WATANABE: Okay. Mr. Walter, let me swear you in then. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? WALTER: I do. WATANABE: Okay. And, please, name and address. WALTER: My name is Bill, William Walter, and my work address is 16-523, Keaau- Pahoa Road, Keaau, Hawaii. Your question is a good one, an excellent one. Our objections, we came initially and objected to the whole process. Mr. Woodward asked us subsequently to list specific changes that we felt needed to be made or if made would make the CDP acceptable, workable. And we did submit to this Commission and subsequently to the County several such amendments. The push as you properly stated was to pass it now and amend it later; and we could have a lot of editorial comment about the wisdom of that and it wouldn’t change things. With respect to this property and with respect to the general thrust of the CDP we were in agreement. Our objections had to do with the idea that, oh, excuse me, the limitations in a specific chart, 5-1 in the CDP, which if applied would result in our opinion in an urban sprawl, which was not the CDPs intention but would be the effect or result of certain parts of that chart. Also, we were concerned with the map of Keaau because among other things it appeared to remove zoning for our industrial park, and we didn’t believe that we should have to go back to justification to that time and again. Mr. Yuen subsequently put in an adjusted map as a nonsubstantive change that fixed our concerns to that aspect of it. The thrust of the CDP in the sense that it looked to keep Puna urban and, excuse me, agricultural/rural we agreed with. And our point was that if that’s to happen what needs to be defined simply is the footprint of the EXHIBIT C 12