My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
HAMAKUA CDP MEMO v4 - redacted
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Community Development Plans (CDP)
>
Hamakua Community Development Plan
>
Public Comment/Feedback on Draft Hamakua CDP
>
HAMAKUA CDP MEMO v4 - redacted
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/22/2016 2:08:47 PM
Creation date
6/22/2016 2:08:12 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
3A. Taking TMK _055 out of LUP <br />COMMENT: The CDP removes LUP designations for parcel 055 and other parcels on <br />Kihalani Road. The rationales regarding the CDP proposals to remove LUP on some <br />Laupahoehoe parcels and to put other parcels into LUP is stated in "Future Addendum to <br />Appendix, Draft CDP Rationale, January 2016" page 36: see text of the rationales in blue <br />below. <br />The CDP had 2 choices. <br />1) To use the 2005 LUPAG map; and the listing of parcels in LDU in the County computers <br />(which I confirmed for parcel 055 several times over the counter at Planning between 2004 to <br />2016) that clearly designated and included parcel 055 designated as LDU; or <br />2) To disregard the County designation that was clearly the product of a rational plan; and adopt <br />the Land Use Commission (LUC) map. Thus even if the 2005 LUPAG map might have been <br />"blob" mapping, the County had a list of LDU properties in their computers so there was no <br />confusion about what was LDU. <br />The current designation of parcel 055 as LDU confirms that the County has the discretion to <br />designate and zone property outside of the LUC Districts as "Urban" since Urban is a <br />designation that is typically left to the discretion of the County. <br />The CDP decided that the LDU designation should be reduced and chose to align with the LUC <br />map. This resulted in an irrational LDU pattern where two parcels that were comparable <br />(parcel 055 and parcel 086) are being treated differently in the CDP draft. <br />Also, the decision to align with the LUC ignores the fact that the County, as the agency that is <br />responsible for the administration of Urban lands, should default to align with the LDU <br />designations the County adopted in the 2005 General Plan as a matter of policy rather than <br />resorting to the State Districts that are outdated and less informed. For instance, the large Land <br />Commission Urban District in Papaaloa is based on the plans of Hamakua Sugar to build a very <br />large residential development in Papaaloa including large public parks and other amenities. <br />Although a small amount of the Hamakua Sugar residential development was actually <br />constructed, the majority of the development was never completed due to the closing of the <br />plantations: but the Urban district based on the Hamakua Sugar plan remains on the maps. <br />The rationale the CDP used for the decision to shrink the LUC designation for Laupahoehoe is <br />found at page 36 of the FUTURE ADDENDUM TO APPENDIX Draft CDP Rationale, January <br />2016 "Figure 16: Laupahoehoe/Papaaloa 2015 Proposed LUPAG Map". <br />The proposed LUPAG changes to Laupahoehoe are to lengthen the MDU area along the Old Mamalahoa <br />Highway to allow for increased flexibility in revitalizing the commercial core of the town and in response to <br />recent development trends in that area, and to align the makai and mauka LDU boundaries to be more <br />consistent with the State Land Use Urban district (while accounting for topography issues such as gulches). <br />n <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.