2015-06-18 Leeward Exh A (REZ 15-187)

Home

us. And a few things that resonate with me, number one, is what sort of precedent are we setting, and if this is approved, certainly other landowners can come in under the same situation, apply for rezoning and expect to get rezoned. But if we look at this, and that again is in the backdrop of what is our community development plan, what is our future, what are we looking at in the future, the backdrop is agriculture. I know the Community Development Plan is really heavy on the Coffee Belt, and I appreciate that. Kona coffee is synonymous with Kona. It is important that it gets the recognition, and in every instance when situations come up, Kona coffee should be protected. Those agricultural properties should be, the coffee industry absolutely should have a priority in that kind of thinking. So if this subdivision is approved, the precedent I see setting is that you are in a residential estate type subdivision now where right now the public utilities are there. Public Works signed off, Water signed off, it is not restricted through CC&Rs, there are other half-acre lots in the neighborhood with three-acre lots, with five-acre lots; so actually, by approving something like this I’m okay with the precedent. The precedent says if another property falls in this category, then it probably should be approved. If it’s outside, and again, this is a difficulty of our Commission and the Planning Department and the public how, we have the General Plan, how do we balance the General Plan with real life situation, what is actually on the ground. Will this impact the coffee industry? Probably not. If they want to grow coffee on their property right now, they would or would not, if this goes in to three one-acre lots, which it could, regardless of if they pass it on to their daughter or not, would this impact the coffee industry? I would say someone could do a half-acre coffee on each of these lots and really not impact the coffee industry. So, again, it’s balancing the General Plan with specific situations, and in this case I believe that a rezoning is in order. So, thank you for this opportunity. BEAUDET: Thank you, Commissioner Unger. PATEL: Okay, so just picking up, before we get to the vote, if a favorable recommendation passes, we would need to continue the Commission’s decision on the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law; so we would need time to prep that. So if the Commissioners could elaborate perhaps a little further on specifically, you know, what they are looking at as far as the General Plan, that will give us the insight we need to be able to prepare the Findings of Fact necessary. And I would suggest, if you look at the Planning Director’s recommendation, you know, some of the requirements are outlined, so if there is anything in there that you don’t agree with, it will be helpful, you can point that out. If there is anything else, point that out as well. \[Secretary’s note: Commissioner Nobriga left the meeting at this time, 10:45 a.m.\] CHURCH: I think that, I read the recommendation by the Planning Department and I read carefully the applicant’s response to that, these things are, as the Planning Director said, interpretive and there’s some subjectivity to this. Whether the applicant’s application is in conflict with any specific provision that was brought up by the unfavorable recommendation, I found very difficult to find; it was subjective. And I found that the response both orally and in writing by the applicant was compelling. I, without having to go through every one of those points that was raised, I don’t think the Commissioners want to hear it again, I found that overall, as I said, I did not find enough definitive conclusions on the part of Planning Department to disapprove this application. So I would recommend that you go back and take a look at these specific counterpoints that the applicant made for further analysis and comment. 18 EXHIBIT A